It's more like putting a straw into a glass of water and the other end into a vacuum cleaner. See, the atmosphere is like a water balloon, but it's full of air instead of water. When the shuttles go out, they poke little holes in the atmosphere, but they're small and don't last long, so not much can escape. But if we go putting this giant tube out there, the hole will stay open and the vacuum of space will suck out all our air.
Obviously the solution is to make the tube twice as long and bend it in half so that both ends are down at the ground. Then the air might cycle through, but would stay down here around the Earth. Of course we'll still need something to guard the part out in space, or the space monkeys might try to bite a hole in it to suck up some Earth air and make their voices all high-pitched and funny. Those space monkeys are always causing trouble.
If the Wii really does supplant the PS3 as the dominant console (and I'm not yet convinced this is going to happen, mind you),
The PS3 is not the dominant console, so it cannot be supplanted from that position. Both the Wii and the PS3 are currently tied for marketshare at zero. The Wii actually has a much better chance to take the lead from the beginning, since Nintendo will initially be producing far more Wiis than Sony will PS3s. The more units sold, the more enticing the platform becomes for third party developers, a cycle which feeds itself. So the Wii might win in large part based on the novel idea that it is available for purchase.
The GPL has always had a clause that you can update code to a new version of the GPL.
The license itself has never had a clause stating that. The FSF's recommendation when applying the license was to include a statement to that effect. It has always been up to the author whether to include the "or any later version" clause. But since most coders just copied the "This code uses GPL..." declaration directly from the FSF, they have included that clause. Linus stopped using it for Linux quite a while ago.
Um, no it can't. The BSD license doesn't allow you to change the code's license. You can redistribute the code with your own GPL code, but the parts that were BSD licensed remain BSD licensed. If you wanted the licensed changed, you would have to get the original author to change it.
You certainly aren't disproving him by your comments under this story. You can't even get through two sentences without insults. One would think the BSD license caused the death of your family for all the venom you've been expelling.
I think the truth is that the GPL is popular because of Linux, and not the other way around. Linux is popular because the guy who started it is a friendly, down-to-earth guy who encouraged people to help him. The BSDs have a fairly rocky history in that regard, which is a big reason I think they aren't as popular. Linux was also targetted first at the commodity hardware that many hackers were already tinkering with, whereas UNIX was targetted at hardware from the Big Vendors.
It wouldn't be impossible, but it would take so much work that probably no one will actually do it. Any parts of code that couldn't be relicensed would have to be rewritten, and that would probably be a large chunk. Even if someone did fork, it's clear that most of the current kernel hackers would stay with the official Linux, so the fork would have much less man-power. That will slow things down a lot. Additionally, commericial entities would almost certainly keep using and supporting the official Linux, because it is well-known and has all of the "big names" still attached to it, which means the fork would be irrelevant.
I love the doublespeak here. These two issues are exactly the same:
No one forces you to use code which has been licensed under GPLv3. But once you do, the specific morality of the GPLv3 is forced on you, and you cannot escape it.
No one forces you to use closed software. But once you do, you agree not to have access to the source.
So your argument that GPLv3 is not being "forced" on anybody negates your second point, because closed software isn't forced on anyone either. Once you choose either, you're "forced" to abide by the agreements of that choice. Let me change a couple words and see if this sounds familiar:
"You know what's not freedom? When you don't even have the right to look at the code, when you have severe restrictions on how a software can be used (not modified, used)."
Well no one is "forcing" you. Last I checked it was completely voluntary to used closed software.
You know what's not freedom? When the FSF changes some of the basic tenants of the GPL and relicenses all of their code so that anyone who wants to keep using it is forced to agree with the changes. That's severe.
I bet you think that sounds ridiculous, and so do I. But I think your statement is just as ridiculous. You know in advance what you're getting in to. If you don't like the conditions and restrictions, stay away.
"Needing the money" is one of the things you weigh when determining your price. Say the task is selling some illegal drugs for a dealer. The dealer already knows how much this service is worth to him. If you have a good job, your price for this task would probably be so high that it wouldn't be worth it to the dealer to use your services. Your price is high because there is a lot of risk for you, and the reward doesn't outweigh the risk. However, the more you need the money, the lower your price becomes. Once the reward balances out the risk, your price has been met and you'll take the job.
So yes, if you need the money very badly, your price may become low enough to take a job you thought you'd never do. But that doesn't disagree with my statement above: "If it wasn't worth the price to you, you wouldn't do it." All it's done is lower your price until it is worth it.
It only backfired because you didn't give them your true price, which obviously was much higher. If you'd taken the time to consider what it was actually worth to you, and they still said yes, you would have gladly accepted. If you actually did not want to perform the service no matter the price, you should've either told them that or priced it so high that it would be impossible for them to pay. For example, charge them a trip to the moon once a year. "Oh, you can't send me to the moon every year for the rest of my life? Too bad, so sad."
It's silly to make the "detestable jobs" distinction here. Your pricing structure for any job, whether or not you want to do it, is sufficient that you're willing to do it for that price. If it wasn't worth the price to you, you wouldn't do it, regardless of liking it.
Since the definition of monetary worth is basically the max amount that someone is willing to pay, I'd say that the one willing to pay that much would buy it. If no one would pay $1.5b, then it wouldn't be worth $1.5b. So if it was worth that much, it must mean someone is willing to buy it at that price.
I understood your point. I'm not arguing about the qualities of information, I'm pointing out your misuse of the word freedom. Freedom isn't a natural phenomenon, existing independently. It's a concept used to describe an observer's understanding of a given situation. Since freedom only exists in the mind of an observer, it can't be inherent to anything. It is ascribed, not discovered.
I don't see how this instance is convoluted. Their server, which is in Russia, is making the copy, and is then sending it to me, in the US. How could I be making the copy? I don't have the files. Their server has the files, which it copies to send to me. I requested the copy be made, but I didn't do the copying myself.
I'm suggesting that information, unlike property, is inherently free
Regardless of the rest of your post, let's be clear that nothing can be inherently free. Freedom is not a property like density or height. It is a point of view that depends or your frame of reference. It's like saying that information is inherently funny or big.
Minimum wage laws aren't that great. They decrease demand for labor (because employers don't want to pay more) while increasing the supply of it (because more people would work for the raised wage). Therefore, unemployment rates rise. In addition, a minimum wage increases employers' costs, so the price of goods and services rise as well, making it even harder for the unemployed to buy those goods and services. A minimum wage also discourages pursuit of more education or skill training, and encourages illegal immigration. Meddling isn't always the good idea it seems like on paper.
The controller price I'm most annoyed at is the "classic" controller. It doesn't have motion sensing, it plugs into the remote, so it doesn't have its own wireless stuff, and it probably runs off of the remote's power, so wouldn't need a battery or anything. It's basically just a plastic shell with simple electronics for the buttons. They could have easily sold that for $10. It just seems a bit ridiculous to charge $20 for such a simple piece of plastic. Hopefully, I'll be able to use my existing Gamecube controllers instead so I don't have to buy it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's more like putting a straw into a glass of water and the other end into a vacuum cleaner. See, the atmosphere is like a water balloon, but it's full of air instead of water. When the shuttles go out, they poke little holes in the atmosphere, but they're small and don't last long, so not much can escape. But if we go putting this giant tube out there, the hole will stay open and the vacuum of space will suck out all our air.
Obviously the solution is to make the tube twice as long and bend it in half so that both ends are down at the ground. Then the air might cycle through, but would stay down here around the Earth. Of course we'll still need something to guard the part out in space, or the space monkeys might try to bite a hole in it to suck up some Earth air and make their voices all high-pitched and funny. Those space monkeys are always causing trouble.
You messed up the syllables. Try this:
think motion sickness
and massive headaches, too
eye-strain tops it off
Three views in one
Imagine the fun
Burma Shave
No, he used the built-in accelerometer to detect slaps on either side of the case.
If the Wii really does supplant the PS3 as the dominant console (and I'm not yet convinced this is going to happen, mind you),
The PS3 is not the dominant console, so it cannot be supplanted from that position. Both the Wii and the PS3 are currently tied for marketshare at zero. The Wii actually has a much better chance to take the lead from the beginning, since Nintendo will initially be producing far more Wiis than Sony will PS3s. The more units sold, the more enticing the platform becomes for third party developers, a cycle which feeds itself. So the Wii might win in large part based on the novel idea that it is available for purchase.
Why would Sony remove this feature?
Probably because they were sued by a company that has a patent on rumble technology and lost.
And for nVidia:
m-a a-i nvidia
In fact, it's easier than installing the nVidia drivers on Windows.
Nintendo is allegedly selling their console at a profit, so they don't really have any reason for the controllers to be out of line with the WaveBird
Oh great, here we go again.
Assuming that the Wiimote + nunchuk costs about the same as the WaveBird to produce
Maybe there's something a bit different about these controllers that make them more expensive. Something else that they can do. What could it be?
The GPL has always had a clause that you can update code to a new version of the GPL.
..." declaration directly from the FSF, they have included that clause. Linus stopped using it for Linux quite a while ago.
The license itself has never had a clause stating that. The FSF's recommendation when applying the license was to include a statement to that effect. It has always been up to the author whether to include the "or any later version" clause. But since most coders just copied the "This code uses GPL
Um, no it can't. The BSD license doesn't allow you to change the code's license. You can redistribute the code with your own GPL code, but the parts that were BSD licensed remain BSD licensed. If you wanted the licensed changed, you would have to get the original author to change it.
You certainly aren't disproving him by your comments under this story. You can't even get through two sentences without insults. One would think the BSD license caused the death of your family for all the venom you've been expelling.
Do you even write software?
I think the truth is that the GPL is popular because of Linux, and not the other way around. Linux is popular because the guy who started it is a friendly, down-to-earth guy who encouraged people to help him. The BSDs have a fairly rocky history in that regard, which is a big reason I think they aren't as popular. Linux was also targetted first at the commodity hardware that many hackers were already tinkering with, whereas UNIX was targetted at hardware from the Big Vendors.
It wouldn't be impossible, but it would take so much work that probably no one will actually do it. Any parts of code that couldn't be relicensed would have to be rewritten, and that would probably be a large chunk. Even if someone did fork, it's clear that most of the current kernel hackers would stay with the official Linux, so the fork would have much less man-power. That will slow things down a lot. Additionally, commericial entities would almost certainly keep using and supporting the official Linux, because it is well-known and has all of the "big names" still attached to it, which means the fork would be irrelevant.
So your argument that GPLv3 is not being "forced" on anybody negates your second point, because closed software isn't forced on anyone either. Once you choose either, you're "forced" to abide by the agreements of that choice. Let me change a couple words and see if this sounds familiar:
I bet you think that sounds ridiculous, and so do I. But I think your statement is just as ridiculous. You know in advance what you're getting in to. If you don't like the conditions and restrictions, stay away.
"Needing the money" is one of the things you weigh when determining your price. Say the task is selling some illegal drugs for a dealer. The dealer already knows how much this service is worth to him. If you have a good job, your price for this task would probably be so high that it wouldn't be worth it to the dealer to use your services. Your price is high because there is a lot of risk for you, and the reward doesn't outweigh the risk. However, the more you need the money, the lower your price becomes. Once the reward balances out the risk, your price has been met and you'll take the job.
So yes, if you need the money very badly, your price may become low enough to take a job you thought you'd never do. But that doesn't disagree with my statement above: "If it wasn't worth the price to you, you wouldn't do it." All it's done is lower your price until it is worth it.
Three guys on slashdot maybe not, but you don't need many. Sampling size for national opion polls in the US is typically only 1,500.
It only backfired because you didn't give them your true price, which obviously was much higher. If you'd taken the time to consider what it was actually worth to you, and they still said yes, you would have gladly accepted. If you actually did not want to perform the service no matter the price, you should've either told them that or priced it so high that it would be impossible for them to pay. For example, charge them a trip to the moon once a year. "Oh, you can't send me to the moon every year for the rest of my life? Too bad, so sad."
It's silly to make the "detestable jobs" distinction here. Your pricing structure for any job, whether or not you want to do it, is sufficient that you're willing to do it for that price. If it wasn't worth the price to you, you wouldn't do it, regardless of liking it.
who would buy it, even if it was worth that much?
Since the definition of monetary worth is basically the max amount that someone is willing to pay, I'd say that the one willing to pay that much would buy it. If no one would pay $1.5b, then it wouldn't be worth $1.5b. So if it was worth that much, it must mean someone is willing to buy it at that price.
Off-topic, but I also love ovaltine.
I understood your point. I'm not arguing about the qualities of information, I'm pointing out your misuse of the word freedom. Freedom isn't a natural phenomenon, existing independently. It's a concept used to describe an observer's understanding of a given situation. Since freedom only exists in the mind of an observer, it can't be inherent to anything. It is ascribed, not discovered.
I don't see how this instance is convoluted. Their server, which is in Russia, is making the copy, and is then sending it to me, in the US. How could I be making the copy? I don't have the files. Their server has the files, which it copies to send to me. I requested the copy be made, but I didn't do the copying myself.
I'm suggesting that information, unlike property, is inherently free
Regardless of the rest of your post, let's be clear that nothing can be inherently free. Freedom is not a property like density or height. It is a point of view that depends or your frame of reference. It's like saying that information is inherently funny or big.
Minimum wage laws aren't that great. They decrease demand for labor (because employers don't want to pay more) while increasing the supply of it (because more people would work for the raised wage). Therefore, unemployment rates rise. In addition, a minimum wage increases employers' costs, so the price of goods and services rise as well, making it even harder for the unemployed to buy those goods and services. A minimum wage also discourages pursuit of more education or skill training, and encourages illegal immigration. Meddling isn't always the good idea it seems like on paper.
The controller price I'm most annoyed at is the "classic" controller. It doesn't have motion sensing, it plugs into the remote, so it doesn't have its own wireless stuff, and it probably runs off of the remote's power, so wouldn't need a battery or anything. It's basically just a plastic shell with simple electronics for the buttons. They could have easily sold that for $10. It just seems a bit ridiculous to charge $20 for such a simple piece of plastic. Hopefully, I'll be able to use my existing Gamecube controllers instead so I don't have to buy it.