Some of them are getting pretty close, but from an install standpoint, and configuration changes, and software installs and support, OSS OS'es demand more understanding than the tired-cliche-joe-sixpack will ever want to put into his OS or his computer. He doesn't care about monopolistic practices, he wants to turn it on and have it "just work"[snip]
Heh. That's funny. Joe Sixpack can't plug it in and have it just work with any operating system other than Microsoft because of their monopolistic practices. If OEMs could actually bundle software that isn't Microsoft's pet monopoly-builder-of-the-month, then maybe we'd see some open source software that you could turn on and it would "just work."
"Grandma can't install Linux on her computer, it's not as easy to install as Windows!" Grandma didn't install Windows - Dell did.
And yes, I know that Microsoft leveraging OEM contracts this way is just them doing what comes naturally. AFAICT, pedophiles humping underage butt are doing what comes naturally too. I don't want EITHER of them operating in MY neighborhood.
Don't get me wrong - the internet's a great thing - but let's be realistic here. The Internet bubble was caused by a large number of investors willing to take big risks in an unproven market. "Foolish"? I prefer "risky". I just wish it hadn't been so painful for so many.
Ahah! But this is where you are only partially right! (Let me also say, the above does not mean that you should blame the Internet.;)
Right now I'm on a modem so I'm only providing one link.
Corante has some articles about allegations of impropriety on the part of investment banks, among other things.
The scam was basically this - the people who were offered stocks pre-IPO as a result of the favor of the backing bank were then asked to use IPO proceeds to buy other, more mature stock. Basically, "Once you make a million on this stock we're going to sell you, could you put $100,000 back into something worthwhile?"
The symptoms of a scheme like this:
Amazing stock performance on otherwise worthless IPO stocks. CHECK.
Stocks level off post IPO, and the pre IPO investors (chosen by the backing banks) have made mucho money on said stock price explosion. CHECK.
Investment bank makes serious buku money as stock (real stock, solid stock) is bought and sold. Check.
Plateau'd mature tech stock prices are fueled artificially by post-IPO investment. CHECK.
Everybody thinks, "Hey, IPOs are really performing right now! Let's do it!" and a rash of IPOs fuels a 'boom' in which this cycle can be repeated. CHECK.
Small Investors left holding the bag full of virtually worthless post IPO dot-com stock. Check.
Someone notices, banks have to stop, and the inevitable crash-and-burn happens economy wide. Check.
The tech boom ended because a) the financial sector in-and-of-itself does not actually create wealth and b) the investment banks stopped the madness when people started actually examining their actions.
One of the criticisms of this is that it doesn't have any enforcement behind it.
There's nothing to stop the industry, or me, or all of us who run websites, from just saying, "Sure, we respect virtually everything about your privacy!" and then selling the hell out of your information.
So, for those of us for whom it would be a pain - we have two easy choices. We can a) ignore people who bother to use it 'cuz it sucks or b) adopt the most private P3P policies possible, and then don't worry about them.
The real problem this will have on the developer end is having the P3P options mean something. If there's no reason (legislation, for instance) for big business to respect their own P3P policies, why should I pretend that mine have anything to do with reality?
If he's smart enough to collect this kind of following, why is it that he ISN'T smart enough to figure out how to peacefully make his desires come about?
What if he's smart enough to realize that it wouldn't work?
What if he's schizophrenic enough to think that it wouldn't work?
I mean, really - you can make a case for the idea that peaceful resistance to some things is being quashed. Especially the anti-globalization bit... I mean, we have a democracy with a total of three news sources (AP, Reuters, and somebody else - can't remember) and about eight actual owners of media.
Is it so hard to believe that we don't hear the real message of dissidents? Ask people why they are against globalization as people currently see it, and more than a few will likely impress you with the thought that they have put into it.
Actually, try reading some patents sometime. I have done so for various reasons and discovered something that definitely invalidates your reasoning. I'm going to pick on one set of boldface words, and then give you a link.
Actually, I just want to point out that the usage of contract law (licenses) to prohibit certain activities relies on negotiability. Being unable to negotiate software licenses, etc. is quite shaky, legally. At least, as soon as we stop being braindead, we will probably see some rulings related to exactly what can be licensed for and against, a lot like our warranty and sale regulations.
I don't have links off the top of my head. Let me google. (Also, I'm replying kinda to the top-level poster and also to the person directly above me.)
Ahah! Here it is. As you can see, there were some initial issues in the way that truetype was developed. Microsoft may provide the fonts free, but the original move to create truetype fonts in general was a point of contention between companies.
The only reason I point this out is that it shows that TrueType and Windows' anti-aliasing were developed to counter various strategic threats to Microsoft. I don't pick on Apple because if you read between the lines and the rest of the history, they were burned by some 'incompatibility' that was created by Microsoft.
Anyway - Microsoft isn't giving this away just because, and the original push for TrueType/Anti-aliasing was a major money sink for two companies. (Also, IP issues and development time made it unlinkely to end up in early Xfree, for instance - leading to the problems we've seen on free Unices.)
On the other hand, two implementations of bluetooth drivers for linux were available before even one for Windows. Should we then accuse Microsoft of being slackers when it comes to technology adoption? Turnabout is fair play.
In the grand scheme of things, you're right, it's being done. But from many a locale, you can make the statement that work is disappearing and you're right.
Efficiency in work is usually considered as greater production (or service) over time. Efficiency is good. As industries streamline their processes, they increase the productive value of each person's work, but also reduce the number of people who are needed to do equivalent work. But rather than doing the really cool thing and giving everybody 30 hour a week jobs instead of 40, and maintaining their pay rate, they do the thing that our economy requires, which is to reduce the number of people working for them and keep the wages for the remaining workers steady, thus increasing profit. As demand increases, the required time per worker increases, until it becomes (really) unacceptable, at which point a new worker(s) is hired, and the demand goes up. Repeat. (Until recession.)
The great part about streamlining in this way is that in a growth economy, it raises unemployment over time, and, if you're lucky, faster than the rate of growth. That means that you can actually _decrease_ the wage of the least educated, by simply keeping it stable without considering inflation or by hiring the people that the other guys laid off, but for a lower wage. In a recessive economy, it means that you have fewer layoffs necessary to maintain equal profitability, making your company less likely to make the news in a bad way.
Sure, new industries are being discovered. People should probably learn and move on. But this is kind of like 'discovering' a country. Moving there doesn't mean you're going to get what you want - it means that you can repeat the dot-com cycle all over again. It will happen _every_ time a new industry is 'discovered.' The growth rate will be enormous, and then the industry and its suppliers will fall flat on their faces. People will stop buying some things and start borrowing money. Recess. Return growth rate to normal, and repeat oppression of the workers in new industry.
So, if you want to win, you have a few choices:
Invest well when the going is good.
Aim for management (for post-slump experience, or to embezzle. Take your pick.)
Don't be a worker - be an owner.
Don't be a worker - be something completely different. (My fave!)
However, in the case of fatality, it's easy to provide at least a moderately valuable statistic.
"People with guns killed xx,xxx people last year."
"The (IP) industry lost $xxx,xxx,xxx to piracy last year."
In the first case, count the bodies. In the second, what exactly are you counting?
Not that I really disagree with the idea that we can improve our image. But I don't think there's a satisfying and appropriate way to do it. I, for one, am not willing to dissociate the idea of freedom with software and utilities like nmap. Imagine if I didn't have access to nmap!! I wouldn't have the tools to test the simplest of firewalling setups I use. Better that these tools are available to all, lockmakers and lockpickers alike.
If your employer isn't paying for their commercial software, call them on it.
Actually, this is also a good suggestion for any OpenSource/FreeSoftware supporter in general. After all, non-free software does cost money, doesn't it? If it doesn't cost, there's no downside for most users.
Re:I kind of agree with the court.
on
DMCA 2, Freedom 0
·
· Score: 1
(IANAL.) Actually, isn't there still the fact that prosecution wasn't followed up? That's barratry, and it's mildly illegal. Except when the RIAA does it?
Of course, that's a different court case entirely, and doesn't have anything to do with Free Speech, except in terms of practically squashing it.
Actually, just wanted to point out as well... Don't some of these "Virus" detectors discover things like Back Orafice (or however they spelled it) as well? If the CDC's attack tools are "malicious" and the FBI's are not, why? (That's of course directed at Vscanner makers, not you.;)
It has occurred to me repeatedly that this is a positive model for the open source community, but I really would like to see a license that really pulls it off. I think it was the MPL that I was looking at that was almost appropriate, but it's not GPL-enough. Maybe I'm spewing smoke. I'll look into it. However, if anybody knows of a GPL-with-the-copyright-clause style license, I would love to be sure.
You're missing part of the point, at least. In general it is not possible to create an open-source product that is popular, consistent (non-forked), and able to be commercialized.
You can choose any two.;)
The reason: there is _always_ inherent value in making a closed fork if you intend to sell the code. Close forks don't have to be incompatible with originals (Kerberos, for instance) but may have additional functionality protected by other IP mechanisms such as a non-negotiable clickthrough contract that says, "I will not create a competing product" on the specification for the extensions to the otherwise open protocol.
This allows you to enforce inequity between otherwise consistent versions of the same tool, which is called a "competitive advantage" by some people. What an amazing thing - it's in the license. The GPL has one of those, too...
Also, BSD'd code can be grabbed and GPL'd. Won't usually do much good, but you don't have a "100% new product."
Hee! I just wanted to point out that our government knows a lot about our Nationalist/Fascist movement! I mean, John Ashcroft is Attorney General!
Re:Globalization without rules == Corporate Heaven
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 1
What you seem to ignore in this argument is that we do not have the freedom to accomplish all of the changes that need to happen.
#1 - Move away from petroleum fuel. My individual choice to move away from petroleum fuel does not eliminate even one millionth of one percent of the pollution or opression created by gasoline. Massive cost to me, little to no actual effect in the world.
#2 - Give my load of non-existent cash to food for the poor. First of all, that food won't end up in Baghdad or the hands of the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Second of all, that money is finite. I have impoverished myself to provide a one-time increase in the food available to other impoverished people. Do the words "net loss" mean anything to you? Oh, and 7 million Afghans may starve over the next year anyway, even with my help.
#3 - I want to produce drugs to combat the AIDS virus in South Africa. I have the chemical knowledge to produce the drugs and can set up a business that sells at cost and do my part for the world, right? Wrong. Because our concept of intellectual property is being extended to... well, virtually everybody.
Anyway, those are just three examples where the atmosphere in which globalism occurs stifles the effect of the individual on the state of the world. People with consciences must act in concert. People who have ideas about how to empower people must plan very carefully to implement them. The people without conscience (corporations, among others) are already acting in concert (welcome to the WTO and lobbying efforts) and the disenfranchisement of people is well underway, meaning that it will certainly continue if no intervention occurs.
Oh, and to the people who assert that the end result of globalisation will be dramatic increases in the standard of living of the poor of the world, I agree. They will dramatically improve their standard of living when they revolt and throw off the yoke of Western institutionalized slavery. Globalization and the WTO have managed to be driven down a "Least Common Denominator" path - we are attempting to create a society in which, with ruthless efficiency, the most draconian (governmental) and profitable (corporate) actions are the most highly enforced and rewarded, at the expense of all else. (Hague treaty, environmental protections being stripped in Canada due to 'anticompetitive' nature, DMCA and subsequent allied legislation, etc.. etc..)
Anyway. We need to hijack the WTO, in truth. But how? I can't be voted in, and I can be denied admission at the door anyway. It's not a governmental body, it doesn't care about constitutions. If there's a problem with our government, they'll just meet in Malaysia. Anybody who's cleverer than I, please, let me know how we can hijack this particular organization...
Actually, as for the middle east - without oil, they might be able to get somewhere.
I say this because oil money in the middle east gets seriously concentrated (see Saudi Arabia, for instance) and doesn't affect the economy as a whole. This puts some people, with a lot of money, in the position that it's better for them personally to maintain the status quo. For an example of something that people like that isn't involved in that status quo, see: democracy. Yes, even in the Middle East. Once people have a chance to eat. And overthrow their governments.
So, point is, the status quo in the middle east involves a lot of people being poor. Upsetting the status quo (taking away the incoming oil money) will at least let a lot of people be more self-determined, which tends to make economies grow, so I hear.
Not only that, but there are indications that the US military position of the last 40 years has finally come to a head, and that we will be fighting for control of the "oil under the stans" for the next 50 or so. 50 years of on-and-off fighting (welcome to cold war #2) are going to get expensive, thankfully, so hopefully we'll stop before 2050 - but that means that we're going to be occupying the middle east and maintaining the status quo (*cough*saudi*cough*) for a long time. Plus we'll be bombing otherwise sucky economies (*cough*Afghanistan*cough*) into even-yet-still-more-sucky economies.
Oil ain't the good guy for 95% of the people in the middle east.;)
1 and 1a sound like some sort of utopian vision to me.;) Ok, no, not really. But I would like Microsoft to just, in general, STOP. Please. You're done now.
That said, I'm waiting for the axe to fall on this whole terrorist thing. I think our general 'bomb-em-all-we-can' attitude is making a lot more people hate and fear us than did before. We haven't really shown signs of stopping, and I don't think the entire world is just going to roll over for us. Ironically, while nation-states are desperately clawing their way over each other (in some cases) to say, "Go ahead, bomb Afghanistan!" the masses (you know, those people who do things like join up with Al Qa'eda?;) are just getting more and more pissed off at us. I am willing to believe that the longer this 'war' (when did the President get the right to go to war without congress' permission, anyway?) goes on, the more terrorists there will be out to get us.. and the more of these scenarios you give us will come true. *sigh*
I don't like us trying to kill people, and I especially don't like people trying to kill me. *sigh*
Okay, back to topic. I had a response (not yours) to my previous comment that expressed some disbelief at the monetary potential of this sort of thing. Part of my point was trying to make it monetarily viable. Start small. Get your PEM fuel cell when they're finally being mass produced. It's reversible! This means that H2O + electricity -> 2H2 + O2 (+ heat?;) AFAIK it's more efficient than direct electrolysis of water. Dump your solar cells on top of your truck (I know, producing solar cells is hard, but they're almost cost-effective in general right now, let alone for specialized uses like this. We'll figure out how to make 'em better with time!), run the energy to the fuel cell, explode the resulting H2 + O2, be sure to cool the exhaust so that it condenses, and repeat! The objective of all that was to have an exhaustless internal-combustion engine.
Forget having to walk to the service station for some H2 - just wait. The sun also rises.;)
Also, there's plenty of room for improvements in general efficiency in all of the technologies used. That means that we are not operating optimally at this time and I've still got data that says that this is feasible.
Plus, if you start in places where there isn't much infrastructure anyway, you're not trashing anybody's economy. You're (almost assuredly) helping, actually.
I find it funny that people actually believe the media to be particularly leftist in this day and age.;) I think they're all bought-and-sold capitalist lackeys at this point, or whipped "I-wish-I-were-a-real-journalist" reporters who can't publish a line without having three editors and a customer with a facing ad review it.
That aside... I think people are afraid of Nuclear in America because we have some bad habits. We like to do things like considering fuel spent very quickly so that we won't have weapons-grade materials. (This dramatically increases the amount of waste we actually have to hide somewhere for a long time.)
And THAT is just a matter of policy.
Our current nuke plants have seriously low safety records - the oversight of them is a joke (the feds are apparently not worried about terrorists trying to blow one of these babies!) and we tend to watch the number of people who are involved in security or operations get slashed to make room for more money.
I guess what I'm saying is that the friendly useful nuclear power that's used in socialist countries like Japan and France turns into evil nuclear death cult power here in capitalist USA. It's always cheaper to pay somebody off and make the taxpayers foot the bills for any cleanup than it is to keep the necessary trained and alert staff on salary.
By the way, while I am not too coherent (in general, but this post especially) I have references for a lot of the vague statements I make. I'm just too lazy to add them. Do some searches on google.;)
I've been thinking about this a lot recently, since I blame our foreign policy decisions in the middle east on big oil. Foreign policy decisions that lead to general hatred by a lot of people. Who build bombs.
In other words, I don't think that we're going to have peace until we get away from a Petrol hungry economy.
Since I'm a freaky peacenik, this means a lot to me. So my thought is - introduce the technology in those "developing countries" that we didn't ratify the Kyoto Treaty over. (I know, I know, we never intended to actually sign the damn thing, that's not the point.;)
Point is, if somebody started manufacturing a hydrogen engine cheaply and building and selling it in someplace third world or maybe even a poor first-world country (Mexico, India) then we'd have a chance.
My thoughts are initially: trains and trucks. If I make my millions in the near future, I'll be learning everything I can about MechE, hiring some people, and moving to Mexico for a while. Build a prototype hybrid hydrogen/hydraulic engine (so that a little hydrogen produces a lot of torque) and then sell it to trucking as a way to meet and beat the US emissions requirements.
My scheme actually also involves closing the system (cooling and re-cracking the exhaust) and introducing electricity into the system partially by means of solar. Other possibilities (for the nighttime trucker) include flywheels that can be charged at stations and during the journey, and for trains, just bearing the burden on the same thing that drives electric engines now.
The hydrogen/hydraulic engine is supposedly a very efficient way of producing a lot of torque for a little energy, which makes it ideal for hauling heavy loads. However, I'm going to have to check my facts. Still, if so, this would be a great way to start the little industry that could.
Oh, and btw, Iceland is making the move to Hydrogen. Don't remember where I read it but the story checked out. Take a look on google.
On the other hand, you seem to have forgotten about the properties of our dear medium.
Say it with me, kids: Television is PASSIVE!
IF I choose to go to a website, 9 times out of 10 it is because of some piece of information that I believe to be there. If branding gets in the way of the information, I have a negative association with that brand. Not only that, but I may leave in disgust, not having found information that I was looking for, and go looking for a competitor product that will tell me what I want to know.
Of course, maybe you should think about a web not centered entirely on marketing for a little while... an exercise for the reader.;)
Actually, I have to disagree. Writing a valid HTML parser is a pain in the butt. Grabbing someone's Free XML parser and Free javascript interpreter, thrusting them together and making some calls between them... That's EASY.
Which means that XHTML 1.0, being an XML, is EASIER to parse - assuming people actually validate their pages.;)
I don't even work for them, but I recommended that a site I worked on be hosted there. Take a look at what they have to say in their support section of the hosting control panel (your mention of ISPs brought this to mind..)
Telephone technical support is very costly. Companies that offer (or claim to offer) telephone technical support often fall into two categories. In the first case, many companies simply never answer the phone or keep you on hold for hours. This is because they do not have enough staff to properly man their support lines. Other companies may have a complete support staff, but they pass the charges on to you in high monthly fees. You may only need a very short bit of telephone support, but you end up paying each month for those who use up hours of phone support.
<advert solicited="no" paid="no">
Having recently had an e-mail problem (qmail had died in a partial and annoying way), we had to utilize their support panel. The problem was literally fixed within 15 minutes.
</advert>
<rant>My general experience with phone tech support from PC manufacturers and ISPs is that 15 minutes is about how long it takes to talk to a person - and then, that person is going to go through a script that covers all the common problems that (l)users have. Yesterday's dilbert was beautiful about this. Oh yeah, and talking to a real human being who will do anything about a problem is usually an hour-plus endeavour.
</rant>
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. That's funny. Joe Sixpack can't plug it in and have it just work with any operating system other than Microsoft because of their monopolistic practices. If OEMs could actually bundle software that isn't Microsoft's pet monopoly-builder-of-the-month, then maybe we'd see some open source software that you could turn on and it would "just work."
"Grandma can't install Linux on her computer, it's not as easy to install as Windows!" Grandma didn't install Windows - Dell did.
And yes, I know that Microsoft leveraging OEM contracts this way is just them doing what comes naturally. AFAICT, pedophiles humping underage butt are doing what comes naturally too. I don't want EITHER of them operating in MY neighborhood.
Ahah! But this is where you are only partially right! (Let me also say, the above does not mean that you should blame the Internet. ;)
Right now I'm on a modem so I'm only providing one link. Corante has some articles about allegations of impropriety on the part of investment banks, among other things.
The scam was basically this - the people who were offered stocks pre-IPO as a result of the favor of the backing bank were then asked to use IPO proceeds to buy other, more mature stock. Basically, "Once you make a million on this stock we're going to sell you, could you put $100,000 back into something worthwhile?"
The symptoms of a scheme like this:
- Amazing stock performance on otherwise worthless IPO stocks. CHECK.
- Stocks level off post IPO, and the pre IPO investors (chosen by the backing banks) have made mucho money on said stock price explosion. CHECK.
- Investment bank makes serious buku money as stock (real stock, solid stock) is bought and sold. Check.
- Plateau'd mature tech stock prices are fueled artificially by post-IPO investment. CHECK.
- Everybody thinks, "Hey, IPOs are really performing right now! Let's do it!" and a rash of IPOs fuels a 'boom' in which this cycle can be repeated. CHECK.
- Small Investors left holding the bag full of virtually worthless post IPO dot-com stock. Check.
- Someone notices, banks have to stop, and the inevitable crash-and-burn happens economy wide. Check.
The tech boom ended because a) the financial sector in-and-of-itself does not actually create wealth and b) the investment banks stopped the madness when people started actually examining their actions.One of the criticisms of this is that it doesn't have any enforcement behind it.
There's nothing to stop the industry, or me, or all of us who run websites, from just saying, "Sure, we respect virtually everything about your privacy!" and then selling the hell out of your information.
So, for those of us for whom it would be a pain - we have two easy choices. We can a) ignore people who bother to use it 'cuz it sucks or b) adopt the most private P3P policies possible, and then don't worry about them.
The real problem this will have on the developer end is having the P3P options mean something. If there's no reason (legislation, for instance) for big business to respect their own P3P policies, why should I pretend that mine have anything to do with reality?
http://www.cfo.com/Article?article=1080
What if he's smart enough to realize that it wouldn't work?
What if he's schizophrenic enough to think that it wouldn't work?
I mean, really - you can make a case for the idea that peaceful resistance to some things is being quashed. Especially the anti-globalization bit... I mean, we have a democracy with a total of three news sources (AP, Reuters, and somebody else - can't remember) and about eight actual owners of media.
Is it so hard to believe that we don't hear the real message of dissidents? Ask people why they are against globalization as people currently see it, and more than a few will likely impress you with the thought that they have put into it.
But if you're 18 and still in high school, you CAN'T GO TO THE BATHROOM WITHOUT A HALL PASS.
Sometimes being 18 and living at home makes sense. Don't be elitist just 'cuz you're following a different path. ;)
thorough description of how it works
Search for a patent. Virtually any patent.
Actually, I just want to point out that the usage of contract law (licenses) to prohibit certain activities relies on negotiability. Being unable to negotiate software licenses, etc. is quite shaky, legally. At least, as soon as we stop being braindead, we will probably see some rulings related to exactly what can be licensed for and against, a lot like our warranty and sale regulations.
Ahah! Here it is. As you can see, there were some initial issues in the way that truetype was developed. Microsoft may provide the fonts free, but the original move to create truetype fonts in general was a point of contention between companies.
The only reason I point this out is that it shows that TrueType and Windows' anti-aliasing were developed to counter various strategic threats to Microsoft. I don't pick on Apple because if you read between the lines and the rest of the history, they were burned by some 'incompatibility' that was created by Microsoft.
Anyway - Microsoft isn't giving this away just because, and the original push for TrueType/Anti-aliasing was a major money sink for two companies. (Also, IP issues and development time made it unlinkely to end up in early Xfree, for instance - leading to the problems we've seen on free Unices.)
On the other hand, two implementations of bluetooth drivers for linux were available before even one for Windows. Should we then accuse Microsoft of being slackers when it comes to technology adoption? Turnabout is fair play.
In the grand scheme of things, you're right, it's being done. But from many a locale, you can make the statement that work is disappearing and you're right.
Efficiency in work is usually considered as greater production (or service) over time. Efficiency is good. As industries streamline their processes, they increase the productive value of each person's work, but also reduce the number of people who are needed to do equivalent work. But rather than doing the really cool thing and giving everybody 30 hour a week jobs instead of 40, and maintaining their pay rate, they do the thing that our economy requires, which is to reduce the number of people working for them and keep the wages for the remaining workers steady, thus increasing profit. As demand increases, the required time per worker increases, until it becomes (really) unacceptable, at which point a new worker(s) is hired, and the demand goes up. Repeat. (Until recession.)
The great part about streamlining in this way is that in a growth economy, it raises unemployment over time, and, if you're lucky, faster than the rate of growth. That means that you can actually _decrease_ the wage of the least educated, by simply keeping it stable without considering inflation or by hiring the people that the other guys laid off, but for a lower wage. In a recessive economy, it means that you have fewer layoffs necessary to maintain equal profitability, making your company less likely to make the news in a bad way.
Sure, new industries are being discovered. People should probably learn and move on. But this is kind of like 'discovering' a country. Moving there doesn't mean you're going to get what you want - it means that you can repeat the dot-com cycle all over again. It will happen _every_ time a new industry is 'discovered.' The growth rate will be enormous, and then the industry and its suppliers will fall flat on their faces. People will stop buying some things and start borrowing money. Recess. Return growth rate to normal, and repeat oppression of the workers in new industry.
So, if you want to win, you have a few choices:
"People with guns killed xx,xxx people last year."
"The (IP) industry lost $xxx,xxx,xxx to piracy last year."
In the first case, count the bodies. In the second, what exactly are you counting?
Not that I really disagree with the idea that we can improve our image. But I don't think there's a satisfying and appropriate way to do it. I, for one, am not willing to dissociate the idea of freedom with software and utilities like nmap. Imagine if I didn't have access to nmap!! I wouldn't have the tools to test the simplest of firewalling setups I use. Better that these tools are available to all, lockmakers and lockpickers alike.
Actually, this is also a good suggestion for any OpenSource/FreeSoftware supporter in general. After all, non-free software does cost money, doesn't it? If it doesn't cost, there's no downside for most users.
Of course, that's a different court case entirely, and doesn't have anything to do with Free Speech, except in terms of practically squashing it.
Actually, just wanted to point out as well... Don't some of these "Virus" detectors discover things like Back Orafice (or however they spelled it) as well? If the CDC's attack tools are "malicious" and the FBI's are not, why? (That's of course directed at Vscanner makers, not you. ;)
It has occurred to me repeatedly that this is a positive model for the open source community, but I really would like to see a license that really pulls it off. I think it was the MPL that I was looking at that was almost appropriate, but it's not GPL-enough. Maybe I'm spewing smoke. I'll look into it. However, if anybody knows of a GPL-with-the-copyright-clause style license, I would love to be sure.
You can choose any two. ;)
The reason: there is _always_ inherent value in making a closed fork if you intend to sell the code. Close forks don't have to be incompatible with originals (Kerberos, for instance) but may have additional functionality protected by other IP mechanisms such as a non-negotiable clickthrough contract that says, "I will not create a competing product" on the specification for the extensions to the otherwise open protocol.
This allows you to enforce inequity between otherwise consistent versions of the same tool, which is called a "competitive advantage" by some people. What an amazing thing - it's in the license. The GPL has one of those, too...
Also, BSD'd code can be grabbed and GPL'd. Won't usually do much good, but you don't have a "100% new product."
Hee! I just wanted to point out that our government knows a lot about our Nationalist/Fascist movement! I mean, John Ashcroft is Attorney General!
#1 - Move away from petroleum fuel. My individual choice to move away from petroleum fuel does not eliminate even one millionth of one percent of the pollution or opression created by gasoline. Massive cost to me, little to no actual effect in the world.
#2 - Give my load of non-existent cash to food for the poor. First of all, that food won't end up in Baghdad or the hands of the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Second of all, that money is finite. I have impoverished myself to provide a one-time increase in the food available to other impoverished people. Do the words "net loss" mean anything to you? Oh, and 7 million Afghans may starve over the next year anyway, even with my help.
#3 - I want to produce drugs to combat the AIDS virus in South Africa. I have the chemical knowledge to produce the drugs and can set up a business that sells at cost and do my part for the world, right? Wrong. Because our concept of intellectual property is being extended to... well, virtually everybody.
Anyway, those are just three examples where the atmosphere in which globalism occurs stifles the effect of the individual on the state of the world. People with consciences must act in concert. People who have ideas about how to empower people must plan very carefully to implement them. The people without conscience (corporations, among others) are already acting in concert (welcome to the WTO and lobbying efforts) and the disenfranchisement of people is well underway, meaning that it will certainly continue if no intervention occurs.
Oh, and to the people who assert that the end result of globalisation will be dramatic increases in the standard of living of the poor of the world, I agree. They will dramatically improve their standard of living when they revolt and throw off the yoke of Western institutionalized slavery. Globalization and the WTO have managed to be driven down a "Least Common Denominator" path - we are attempting to create a society in which, with ruthless efficiency, the most draconian (governmental) and profitable (corporate) actions are the most highly enforced and rewarded, at the expense of all else. (Hague treaty, environmental protections being stripped in Canada due to 'anticompetitive' nature, DMCA and subsequent allied legislation, etc.. etc..)
Anyway. We need to hijack the WTO, in truth. But how? I can't be voted in, and I can be denied admission at the door anyway. It's not a governmental body, it doesn't care about constitutions. If there's a problem with our government, they'll just meet in Malaysia. Anybody who's cleverer than I, please, let me know how we can hijack this particular organization...
I say this because oil money in the middle east gets seriously concentrated (see Saudi Arabia, for instance) and doesn't affect the economy as a whole. This puts some people, with a lot of money, in the position that it's better for them personally to maintain the status quo. For an example of something that people like that isn't involved in that status quo, see: democracy. Yes, even in the Middle East. Once people have a chance to eat. And overthrow their governments.
So, point is, the status quo in the middle east involves a lot of people being poor. Upsetting the status quo (taking away the incoming oil money) will at least let a lot of people be more self-determined, which tends to make economies grow, so I hear.
Not only that, but there are indications that the US military position of the last 40 years has finally come to a head, and that we will be fighting for control of the "oil under the stans" for the next 50 or so. 50 years of on-and-off fighting (welcome to cold war #2) are going to get expensive, thankfully, so hopefully we'll stop before 2050 - but that means that we're going to be occupying the middle east and maintaining the status quo (*cough*saudi*cough*) for a long time. Plus we'll be bombing otherwise sucky economies (*cough*Afghanistan*cough*) into even-yet-still-more-sucky economies.
Oil ain't the good guy for 95% of the people in the middle east. ;)
That said, I'm waiting for the axe to fall on this whole terrorist thing. I think our general 'bomb-em-all-we-can' attitude is making a lot more people hate and fear us than did before. We haven't really shown signs of stopping, and I don't think the entire world is just going to roll over for us. Ironically, while nation-states are desperately clawing their way over each other (in some cases) to say, "Go ahead, bomb Afghanistan!" the masses (you know, those people who do things like join up with Al Qa'eda? ;) are just getting more and more pissed off at us. I am willing to believe that the longer this 'war' (when did the President get the right to go to war without congress' permission, anyway?) goes on, the more terrorists there will be out to get us.. and the more of these scenarios you give us will come true. *sigh*
I don't like us trying to kill people, and I especially don't like people trying to kill me. *sigh*
Okay, back to topic. I had a response (not yours) to my previous comment that expressed some disbelief at the monetary potential of this sort of thing. Part of my point was trying to make it monetarily viable. Start small. Get your PEM fuel cell when they're finally being mass produced. It's reversible! This means that H2O + electricity -> 2H2 + O2 (+ heat? ;) AFAIK it's more efficient than direct electrolysis of water. Dump your solar cells on top of your truck (I know, producing solar cells is hard, but they're almost cost-effective in general right now, let alone for specialized uses like this. We'll figure out how to make 'em better with time!), run the energy to the fuel cell, explode the resulting H2 + O2, be sure to cool the exhaust so that it condenses, and repeat! The objective of all that was to have an exhaustless internal-combustion engine.
Forget having to walk to the service station for some H2 - just wait. The sun also rises. ;)
Also, there's plenty of room for improvements in general efficiency in all of the technologies used. That means that we are not operating optimally at this time and I've still got data that says that this is feasible.
Plus, if you start in places where there isn't much infrastructure anyway, you're not trashing anybody's economy. You're (almost assuredly) helping, actually.
That aside... I think people are afraid of Nuclear in America because we have some bad habits. We like to do things like considering fuel spent very quickly so that we won't have weapons-grade materials. (This dramatically increases the amount of waste we actually have to hide somewhere for a long time.)
And THAT is just a matter of policy.
Our current nuke plants have seriously low safety records - the oversight of them is a joke (the feds are apparently not worried about terrorists trying to blow one of these babies!) and we tend to watch the number of people who are involved in security or operations get slashed to make room for more money.
I guess what I'm saying is that the friendly useful nuclear power that's used in socialist countries like Japan and France turns into evil nuclear death cult power here in capitalist USA. It's always cheaper to pay somebody off and make the taxpayers foot the bills for any cleanup than it is to keep the necessary trained and alert staff on salary.
By the way, while I am not too coherent (in general, but this post especially) I have references for a lot of the vague statements I make. I'm just too lazy to add them. Do some searches on google. ;)
In other words, I don't think that we're going to have peace until we get away from a Petrol hungry economy.
Since I'm a freaky peacenik, this means a lot to me. So my thought is - introduce the technology in those "developing countries" that we didn't ratify the Kyoto Treaty over. (I know, I know, we never intended to actually sign the damn thing, that's not the point. ;)
Point is, if somebody started manufacturing a hydrogen engine cheaply and building and selling it in someplace third world or maybe even a poor first-world country (Mexico, India) then we'd have a chance.
My thoughts are initially: trains and trucks. If I make my millions in the near future, I'll be learning everything I can about MechE, hiring some people, and moving to Mexico for a while. Build a prototype hybrid hydrogen/hydraulic engine (so that a little hydrogen produces a lot of torque) and then sell it to trucking as a way to meet and beat the US emissions requirements.
My scheme actually also involves closing the system (cooling and re-cracking the exhaust) and introducing electricity into the system partially by means of solar. Other possibilities (for the nighttime trucker) include flywheels that can be charged at stations and during the journey, and for trains, just bearing the burden on the same thing that drives electric engines now.
The hydrogen/hydraulic engine is supposedly a very efficient way of producing a lot of torque for a little energy, which makes it ideal for hauling heavy loads. However, I'm going to have to check my facts. Still, if so, this would be a great way to start the little industry that could.
Oh, and btw, Iceland is making the move to Hydrogen. Don't remember where I read it but the story checked out. Take a look on google.
Say it with me, kids: Television is PASSIVE!
IF I choose to go to a website, 9 times out of 10 it is because of some piece of information that I believe to be there. If branding gets in the way of the information, I have a negative association with that brand. Not only that, but I may leave in disgust, not having found information that I was looking for, and go looking for a competitor product that will tell me what I want to know.
Of course, maybe you should think about a web not centered entirely on marketing for a little while... an exercise for the reader. ;)
Which means that XHTML 1.0, being an XML, is EASIER to parse - assuming people actually validate their pages. ;)
<advert solicited="no" paid="no"> Having recently had an e-mail problem (qmail had died in a partial and annoying way), we had to utilize their support panel. The problem was literally fixed within 15 minutes. </advert>
<rant>My general experience with phone tech support from PC manufacturers and ISPs is that 15 minutes is about how long it takes to talk to a person - and then, that person is going to go through a script that covers all the common problems that (l)users have. Yesterday's dilbert was beautiful about this. Oh yeah, and talking to a real human being who will do anything about a problem is usually an hour-plus endeavour. </rant>