GP said communism, not "Communism". You know, the kind where you just share for the good of all, not the one about dictatorship of the proletariat and other nasty stuff.
Yeah, that kind of "communism" is called "capitalism", since it is based on the actions of free actors working with their private property. Capitalists can (and often do) choose to share some of their stuff "for the good of all", even without getting an immediate ROI, and it's still capitalism.
Some communism might manifest itself as "goodness", but it's nowhere near a general rule. Communism ALWAYS includes the abolishment of private property, either voluntarily or by force. If you have a FON router, it's still your prerogative to turn it off or cap the shared bandwidth, because the (usage-rights to the) broadband line still belongs to you.
If this is so simple, cheap and obvious, how come there is no private funding? Venture capitalists are all about green energy these days, and raising $1BN should be trivial if the tech is so obvious.... which leads me to tentatively conclude that maybe it's not so obvious.
A program of geothermal resource characterization, focused research and commercial-scale demonstrations could mean large-scale geothermal power generation within the next 10 to 15 years
Look at online gambling in the US. Sure, if you can find a company willing to take your money, your likely to get a knock on the door from federal marshals for doing so. Your credit card company would report your transactions so there is no keeping it a secrete. There is no can't invovled with censoring the Internet. It is just a matter of how.
That's "censorship" of you creditcard, not the internet. If you could find a way of transferring money to those companies without leaving a trail in the US banking system (e.g. by a proxy in another country), you'd be fine.
I think (not like I RTFA) that he means that since Microsoft provided the OS on the computers that made computing a every-body-every-day-act, they provided people to (a) create content for Google to index (b) want to search that content, and is therefore a major part of Googles supply-chain.
Only problem is that he falls in the "after, therefore because of"-logical trap. Chances are that IBM could have pulled off the PC with somebody other than Microsoft, and that somebody else would have made a modular, extensible standard PC if IBM didn't.
Finally: what you did 25 years ago REALLY, REALLY doesn't give you any claim to fame today.
I agree with the comments further down that this is a user-error. But I also think that there is a usability-issue on part of Apple here.
In the home network, there's free data, as I understand, and the roaming charges are high. I have cheap data in my home network, and expensive when roaming abroad. So when I step out of a plane and turn on my phone, I get a nice warning: "You're not in your homenetwork. MMS reception is off". MMS reception is the only automatic data-service on the phone.
Look in the configuration, surely enough: "MMS reception: Automatic (only home network) / Manual / Always".
It would make pretty good sense to add a similar option for the automatic email checking.
I've never used Ruby or RoR, but my impression of it seems to be one of great expectations and not a lot of delivery. I've read way too many blogs by people who built web sites with RoR only to have them crash and burn under load. Also, the language itself seems to place a lot of importance on clever syntactic sugar, which being an old fart I automatically dislike.
You could, you know, link to those "way too many blogs" and thus let the rest of us decide for ourselves if this is incriminating evidence against Ruby.
"I read it on a blog" does not in any way imply truth. "I read it on many blogs" doesn't really make it much better.
And until then, you shall remain a troll. After you post the links, you'll have your status upgraded to "person with an opinion, willing to discuss".
Things that YOU apparently are incapable of thinking about:
1) REQUIRING an accept of a license, even if it's the GPL, is a restriction of use, that, according to the GPL, must be absent in ANY distribution. Even if it's possible to download the software in other ways, it's still a distribution, and thus a violation.
If the installer softwarre HAS to display a license, put a text up saying "This is GPL software. It has NO license covering use. Please accept and click next."
He keeps claiming that a "simple" XML protocol, Atom-like, won't work, because he want's non-geek usage, but I don't understand what kind of non-geek usage he expects.
Non-geeks are not going to be developing new applications and mashups, they'll be using it. Moveable Type pioneered a blogging API, that turned out to be a nice defacto standard, that most other blogging engines support. Result is that thousands of non-geeks can now blog from outside their blogging-silo.
I imagine a simple REST/XML webservice protocol, so a service can query my Facebook and my LinkedIn in the same way, and then work with that. Both sites (Facebook and LinkedIn) allow you to enter your ID in other contexts (IMs, email, websites) and that should be returned for you and your friends. If would even make sense for social sites to allow you to enter your ID on other social sites (my Myspace and LinkedIn on my Facebook, and vice verse) in order to better correlate the data.
He claims that Facebook is positive to the idea - having them onboard would be a huge boost to such a protocol.
The thing that marketers are best at selling is...advertising.
This is probably true for small advertising budgets - everywhere, all the time, good salesmen are selling bad businessmen stuff they don't need.
But for just medium-sized ad budgets and up, there is some serious metering going on (as with any other non-trivial investment). And as someone occasionally working in the metering end of a pretty big advertising budget, I can guarantee you that either (a) all 10.000 persons that respond positively to advertising are currently customers of the company I work for, or (b) advertising works.
Personally, I'd be happy to just pay a couple bucks per show, or a penny per search, or whatever. I'd have cancelled my cable TV long ago if it weren't for my PVR.
You can't (unfortunately) expect big companies to respond so quickly to so radical markettrends. But look at iTunes. No-one believed that digital-only distrubution of music over the internet would ever work just a few years ago, and now we've even got non-DRM files. A similar model will emerge for TV shows any time now. Oh, and I'm more than happy to look at google's sponsored links. Even if there was a paid model (which there is, look at the APIs), I wouldn't take it. I often search for products and services, and I often find what I'm looking for in the sponsored links section.
One of the things I wonder about is, how wrong are we about things we think we know today? What will ppl in 200 years say? "Haha those damn neanderthals in 2007 thought water was wet, little did they know"
One of the things that are different today from 200 years ago is the widespread acceptance of scientific methodology. There are simple, yet immensely logically strong, rules to what constitutes knowledge. 200 years ago water was (by some) considered a basic element of the universe, completely seperated from the earth, air and so on. Water was just water, it was wet, and when the spring dried out, you grew thirsty. Facts of life, not proved, just the way it is. Things were meant to do things. A bird flew because that's what it does. And rocks thrown in the air don't because rocks don't fly. When your understanding of the world is based on anecdotal conceptions of the way it is, then it's impossible to imagine that something basically made out of a rock will ever get to fly.
Today we don't just know what water is, we also know why it's what we call wet. We understand it. Heck, we can even create water, and we understand why we can do that.
We have a logically strong link between matter-state liquid (aka. wet) and the chemical compound water. If in 200 years water is no longer considered wet, it's because the definition of either wet or water has changed.
IIS is very easy to configure and you could have a Windows Server up and running in no time.
Let me see.. I install IIS and dump stuff in c:\inetpub (or whereever it is), and I've got a website. I install apache and dump stuff in/var/www, and I've got a website. Last I checked, it was pretty much just as simple on windows.
For more complex setups, you need to go learn, and well, I know I prefer Apache. And yes, I've made complex configurations of IIS. Please. Don't. Remind. Me.
You know, they might stop sucking if a large movement towards IPv6 caught momentum.
The world does not need more than the 4 billion addresses available with IPv4, and I challenge you to come up with an application that requires that many. Assuming that you can actually come up with one, it could easily be solved with Network Address Translation, or NAT as it is commonly known.
Challenge: 2 bln people in the relatively civilized world have, or will have in the near future, serveral of these items:
- Home computer
- Work computer
- Laptop (private or work)
- Cellphone(s)
- Net connected appliances (TiVo, net music players, IP phones, home surveillance, alarms)
Each ideally needs its own address, and it's not hard to see how 4 bln addresses will be used up.
Solve it with NAT, you say. Sure - but actual interactivity is in higher and higher demand. Both my MythTV box and my laptop in most locations are NAT'ed. Save for my tinkering with NAT routing which is only for geeks, I can't get to my Myth box from the outside.
Another problem is the solution to the above problem - VPN. At my former job (a web consulting agancy) we were routinely given VPN access to clientsites. They were all setup with IPs in the range 192.168.X.nnn. We had no collisions of X, but we were a small firm, and it will happen.
IPv6 addresses are too large. An IPv6 address is 128 bits in size
I remember hearing the same argument against using FAT32. Although your point is quite valid, I think the world will recover, and quickly.
The IPv6 header is too large.... minimum MTU supported must be 576 bytes. That means that where you might have got 556 bytes of data in your IP packets, you now get 536 bytes.
I'm no expert, but didn't the world stop using minimum MTU for anything larger that that a while ago? If an MTU is size 1500 instead, the overhead is a whopping 1.3%, or downloading an extra 51 mb on your full, uncompressed 50gb bluray movie.
Yeah, it's not free of drawbacks, but progress seldom is.
The point of a contract is that it's two-ways. If they say "good for the next three months", then after three months their right to do anything covered by the contract (including storing your information in their system) is void. So to comply to their own contract, they'd have to contact you every time the three months are up and get you to agree to the new contract. Which is a lot more trouble than just doing that when you actually need to change it.
If GNU/Linux was the only operating system that had applications like Firefox, OpenOffice, VLC, and so on, I think it would be a much more attractive option than Windows is. Yet, we've ported some of our best applications to the proprietary Windows platform, and as a consequence of this there is less incentive for Windows users to become users of Free Software operating systems.
My route to Linux (on the desktop - had been using it on servers for a long time) was through a slow, but steady, adoption of these applications. Then, one day, came the time for a Windows reinstall, when I thought - hell, I'll give Linux a try.
Did you actually read what he wrote? Did you actually read the wikipedia article on Natural Rights that you linked? It didn't even enumerate those so-called natural rights - it discussed an abstract, philosophical concept.
If you *have an audience*, you have a *natural right* to have what you say printed/broadcast/distributed.
No. You're dead wrong. It logically impossible. Your right to communicate to your audience is incompatible with whoever is providing the means of said communications right to decide what goes on the medium and what doesn't.
XM is not a person, no, but the persons owning XM are. And their property rights extend into XM and thus XM does have property rights.
Natural rights are usually negative rights. They are rights to NOT have something done to you, usually stuff like being killed, being censored and being detained against your will. Those natural rights also cover the owners (the actual humans) of XM right to hire a guy (CEO) to decide what is transmitted and what isn't.
With DRM, iTunes has a defacto monopoly on legal online musictrade. Not only that, it's tied to the iPod.
When labels open up and start making their catalogs available in non-DRM versions, the barrier of entry to the business will drop significantly, since a music store will no longer need to own a hardwareplatform and maintain a quirky DRM system. This will create more actors on the marketplace, and the price will drop. At first the price will be $1.29, but soon someplace will come along and sell the tracks at $1.20, maybe even $.99. That will force Apple to match this, and in turn, there will be pressure on the labels to lower thier prices.
Jobs doesn't mind that - because he know that he owns the Walmart of musicplayers. Your one stop shop for anything that makes a sound. Therefore he will get the volume, everybody else will just be the long tail. It's much easier for him to be in the front of non-drm music, than to play catch-up after some bored european "consumer"(*)-organisations forces non-drm.
(*) They're all government-run, so it's not like consumers get to decide how, when or if they will be represented.
Re:Is there an obligation to avoid playing chicken
on
Is Your GPS Naive?
·
· Score: 1
Is it legal for a car going 75 mph to pass a large semi+trailer going 74 mph?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's illegal. I don't know the intrigate details of every passing-law in the world, but in Denmark you're required to go significantly faster the the vehicle you're overtaking. Which means that it's in praticallity illegal to overtake a truck going 74 in 75 zone.
as soon as Microsoft pushes Starlight as a 'critical update'
If this happens, MS will get a big fat courtorder, courtesy of the nice men and women of the Adobe Legal Corps. Doing that is a textbook example of an exploitation of a monopoly, especially given the current penetration of Flash.
The Xerox machine was a revolution in copying technology, but was very limited in its scope. It took considerable work to copy books with a xerox machine. It's self-regulating in that way. There wasn't really any pressure to update copyright laws because the societal impacts of the Xerox machine weren't nearly significant enough.
No, it takes some (not considerable) work to prepare a book for copying.
Most college students will at least know which copy-shops in town has ready-to-dump-in-feeder copies of the most popular and/or expensive textbooks in binders in the backroom - or, more recently, as PDFs, ready to print.
A 1000-page text book costs maybe $120, and has 500 spreads. Scanning a spread on a modern copier takes about 7 seconds, total, so preparing a book for reproduction is about an hour. High cost-of-entry to the casual homeuser, but it you're just a few co-consprators it's nothing.
I'll believe it when I see it. Sorry, I just can't be optimistic about this. You shouldn't be, either. Look - today's web browsers can't even really get offline web page caching right.
I'm not sure why I should adjust my expectations to technology according to your misuse of technology.
Todays browsers don't get offline caching of Slashdot right, because Slashdot is an online application, and says so:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:48:30 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.37 (Unix) mod_perl/1.29 SLASH_LOG_DATA: 07/04/10/011220 X-Powered-By: Slash 2.005000152 X-Fry: I don't regret this, but I both rue and lament it. Cache-Control: no-cache Pragma: no-cache Vary: User-Agent,Accept-Encoding Connection: close Transfer-Encoding: chunked Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Offline webapplications will work offline because they will be designed to work offline. They will get safe caching of resources and a stateful browser-DOM-object to save data to. It's not exactly rocketscience.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that kind of "communism" is called "capitalism", since it is based on the actions of free actors working with their private property. Capitalists can (and often do) choose to share some of their stuff "for the good of all", even without getting an immediate ROI, and it's still capitalism.
Some communism might manifest itself as "goodness", but it's nowhere near a general rule. Communism ALWAYS includes the abolishment of private property, either voluntarily or by force. If you have a FON router, it's still your prerogative to turn it off or cap the shared bandwidth, because the (usage-rights to the) broadband line still belongs to you.
Ah, reading TFL:
Article: could, you: would
That's "censorship" of you creditcard, not the internet. If you could find a way of transferring money to those companies without leaving a trail in the US banking system (e.g. by a proxy in another country), you'd be fine.
Your point? You don't agree that the IBM PC compatible, primarily with a Microsoft OS, spearheaded the personal computing revolution?
I think (not like I RTFA) that he means that since Microsoft provided the OS on the computers that made computing a every-body-every-day-act, they provided people to (a) create content for Google to index (b) want to search that content, and is therefore a major part of Googles supply-chain.
Only problem is that he falls in the "after, therefore because of"-logical trap. Chances are that IBM could have pulled off the PC with somebody other than Microsoft, and that somebody else would have made a modular, extensible standard PC if IBM didn't.
Finally: what you did 25 years ago REALLY, REALLY doesn't give you any claim to fame today.
I agree with the comments further down that this is a user-error. But I also think that there is a usability-issue on part of Apple here.
In the home network, there's free data, as I understand, and the roaming charges are high. I have cheap data in my home network, and expensive when roaming abroad. So when I step out of a plane and turn on my phone, I get a nice warning: "You're not in your homenetwork. MMS reception is off". MMS reception is the only automatic data-service on the phone.
Look in the configuration, surely enough: "MMS reception: Automatic (only home network) / Manual / Always".
It would make pretty good sense to add a similar option for the automatic email checking.
You could, you know, link to those "way too many blogs" and thus let the rest of us decide for ourselves if this is incriminating evidence against Ruby.
"I read it on a blog" does not in any way imply truth.
"I read it on many blogs" doesn't really make it much better.
And until then, you shall remain a troll. After you post the links, you'll have your status upgraded to "person with an opinion, willing to discuss".
And that's why they don't want to sell Seagate...
Things that YOU apparently are incapable of thinking about:
1) REQUIRING an accept of a license, even if it's the GPL, is a restriction of use, that, according to the GPL, must be absent in ANY distribution. Even if it's possible to download the software in other ways, it's still a distribution, and thus a violation.
If the installer softwarre HAS to display a license, put a text up saying "This is GPL software. It has NO license covering use. Please accept and click next."
He keeps claiming that a "simple" XML protocol, Atom-like, won't work, because he want's non-geek usage, but I don't understand what kind of non-geek usage he expects.
Non-geeks are not going to be developing new applications and mashups, they'll be using it. Moveable Type pioneered a blogging API, that turned out to be a nice defacto standard, that most other blogging engines support. Result is that thousands of non-geeks can now blog from outside their blogging-silo.
I imagine a simple REST/XML webservice protocol, so a service can query my Facebook and my LinkedIn in the same way, and then work with that. Both sites (Facebook and LinkedIn) allow you to enter your ID in other contexts (IMs, email, websites) and that should be returned for you and your friends. If would even make sense for social sites to allow you to enter your ID on other social sites (my Myspace and LinkedIn on my Facebook, and vice verse) in order to better correlate the data.
He claims that Facebook is positive to the idea - having them onboard would be a huge boost to such a protocol.
This is probably true for small advertising budgets - everywhere, all the time, good salesmen are selling bad businessmen stuff they don't need.
But for just medium-sized ad budgets and up, there is some serious metering going on (as with any other non-trivial investment). And as someone occasionally working in the metering end of a pretty big advertising budget, I can guarantee you that either (a) all 10.000 persons that respond positively to advertising are currently customers of the company I work for, or (b) advertising works.
You can't (unfortunately) expect big companies to respond so quickly to so radical markettrends. But look at iTunes. No-one believed that digital-only distrubution of music over the internet would ever work just a few years ago, and now we've even got non-DRM files. A similar model will emerge for TV shows any time now.
Oh, and I'm more than happy to look at google's sponsored links. Even if there was a paid model (which there is, look at the APIs), I wouldn't take it. I often search for products and services, and I often find what I'm looking for in the sponsored links section.
Or either pressure and temperature changed, of course.
One of the things that are different today from 200 years ago is the widespread acceptance of scientific methodology. There are simple, yet immensely logically strong, rules to what constitutes knowledge. 200 years ago water was (by some) considered a basic element of the universe, completely seperated from the earth, air and so on. Water was just water, it was wet, and when the spring dried out, you grew thirsty. Facts of life, not proved, just the way it is. Things were meant to do things. A bird flew because that's what it does. And rocks thrown in the air don't because rocks don't fly. When your understanding of the world is based on anecdotal conceptions of the way it is, then it's impossible to imagine that something basically made out of a rock will ever get to fly.
Today we don't just know what water is, we also know why it's what we call wet. We understand it. Heck, we can even create water, and we understand why we can do that.
We have a logically strong link between matter-state liquid (aka. wet) and the chemical compound water. If in 200 years water is no longer considered wet, it's because the definition of either wet or water has changed.
Let me see.. I install IIS and dump stuff in c:\inetpub (or whereever it is), and I've got a website.
I install apache and dump stuff in
For more complex setups, you need to go learn, and well, I know I prefer Apache. And yes, I've made complex configurations of IIS.
Please. Don't. Remind. Me.
- Home computer
- Work computer
- Laptop (private or work)
- Cellphone(s)
- Net connected appliances (TiVo, net music players, IP phones, home surveillance, alarms)
Each ideally needs its own address, and it's not hard to see how 4 bln addresses will be used up.
Solve it with NAT, you say. Sure - but actual interactivity is in higher and higher demand. Both my MythTV box and my laptop in most locations are NAT'ed. Save for my tinkering with NAT routing which is only for geeks, I can't get to my Myth box from the outside.
Another problem is the solution to the above problem - VPN. At my former job (a web consulting agancy) we were routinely given VPN access to clientsites. They were all setup with IPs in the range 192.168.X.nnn. We had no collisions of X, but we were a small firm, and it will happen.I remember hearing the same argument against using FAT32. Although your point is quite valid, I think the world will recover, and quickly.I'm no expert, but didn't the world stop using minimum MTU for anything larger that that a while ago? If an MTU is size 1500 instead, the overhead is a whopping 1.3%, or downloading an extra 51 mb on your full, uncompressed 50gb bluray movie.
Yeah, it's not free of drawbacks, but progress seldom is.
The point of a contract is that it's two-ways. If they say "good for the next three months", then after three months their right to do anything covered by the contract (including storing your information in their system) is void. So to comply to their own contract, they'd have to contact you every time the three months are up and get you to agree to the new contract. Which is a lot more trouble than just doing that when you actually need to change it.
And those words will be your exact reply to the news that the Bush government has "not renewed the license" of any media outlet in the US?
Don't get too caught up in the "my enemys enemy" game.
My route to Linux (on the desktop - had been using it on servers for a long time) was through a slow, but steady, adoption of these applications. Then, one day, came the time for a Windows reinstall, when I thought - hell, I'll give Linux a try.
Did you actually read what he wrote? Did you actually read the wikipedia article on Natural Rights that you linked? It didn't even enumerate those so-called natural rights - it discussed an abstract, philosophical concept.
No. You're dead wrong. It logically impossible. Your right to communicate to your audience is incompatible with whoever is providing the means of said communications right to decide what goes on the medium and what doesn't.
XM is not a person, no, but the persons owning XM are. And their property rights extend into XM and thus XM does have property rights.
Natural rights are usually negative rights. They are rights to NOT have something done to you, usually stuff like being killed, being censored and being detained against your will. Those natural rights also cover the owners (the actual humans) of XM right to hire a guy (CEO) to decide what is transmitted and what isn't.
With DRM, iTunes has a defacto monopoly on legal online musictrade. Not only that, it's tied to the iPod.
When labels open up and start making their catalogs available in non-DRM versions, the barrier of entry to the business will drop significantly, since a music store will no longer need to own a hardwareplatform and maintain a quirky DRM system. This will create more actors on the marketplace, and the price will drop. At first the price will be $1.29, but soon someplace will come along and sell the tracks at $1.20, maybe even $.99. That will force Apple to match this, and in turn, there will be pressure on the labels to lower thier prices.
Jobs doesn't mind that - because he know that he owns the Walmart of musicplayers. Your one stop shop for anything that makes a sound. Therefore he will get the volume, everybody else will just be the long tail. It's much easier for him to be in the front of non-drm music, than to play catch-up after some bored european "consumer"(*)-organisations forces non-drm.
(*) They're all government-run, so it's not like consumers get to decide how, when or if they will be represented.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's illegal. I don't know the intrigate details of every passing-law in the world, but in Denmark you're required to go significantly faster the the vehicle you're overtaking. Which means that it's in praticallity illegal to overtake a truck going 74 in 75 zone.
If this happens, MS will get a big fat courtorder, courtesy of the nice men and women of the Adobe Legal Corps. Doing that is a textbook example of an exploitation of a monopoly, especially given the current penetration of Flash.
No, it takes some (not considerable) work to prepare a book for copying.
Most college students will at least know which copy-shops in town has ready-to-dump-in-feeder copies of the most popular and/or expensive textbooks in binders in the backroom - or, more recently, as PDFs, ready to print.
A 1000-page text book costs maybe $120, and has 500 spreads. Scanning a spread on a modern copier takes about 7 seconds, total, so preparing a book for reproduction is about an hour. High cost-of-entry to the casual homeuser, but it you're just a few co-consprators it's nothing.
I'm not sure why I should adjust my expectations to technology according to your misuse of technology.
Todays browsers don't get offline caching of Slashdot right, because Slashdot is an online application, and says so:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:48:30 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.37 (Unix) mod_perl/1.29
SLASH_LOG_DATA: 07/04/10/011220
X-Powered-By: Slash 2.005000152
X-Fry: I don't regret this, but I both rue and lament it.
Cache-Control: no-cache
Pragma: no-cache
Vary: User-Agent,Accept-Encoding
Connection: close
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
In order to read Slashdot offline "right", you need to break HTTP. And we all know what happens to naughty boys who breaks standards.
Offline webapplications will work offline because they will be designed to work offline. They will get safe caching of resources and a stateful browser-DOM-object to save data to. It's not exactly rocketscience.