I'm not sure what you intended to put forward with that wiki link, but its got nothing to do with this - the Wickard v. Filburn is an open and shut case, wheat production was restricted, the law didn't say the wheat had to be for sale for the restriction to apply, and thus the restriction applies to the farmer in this case. It also makes sense - if the farmer could not produce enough for himself under the restriction, then he would have had to buy more on the open market, thus creating demand, and achieving the intended effect of the restriction law.
Doesn't apply to this case - there is no restriction in law on self produced and self distributed content.
Name one historical example of an industry that has been "surpassed by newer technologies" where the product of that industry was still very much in demand? I doubt you can come up with one...
I would beg to differ with regard to Rosetta not working with anything complicated, and I have a perfect example - Mac Office 2004 on a Core Duo Macbook Pro, verses iWork Numbers on the same platform.
I had a spreadsheet with about 200 data points, of which I wanted to make three graphs - in Numbers, running natively on Intel, it dragged along for tens of minutes when rebuilding the graphs. With Mac Office 2004, running under Rosetta, Excel had the whole thing done in a couple of seconds.
Everything you said is still personal opinion - no one is saying Microsoft was "first" with any of C#'s features, but its damn nice having those features all in one language. Thats what Microsoft brings to the party - feature wise, C# and.Net is ahead of Java, a language I personally dislike but don't expect you to dislike.
C# and.Net also tend to be very stable targets - new features get rolled into new platform versions, old platform versions remain as they were. You can still develop.Net 1 based applications with no issues, so wheres the problem with MS "changing C# at a whim"? Changes they make don't break anything.
You are welcome to your opinions, but your presentation seems to require me to agree with your opinions.
How much is a full review of the network, from the bare bones upward, including reflashing all firmware, and checking all servers going to cost in a city wide network?
Some of us do and some of us do consider Childs to be guilty. He acted like a prick and suffered for it, but imho he was guilty of what he was found guilty of.
And also, what has this got to do with Miguel "not seeing this coming"? The thing people were beating him over the head with was the theory that Microsoft would step in and sue people left, right and centre. This isn't that, this is Mono's supporting company failing of its own accord, it has nothing to do with the viability of Mono.
Yup, because no aircraft controlled by steel wires has ever crashed, had a malfunction, had a gearing jam, had a wire snap, had any number of other mechanical issues.
Actually, I think you will find that the copyright holder is *not* beholden to any license they choose for you - I can require you to distribute under the GPL, but never give you the source code and thus bar you from distributing at all, I'm not required to give you the source code at all.
Why does how much it cost have anything to do with how well it sells? Fine, World of Goo has a better ROI (maybe), but thats not a selling point to me the gamer.
I don't care how many copies a publisher needs to sell to break even, I care about the game - and the figures behind sales is what supports that.
I bought one of the first Humble Bundles, but I didn't rate any of the games that highly, so I paid what I thought the bundle was worth.
Of course, as a Windows gamer, I don't have to take what I can get, I have a huge range of games out there to pick and choose from to entertain me should I so wish to buy them - so the Humble Bundle was worth less to me than to a Linux user, whose selection of games is far more limiting than my own.
I can see that being a big influence on why Linux users paid more - its worth more to them.
So the doctor doing their job is a perfect example of why people do not trust doctors? Give me a fucking break - this woman wasted the time of half a dozen people, because she "didn't trust any of the doctors".
Your post is in-fact a *perfect* example in itself, but not one you want to make - its a perfect example of why there is a barrier in the form of a doctor between a patient and any treatment. The doctor is trained, has experience and has the backup to call on if needed - they don't make judgements in a vacuum, they make judgements based on a heck of a lot of things that the parent doesn't have access to - WHICH IS WHY THE PARENT TOOK THE FUCKING KID TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I'm sorry, but there is far too much "I don't believe the judgement of a professional" in todays society, because apparently we all know best.
Again, like in my example of the brain tumour where the actual chance of your headache being a tumour is so low that you cannot screen everyone that is complaining of a headache, the chances of a kid having an xray that shows up something when the kid has not had a negative response to any of the physical examinations that my wife would have put them through, its in-fact just as small - if you were to xray every fucking kid that comes in with a needy parent, then the hospitals would be jam packed with mother and children every single day. If you are going to give blood tests to every one that wants one, then you are going to have to increase the capacity of the testing clinics by several orders of magnitude. And you know what? The number of tests that would come back showing something relevant to the patients perceived condition would be infinitesimally small. Yeah, thats a great waste of money that could be put to much better use.
You aren't getting tests just to put your own neurosis to rest, either trust the professional who sees thousands of cases like yours a month, or fuck off. Your choice, but you are the problem not the solution. Your "parental terror" is your problem, the kid is the doctors - the doctor is not there to treat you.
Today I can work 38 hours a week for a decent living wage, and expect to live well into my 80s, probably into my 90s and with a decent chance of seeing 100. My great grandfather had to work 80 hours a week for a poor mans wage, the entire household had to contribute to earnings and he was lucky to see his 70s.
I think we have come on leaps and bounds since my grandfathers day - I'm not sure how you could say otherwise.
The problem is (aside from Slashdots fucked commenting system) is that this patient DID NOT BELIEVE ANYONE SHE SPOKE TO despite them all giving her exactly the same advice and information. And in doing so, she wasted her GPs time, an A&E doctors time, an A&E consultants time, a paediatric doctors time and god knows how many peoples time at the other A&E department. And all of those people have waiting lists, admitted patients and other things that could have been handled if she had not rejected the advice given to her at an earlier stage.
At no point was she given "the brush off", her original GP appointment was half an hour (as opposed to 8 minutes target time), she asked questions and received answers.
So what should be done? Give the kid something useless that would just reinforce the behaviour pattern? Yeah, thats a good idea.
They get told that - but they don't get it prescribed unless they are on income support. The prescription charge here in the UK is north of 7GBP an item, while rehydration salts cost a couple of quid for half a dozen sachets.
But D&V victims usually do not need rehydration drinks, they need to work the bug through their system - most people are nowhere near dehydrated when they think they are.
in the UK for the NHS, and her position on this has always been that patients want you to diagnose them with something, and if you do not then they will re-present either to another doctor at your practice very quickly, or at the local accident and emergency room. And last month she was provided with the best example of this ever...
Ever since I met her, she has complained to me (in a friendly way) that people present to the A&E (she was working A&E minors at the time) with conditions that 30 years ago would have been treated at home, but because the home remedy and care experience isn't being passed down these days, current generations of parents do not know how to care for minor conditions any more and are quick to panic.
One example of this is D&V (diarrhea and vomiting - generally any tummy bug that causes you to crap loads and throw up loads) - patients, or the parents of young patients, will regularly show up to A&E with D&V and expect the doctors to do something. If they were to be admitted, it would remove a bed from use for other more serious reasons, and the only thing they would get would be intravenous saline, and thats not even guaranteed. Seriously, would you rather be crapping and throwing up at home in privacy, or in a hospital in public? Do it at home folks.
Anyhow, on with the example - in this case, she was working as a GP at a practice and a mother presented her 3 year old child with D&V, my wife kindly explained that everything was fine, the kid was not in undue distress, they don't tend to worry that the kids not eating or drinking for at least 5 days, and it was just a case of waiting it out. After a lengthy consultation, the mother and child left.
Four hours later, my wife switched to do a locum shift at the local A&E department - and who was her second patient...? The mother and child. The child hadn't presented any more serious symptoms and had not declined in condition, the mother just wanted someone to do something. So my wife, who had suffered the embarresment of calling the patient in and realising why they were here (the parents faces went bright red when they realised who the doctor was that was calling them apparently), had the job of telling them exactly the same thing again.
To put their minds at ease, she called her senior in who explained the same thing. And then just to top it off, had a paediatrics doctor come down to again reassure them that the only things they could do was to allow the D&V to run its course. After a six hour period in A&E, the parents and child left with no treatment, no medication and essentially nothing gained.
And then my wife finds out, a day later, that the parents had driven the twenty miles to the next major hospitals A&E department and done the same thing there - to be told the same thing and sent home in exactly the same manner.
No names and no identifiable information because I don't know any - my wife is very good at venting but retaining the pertinent private details so even I can't identify the patients.
Long story short, the patients are more of an issue these days than the medical carers - patients thing the doctor is there to treat them and damn them if they don't.
Plus, of course, its easier to overtreat for a minor condition than it is to defend the non-treatment in court for the one case in a million that goes from "minor, non-worrying condition" to "death or loss of limb". One of the things my wife is frightened about is the one in a million case where a reoccuring headache is actually the brain tumour that everyone suspects - but she cannot refer all thirty patients a week who come in with that complaint to the specialist simply because the money isn't there.
Slashdot Mirror
They could have flown commercially if they were "concerned". But as Mark Cuban says, they bought a plane, why shouldn't they use it?
More to the point, this is a private person doing something privately with their earned fortune, its none of the WSJs business.
Multicast only works if the same movie is started at the same time by two or more people - the chances of that...?
Multicast made sense for scheduled broadcasts, but not for on-demand.
I'm not sure what you intended to put forward with that wiki link, but its got nothing to do with this - the Wickard v. Filburn is an open and shut case, wheat production was restricted, the law didn't say the wheat had to be for sale for the restriction to apply, and thus the restriction applies to the farmer in this case. It also makes sense - if the farmer could not produce enough for himself under the restriction, then he would have had to buy more on the open market, thus creating demand, and achieving the intended effect of the restriction law.
Doesn't apply to this case - there is no restriction in law on self produced and self distributed content.
You do realise that none of those things apply to content that you create and share yourself? Nothing will ever outlaw that.
Name one historical example of an industry that has been "surpassed by newer technologies" where the product of that industry was still very much in demand? I doubt you can come up with one...
I would beg to differ with regard to Rosetta not working with anything complicated, and I have a perfect example - Mac Office 2004 on a Core Duo Macbook Pro, verses iWork Numbers on the same platform.
I had a spreadsheet with about 200 data points, of which I wanted to make three graphs - in Numbers, running natively on Intel, it dragged along for tens of minutes when rebuilding the graphs. With Mac Office 2004, running under Rosetta, Excel had the whole thing done in a couple of seconds.
I haven't used Numbers since.
Everything you said is still personal opinion - no one is saying Microsoft was "first" with any of C#'s features, but its damn nice having those features all in one language. Thats what Microsoft brings to the party - feature wise, C# and .Net is ahead of Java, a language I personally dislike but don't expect you to dislike.
C# and .Net also tend to be very stable targets - new features get rolled into new platform versions, old platform versions remain as they were. You can still develop .Net 1 based applications with no issues, so wheres the problem with MS "changing C# at a whim"? Changes they make don't break anything.
You are welcome to your opinions, but your presentation seems to require me to agree with your opinions.
How much is a full review of the network, from the bare bones upward, including reflashing all firmware, and checking all servers going to cost in a city wide network?
$1.5m would be cheap for that.
Some of us do and some of us do consider Childs to be guilty. He acted like a prick and suffered for it, but imho he was guilty of what he was found guilty of.
Ximian was a company founded by Miguel in 1999.
And also, what has this got to do with Miguel "not seeing this coming"? The thing people were beating him over the head with was the theory that Microsoft would step in and sue people left, right and centre. This isn't that, this is Mono's supporting company failing of its own accord, it has nothing to do with the viability of Mono.
Surely thats a matter of opinion?
Not to actually answer anything in your post, but my current laptop screen is 1920 x 1200. Macbook Pro 17" April 2010. Hardly exotic :)
Yup, because no aircraft controlled by steel wires has ever crashed, had a malfunction, had a gearing jam, had a wire snap, had any number of other mechanical issues.
Actually, I think you will find that the copyright holder is *not* beholden to any license they choose for you - I can require you to distribute under the GPL, but never give you the source code and thus bar you from distributing at all, I'm not required to give you the source code at all.
Tomorrow, you, in your breakfast cereal.
Talk about cheapening the award, if it had any value in the first place...
For the same reason the US spies on Chinese industry - to see where the competition is at.
So, basically, because you don't like them?
Why does how much it cost have anything to do with how well it sells? Fine, World of Goo has a better ROI (maybe), but thats not a selling point to me the gamer.
I don't care how many copies a publisher needs to sell to break even, I care about the game - and the figures behind sales is what supports that.
I bought one of the first Humble Bundles, but I didn't rate any of the games that highly, so I paid what I thought the bundle was worth.
Of course, as a Windows gamer, I don't have to take what I can get, I have a huge range of games out there to pick and choose from to entertain me should I so wish to buy them - so the Humble Bundle was worth less to me than to a Linux user, whose selection of games is far more limiting than my own.
I can see that being a big influence on why Linux users paid more - its worth more to them.
So the doctor doing their job is a perfect example of why people do not trust doctors? Give me a fucking break - this woman wasted the time of half a dozen people, because she "didn't trust any of the doctors".
Your post is in-fact a *perfect* example in itself, but not one you want to make - its a perfect example of why there is a barrier in the form of a doctor between a patient and any treatment. The doctor is trained, has experience and has the backup to call on if needed - they don't make judgements in a vacuum, they make judgements based on a heck of a lot of things that the parent doesn't have access to - WHICH IS WHY THE PARENT TOOK THE FUCKING KID TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I'm sorry, but there is far too much "I don't believe the judgement of a professional" in todays society, because apparently we all know best.
Again, like in my example of the brain tumour where the actual chance of your headache being a tumour is so low that you cannot screen everyone that is complaining of a headache, the chances of a kid having an xray that shows up something when the kid has not had a negative response to any of the physical examinations that my wife would have put them through, its in-fact just as small - if you were to xray every fucking kid that comes in with a needy parent, then the hospitals would be jam packed with mother and children every single day. If you are going to give blood tests to every one that wants one, then you are going to have to increase the capacity of the testing clinics by several orders of magnitude. And you know what? The number of tests that would come back showing something relevant to the patients perceived condition would be infinitesimally small. Yeah, thats a great waste of money that could be put to much better use.
You aren't getting tests just to put your own neurosis to rest, either trust the professional who sees thousands of cases like yours a month, or fuck off. Your choice, but you are the problem not the solution. Your "parental terror" is your problem, the kid is the doctors - the doctor is not there to treat you.
Today I can work 38 hours a week for a decent living wage, and expect to live well into my 80s, probably into my 90s and with a decent chance of seeing 100. My great grandfather had to work 80 hours a week for a poor mans wage, the entire household had to contribute to earnings and he was lucky to see his 70s.
I think we have come on leaps and bounds since my grandfathers day - I'm not sure how you could say otherwise.
The problem is (aside from Slashdots fucked commenting system) is that this patient DID NOT BELIEVE ANYONE SHE SPOKE TO despite them all giving her exactly the same advice and information. And in doing so, she wasted her GPs time, an A&E doctors time, an A&E consultants time, a paediatric doctors time and god knows how many peoples time at the other A&E department. And all of those people have waiting lists, admitted patients and other things that could have been handled if she had not rejected the advice given to her at an earlier stage.
At no point was she given "the brush off", her original GP appointment was half an hour (as opposed to 8 minutes target time), she asked questions and received answers.
So what should be done? Give the kid something useless that would just reinforce the behaviour pattern? Yeah, thats a good idea.
At what point does she become a time waster?
They get told that - but they don't get it prescribed unless they are on income support. The prescription charge here in the UK is north of 7GBP an item, while rehydration salts cost a couple of quid for half a dozen sachets.
But D&V victims usually do not need rehydration drinks, they need to work the bug through their system - most people are nowhere near dehydrated when they think they are.
in the UK for the NHS, and her position on this has always been that patients want you to diagnose them with something, and if you do not then they will re-present either to another doctor at your practice very quickly, or at the local accident and emergency room. And last month she was provided with the best example of this ever...
Ever since I met her, she has complained to me (in a friendly way) that people present to the A&E (she was working A&E minors at the time) with conditions that 30 years ago would have been treated at home, but because the home remedy and care experience isn't being passed down these days, current generations of parents do not know how to care for minor conditions any more and are quick to panic.
One example of this is D&V (diarrhea and vomiting - generally any tummy bug that causes you to crap loads and throw up loads) - patients, or the parents of young patients, will regularly show up to A&E with D&V and expect the doctors to do something. If they were to be admitted, it would remove a bed from use for other more serious reasons, and the only thing they would get would be intravenous saline, and thats not even guaranteed. Seriously, would you rather be crapping and throwing up at home in privacy, or in a hospital in public? Do it at home folks.
Anyhow, on with the example - in this case, she was working as a GP at a practice and a mother presented her 3 year old child with D&V, my wife kindly explained that everything was fine, the kid was not in undue distress, they don't tend to worry that the kids not eating or drinking for at least 5 days, and it was just a case of waiting it out. After a lengthy consultation, the mother and child left.
Four hours later, my wife switched to do a locum shift at the local A&E department - and who was her second patient...? The mother and child. The child hadn't presented any more serious symptoms and had not declined in condition, the mother just wanted someone to do something. So my wife, who had suffered the embarresment of calling the patient in and realising why they were here (the parents faces went bright red when they realised who the doctor was that was calling them apparently), had the job of telling them exactly the same thing again.
To put their minds at ease, she called her senior in who explained the same thing. And then just to top it off, had a paediatrics doctor come down to again reassure them that the only things they could do was to allow the D&V to run its course. After a six hour period in A&E, the parents and child left with no treatment, no medication and essentially nothing gained.
And then my wife finds out, a day later, that the parents had driven the twenty miles to the next major hospitals A&E department and done the same thing there - to be told the same thing and sent home in exactly the same manner.
No names and no identifiable information because I don't know any - my wife is very good at venting but retaining the pertinent private details so even I can't identify the patients.
Long story short, the patients are more of an issue these days than the medical carers - patients thing the doctor is there to treat them and damn them if they don't.
Plus, of course, its easier to overtreat for a minor condition than it is to defend the non-treatment in court for the one case in a million that goes from "minor, non-worrying condition" to "death or loss of limb". One of the things my wife is frightened about is the one in a million case where a reoccuring headache is actually the brain tumour that everyone suspects - but she cannot refer all thirty patients a week who come in with that complaint to the specialist simply because the money isn't there.