Yes, but that underfunds the projects. You can see this clearly when Microsoft can sell lots of buggy software and of the best OSS developers can't earn a decent salary.
I'd love to see a new license, that could be called the fGPL. That would be the "Funded GPL". To be able to use fGPLd programs you'll HAVE to contribute some small amount of money to the fGPL foundation. You'll not be required to pay for any individual fGPL software, just a plain simple yearly $10 or $20 charge. And you will be able to distribute exactly where that money goes, among all the different projects. If you can't pay $20 a year it will be no problem, just a bit penalty: all fGPL software would be free as in beer once the year passes (old releases).
The money paid to the developers would only cover salaries and some expenses that are needing to continue developement. So if any proyect gets over-funded, you'll be noticed that you must reasign some of your credits.
It'd always be free as in freedom. We only need to bring some beer for that to happen. It'll also kill the anti OSS argument that the system is for comunists or anti-american. I know that is FUD, but does your representatives know that? It will also kill most of the FUD targeted at OSS and will also bust developement to unknown levels.
What do we need for this to happen?
To have the Linux Kernel, the Red Hat distro, mplayer, X and gcc (for example) adopting the fGPL for the next releases. After that, we'll see most every GPLd program adopting the fGPL. After that, you'll start to see how much sense it made to pay $20 a year. And even the ones that can't pay (if any) will be able to use the software (though 1 year old, but their hardware si severla years old for sure).
This is my opinion. I'd gladly pay the $20, as long as EVERYONE ELSE pays their $20. That's why we don't see many donations now: because you have this filling everyone else is just waiting for a fool like you to contribute to project X in order to save it.
What's wrong with that? We are putting too much pressure on the goodwill of few talented individuals. That's great for us doing nothing but using them, but we need to realize this "open source" model is not only about the "model" but about actual developers deciding to do things because of the pleasure it gives them. It's about choosing what you like and having a strong dedication based on pride (I can do it) and motivation. That's what they are more productive. The projects are also their "childs" and theyr curriculum.
But at some point and in some markets it's just not good enough. And you end up having no alternative than a propietary product.
I believe the problem is that distributed is fine, but distributed funding is a complete mess full of duplication and high costs. It also poses the free-riding problem.
We should all pay $20 a year to a single entity and have the change to distribute that money among projects. Companies should contribute more. Independant developers would be automatically paid $20 perpetually and automatically used every year to secure their membership.
It'll still save us hundred of dollars a year and the sources will be ours to look, modify an redistribute. Money would go where our mouth is.
That would mean killing free as in beer to save our free as in freedom. And cheap beer it will be. If you paid you $20, you'll have access to all the OSS in the world.
But the OSS comunity sees this kind of proposals as trolling of flamebaits or maybe just stupid ideas proved wrong.
Asuming 100 milion users around the globe paying $20, this would pump 2 billion bucks a year for your apache server, your mplayer media player, your favorite gui, that app that needs be done asap and your loved card's enhanced drivers. This money'd go directly to developers salaries: no marketing expenses. Arguing we are better of paying nothing is just nonsense. Because for $20 you'll get a 100 millions greater value. You may think OSS already works fine: it does! But that doesn't mean it's not completely underfunded. We need more of this, not less or even the same.
This would be Democracy at it's best. But for that to happen we need to change the say we see open source. It should be "almost free as in almost free beer, free as in freedom, and free as in I can use it, modify it and distribute it".
Or worst yet, what if you are transfering YOUR media to another computer via email, ftp or whatever protocol you may like. How would they know?
What will happen with sites that offer you to store YOUR music on the net so you can listen to it from anywhere (I haven't checked in a while if they made this ilegal).
The problem here is they think we are using computer for things we shouln't be usin computers. So they now want a computer to be a non-computer: DRM and Palladium are the exact oposites of a computer. A computer computes, it's that easy. What they want is a general porpuse Media Player centrally controlled by MS or the goverment or even them.
Hey, but wait a second, these are OUR COMPUTERS, and NOT you MEDIA PLAYER! If they want to control their players they should provide them.
There's no solution to this problem. Either they fuck up the computer industry or they need to change their revenue model (and the politicias as well!).
They may get a higher salary now at the cost of lost jobs and lost productivity for US firms. I couldn't care less, they can do what they want, as long as there's no "software import" restrictions.
The thay we see them will be the day US techies have lost the edge (because now they export lots more than they import).
(BTW, where I live no company will even remotely offer you an MS Office suite. They just asume you have it. "You can always go to work at in the weekend if you like").
Either make the filesystem DB oriented, or let people use DBs. The flexibility of a DB on top of a filesystem is that you can keep the OS simple and extend it using whatever DB you want to use, or multiple DBs or no DB at all.
The benefit of a DB based filesystem (direction of ReiserFS4) are also great. It may be the case that you'll not need a separate DB (but maybe you will, if you need other features!).
MS going to a DB filesystem will make our lives more difficult for sure. We just need to way and see, but that's my guess. And they can make it work, because the can force a single DB filesystem you cannot avoid.
On the other hand, Linux will probably have options for DB filesystem, but as they will not be widespread (and there may be a lot of incompatible DB fs) for a long time, you can't sucessfully base aan app on a specific DB fs beign at the core.
What if someone with some free time and willing to donate some work would put a website that:
1 - calculated OOS installed based (using their same methods or the ones that'd fit us best) 2- estimated a price similar to one of closed source alternative in other plataforms, that achieved the same tasks 3 - calculate estimated total sales in a BSA likewise fashion
We would then be able to say:
* How much money corporations and customers are saving by using OSS How much productivity is OSS contributing to the US economy
* How much taxes is OSS producing (based to the fact that 35% of all savings turn into Income Tax + all the indirect taxes collected due to the 65% remaining income beign either used for consumption or investment)
Someone could contribute another posibles good uses of these figures, to fight back BSA arguments and better inform our politicians and the media.
Well, BSA outcry is an old one. They argue that OSS may lead to fewer jobs, fewer taxes, smaller economy. That's complete BS and a lie.
Resources are employed. If you are not coding Windows X for the 10th time in this decade, you are doing something else. What you ALWAYS have to ask yourself is: are we doing this the best way we can? If you can do that something will less resources, it means you are incresing productivity. Are those lost jobs? No for crist sake. Their lost taxes just aren't such, what they really are:
- More taxes, as people can do more things than before (more productivity, more goods and services from the same resources). More profits = more income tax. More goods = more sales tax. - More jobs, because increased productivity = increased revenues. And that means increased investments (people put money where profits are) and thus increased employment.
And I don't have to mention that a Monopoly will always restrict quantities produced and thus less taxes will go to the goverment. Also, big coporations has moremeans to elude taxes (and this can be statistically proved).
Productivity drives economic growth. No matter how much money is spent in software, what matters is how productive is the software market. And that means competition al low cost. What good is software product if ALL productivity derived must be paid back to their producers?
It's like having the Railroad innovation, and pricing tickets at a price equal to the cost of horse-transport: nobody wins (not even the goverment as no productivity is gained) except the railroad owners.
Yes. Also, people lets Word before they even find htier first job. Of course, that may mean the use Word because that's what their employer will value.
No. Your boss uses Word and probably has a pirated copy at home. Every office runs Word because they know employees (high or low rank) will be able t pirate Office to make the homework.
So that leads me to the conclusion that if NOBODY ever had even the slightest chance of getting an Office without actually paying for it, you'll have like (my guess) 80% of the computer-litetare US population outright complaining about this overpriced piece of crap being imposed to them.
BUT OF COURSE... MS knows they can easily charge "corporation X" and not "citizen X", so they don't ever "audit" peoples homes. But they will when they evaluate they can get value added from it (ie: discounted cash flow triggered by anti-piracy@home [including all side effects such as riots, bad PR, etc.]). If they haven't done so, it's because they are better off charging corps than everyone.
And you can't (sucessfully) argue that Openoffice would greatly benefit from BSA starting an large scale antipiracy crusade at companies AND home users.
Problem is you need to annoy just _1_ guy to get your post downgraded and labeled. Do not assume everyone thinks your post is flamebait just because it's modded as such.
But probably nobody will even read you post because _1_ guy didn't like it. Metamod needs to be timely (which is not) and focus on downgrades. Yes, a non-troll non-flamebait post downgraded is WORST than a false positive (overrated post).
Anyway, usually adding a "IHMO, blah blah" or "In my opinion, this that. Others will disagree" reminds moderator that's just an opinion. Not like you are stating the ABSOLUTE and only ONE truth about the subject.
a signal that when you brain processes, produces the "haha" reaction (and there must be an clear explanation as of why).
Just a clarification. The difference between this an a "detect humor" => "trigger HAHAH" is that the former must not be a consecuence of how the brain works. You don't have a humor valve that searches for "humor patterns".
Humor should be a consecuence of how the brain works, and not a gland or "program" itself.
That leads me to though that if you think you understand the human brain (synapse level) and produce a robot, and it doesn't have a sense of humor, then you failed. It's a fake, we don't think that way!
(2.) I was thinking about Alice one day (fantasizing perhaps even) and I realized that a week point with such intelligence will be humor. How would one make a chatbot capable of understanding humor? Humor is off-the-cuff, it plays on the moment, it thwarts Grice's maxims. How do we cope with this?
For that to happen, you'd have to understand humor, and why does it makes sense. Or why humor is something at all.
Or you could just try to make a program to "detect" phrases which resemble humor and then trigger a "HAHAHAHAH" echo. This is what Alice would do.
It's like a humor impaired guy that's with a client. If he detects the stupid client has made another of those stupid "supposedly" funny jokes, then say HHAHAHA and grim: that's not humor. Humor is the real internal combustion that travels your spinal cord, triggered by proceesing words, or even better, a signal that when you brain processes, produces the "haha" reaction (and there must be an clear explanation as of why).
No insight can come from Alice. It's a nice experiment on linguistics. We need to understand the brain to know humanity.
Until then, it's a parlor machine. Or would you rather believe a robot is a human worker, because it can assemble some goods in a factory?
Compuer will be human the day they cry and smile or get curious, etc. Not the day we program them to act like they are happy, sad, etc.
Bottom line: The AI must _trully_ BE and only then BEHAVE, and NOT the inverse. Can they trully be before behaving? Alice behaves as a human, but is not human. Same with the robot-kid in Spielberg's AI. It's scary, because maybe that's just what we are: non beigns, just behaveour!
I don't know if it can be shutdown easily (legal threats). They don't close it, because MS and any big player know that, if possible at all (probably), the legal threating has to come at the right time (when the have installed the monopoly).
And mplayer can play.asf, but many sites don punt a link to an.asf. They use other extensions an a redirection protocol or somethin that prevents most content from beign played correctly (i speak from my experience with WPM Server based radios).
What if it's easier, cheaper to stream (Server) under Linux + Real Server. Many companies will inmediatelly adopt it.
If many sources use it (and it will be in their own best interest, after all MS is the player that can take the MOST bucks from companies pockets, and so it's always the worst choice (if OSS erans critical mass)) then it will "just work".
And Real will make a short term profit and maybe a larger profit in the future. A decent, honest profit I mean.
The alternative is:
1) Lose market share 2) Lose sales 3) Lose capital 4) No investment 5) goto 1 (5 iterations) 6) file for Chapter 11 and sell IP rights for a few bucks
OSS is the price to pay if you are not in love with the Monopoly. And even then, when the Monopoly doesn't need you anymore, you are toasted ("extend").
[sarcasm] Ok, I buy it. Now show me some Cosa that can emulate my Linux Kernel, my Galeon browser and my Mplayer media player (or another tool/application at your choice) so that I can see which one's best. [/sarcasm]
Algorithms do not make programs fail. Bad logic makes them crash and be unstable. The HIGHER the language level, the lower the failure rate and the faster/cheaper the implementation is. I'd love to see an OS developed as in a DSP fashion:)
The sign of a really GOOD airplane is that it then forgives you and doesn't splatter you all over the terrain.
Good! Now MSCEs can defend the US in the IT and military fieldsby simply attending a 3 day intensive training seminar. As an expected bonus I can mention the HUGE savings in TOD. Oh god, the gift that keeps giving!:)
Then there's aliasing, which I would rather not have, thank you very much. This is the effect that you can see in old westerns in particular, when the chuck wagon is moving forward but its wheels are rotating backwards. I can't say if a higher frame rate would help here, but it can't hurt.
It could only help, but at high frames rates. At 24 fps, you get to see the pattern the camera saw. At higher the frame rates, you get to see the patter YOUR eye would have seen. That is, everyone has it's own INTERNAL fps count. The brain processes retinal information in a discrete way and it may vary a little amoung people.
So yes, it would definetly help. 100000000 frames per second would be better than 1000 fps. Nobody will notice at that point for sure:) but it would be closer to the "looking through a window" experience.
Anyway, beyong 100 FPS i think it's pointless, and we'd be better of trying to produce "3D film" (where you can actually "focus" on different subjects at playback). But even then, non-3D film has an advanta: the pre-focus for you what's important in the directors view. Adding 3D features can then HURT a movie. More freedom implies you get to see what you want and not what the director wanted. That's ok, but it's a different genre I think (more closer to playing a FPS game than watching a movie:-)
Some day people will realize these issues are important! (specially, sci-fi 3D TV praisers:-)
A 3 room appartment rental in a beatufull area (top area in Buenos Aires) is NOW about (pesos) $700. (pesos) $700 is about US$ 190. Before the devaluation, that same appartment had a cost of about US$1500.
Can you rent a nice appartment in NY, with 3 rooms for US$ 190-.? NO?
The usually CORRECT way to measure real exchange rate, and a fairly simple one is to compare McDonnald's prices. Now here a combo is US$1,25. So US$ 10 would be 7,5 meals.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but that underfunds the projects. You can see this clearly when Microsoft can sell lots of buggy software and of the best OSS developers can't earn a decent salary.
I'd love to see a new license, that could be called the fGPL. That would be the "Funded GPL". To be able to use fGPLd programs you'll HAVE to contribute some small amount of money to the fGPL foundation. You'll not be required to pay for any individual fGPL software, just a plain simple yearly $10 or $20 charge. And you will be able to distribute exactly where that money goes, among all the different projects. If you can't pay $20 a year it will be no problem, just a bit penalty: all fGPL software would be free as in beer once the year passes (old releases).
The money paid to the developers would only cover salaries and some expenses that are needing to continue developement. So if any proyect gets over-funded, you'll be noticed that you must reasign some of your credits.
It'd always be free as in freedom. We only need to bring some beer for that to happen. It'll also kill the anti OSS argument that the system is for comunists or anti-american. I know that is FUD, but does your representatives know that? It will also kill most of the FUD targeted at OSS and will also bust developement to unknown levels.
What do we need for this to happen?
To have the Linux Kernel, the Red Hat distro, mplayer, X and gcc (for example) adopting the fGPL for the next releases. After that, we'll see most every GPLd program adopting the fGPL. After that, you'll start to see how much sense it made to pay $20 a year. And even the ones that can't pay (if any) will be able to use the software (though 1 year old, but their hardware si severla years old for sure).
This is my opinion. I'd gladly pay the $20, as long as EVERYONE ELSE pays their $20. That's why we don't see many donations now: because you have this filling everyone else is just waiting for a fool like you to contribute to project X in order to save it.
Because for $20 you'll get a 100 millions greater value.
Wrong figure. You'll get 100 million greater value times this year. As time passes by, your boost will be 100 million x years since model switch.
And probably, in 10 years, you'll have like 700 or more contributors.
What's wrong with that? We are putting too much pressure on the goodwill of few talented individuals. That's great for us doing nothing but using them, but we need to realize this "open source" model is not only about the "model" but about actual developers deciding to do things because of the pleasure it gives them. It's about choosing what you like and having a strong dedication based on pride (I can do it) and motivation. That's what they are more productive. The projects are also their "childs" and theyr curriculum.
But at some point and in some markets it's just not good enough. And you end up having no alternative than a propietary product.
I believe the problem is that distributed is fine, but distributed funding is a complete mess full of duplication and high costs. It also poses the free-riding problem.
We should all pay $20 a year to a single entity and have the change to distribute that money among projects. Companies should contribute more. Independant developers would be automatically paid $20 perpetually and automatically used every year to secure their membership.
It'll still save us hundred of dollars a year and the sources will be ours to look, modify an redistribute. Money would go where our mouth is.
That would mean killing free as in beer to save our free as in freedom. And cheap beer it will be. If you paid you $20, you'll have access to all the OSS in the world.
But the OSS comunity sees this kind of proposals as trolling of flamebaits or maybe just stupid ideas proved wrong.
Asuming 100 milion users around the globe paying $20, this would pump 2 billion bucks a year for your apache server, your mplayer media player, your favorite gui, that app that needs be done asap and your loved card's enhanced drivers. This money'd go directly to developers salaries: no marketing expenses. Arguing we are better of paying nothing is just nonsense. Because for $20 you'll get a 100 millions greater value. You may think OSS already works fine: it does! But that doesn't mean it's not completely underfunded. We need more of this, not less or even the same.
This would be Democracy at it's best. But for that to happen we need to change the say we see open source. It should be "almost free as in almost free beer, free as in freedom, and free as in I can use it, modify it and distribute it".
Or worst yet, what if you are transfering YOUR media to another computer via email, ftp or whatever protocol you may like. How would they know?
What will happen with sites that offer you to store YOUR music on the net so you can listen to it from anywhere (I haven't checked in a while if they made this ilegal).
The problem here is they think we are using computer for things we shouln't be usin computers. So they now want a computer to be a non-computer: DRM and Palladium are the exact oposites of a computer. A computer computes, it's that easy. What they want is a general porpuse Media Player centrally controlled by MS or the goverment or even them.
Hey, but wait a second, these are OUR COMPUTERS, and NOT you MEDIA PLAYER! If they want to control their players they should provide them.
There's no solution to this problem. Either they fuck up the computer industry or they need to change their revenue model (and the politicias as well!).
They may get a higher salary now at the cost of lost jobs and lost productivity for US firms. I couldn't care less, they can do what they want, as long as there's no "software import" restrictions.
The thay we see them will be the day US techies have lost the edge (because now they export lots more than they import).
They have figured by now that if they allow interoperability, then everyone will just use messenger. It comes bundled.
:) (half-kidding) ...
... :(
AIM Non-interoperability at least means that you will pay a price for surrendering to MS lazy practices
Side note: my sister and my associate have just installed messenger
They ALWAYS do the right thing when they do not control a market. They are at the embrace stage!
What about college?
(BTW, where I live no company will even remotely offer you an MS Office suite. They just asume you have it. "You can always go to work at in the weekend if you like").
Either make the filesystem DB oriented, or let people use DBs. The flexibility of a DB on top of a filesystem is that you can keep the OS simple and extend it using whatever DB you want to use, or multiple DBs or no DB at all.
The benefit of a DB based filesystem (direction of ReiserFS4) are also great. It may be the case that you'll not need a separate DB (but maybe you will, if you need other features!).
MS going to a DB filesystem will make our lives more difficult for sure. We just need to way and see, but that's my guess. And they can make it work, because the can force a single DB filesystem you cannot avoid.
On the other hand, Linux will probably have options for DB filesystem, but as they will not be widespread (and there may be a lot of incompatible DB fs) for a long time, you can't sucessfully base aan app on a specific DB fs beign at the core.
This my semi-uneducated opinion of course.
Yes, i know a little. Problem is I typed it in a hurry. Mostly typos and dislexia, and some errors :(
Rading is easier than writing though (non-native languages at least)
Fede
What if someone with some free time and willing to donate some work would put a website that:
1 - calculated OOS installed based (using their same methods or the ones that'd fit us best)
2- estimated a price similar to one of closed source alternative in other plataforms, that achieved the same tasks
3 - calculate estimated total sales in a BSA likewise fashion
We would then be able to say:
* How much money corporations and customers are saving by using OSS
How much productivity is OSS contributing to the US economy
* How much taxes is OSS producing (based to the fact that 35% of all savings turn into Income Tax + all the indirect taxes collected due to the 65% remaining income beign either used for consumption or investment)
Someone could contribute another posibles good uses of these figures, to fight back BSA arguments and better inform our politicians and the media.
Mhhh, nah, they used the short version, as in:
:)
stage 1: Post biased annual piracy statistics in media
stage 2: PROFIT!!!
It's much easier than the usuall plan, though a bit boring
Well, BSA outcry is an old one. They argue that OSS may lead to fewer jobs, fewer taxes, smaller economy. That's complete BS and a lie.
Resources are employed. If you are not coding Windows X for the 10th time in this decade, you are doing something else. What you ALWAYS have to ask yourself is: are we doing this the best way we can? If you can do that something will less resources, it means you are incresing productivity. Are those lost jobs? No for crist sake. Their lost taxes just aren't such, what they really are:
- More taxes, as people can do more things than before (more productivity, more goods and services from the same resources). More profits = more income tax. More goods = more sales tax.
- More jobs, because increased productivity = increased revenues. And that means increased investments (people put money where profits are) and thus increased employment.
And I don't have to mention that a Monopoly will always restrict quantities produced and thus less taxes will go to the goverment. Also, big coporations has moremeans to elude taxes (and this can be statistically proved).
Productivity drives economic growth. No matter how much money is spent in software, what matters is how productive is the software market. And that means competition al low cost. What good is software product if ALL productivity derived must be paid back to their producers?
It's like having the Railroad innovation, and pricing tickets at a price equal to the cost of horse-transport: nobody wins (not even the goverment as no productivity is gained) except the railroad owners.
Yes and No.
... MS knows they can easily charge "corporation X" and not "citizen X", so they don't ever "audit" peoples homes. But they will when they evaluate they can get value added from it (ie: discounted cash flow triggered by anti-piracy@home [including all side effects such as riots, bad PR, etc.]). If they haven't done so, it's because they are better off charging corps than everyone.
Yes. Also, people lets Word before they even find htier first job. Of course, that may mean the use Word because that's what their employer will value.
No. Your boss uses Word and probably has a pirated copy at home. Every office runs Word because they know employees (high or low rank) will be able t pirate Office to make the homework.
So that leads me to the conclusion that if NOBODY ever had even the slightest chance of getting an Office without actually paying for it, you'll have like (my guess) 80% of the computer-litetare US population outright complaining about this overpriced piece of crap being imposed to them.
BUT OF COURSE
And you can't (sucessfully) argue that Openoffice would greatly benefit from BSA starting an large scale antipiracy crusade at companies AND home users.
Problem is you need to annoy just _1_ guy to get your post downgraded and labeled. Do not assume everyone thinks your post is flamebait just because it's modded as such.
But probably nobody will even read you post because _1_ guy didn't like it. Metamod needs to be timely (which is not) and focus on downgrades. Yes, a non-troll non-flamebait post downgraded is WORST than a false positive (overrated post).
Anyway, usually adding a "IHMO, blah blah" or "In my opinion, this that. Others will disagree" reminds moderator that's just an opinion. Not like you are stating the ABSOLUTE and only ONE truth about the subject.
a signal that when you brain processes, produces the "haha" reaction (and there must be an clear explanation as of why).
Just a clarification. The difference between this an a "detect humor" => "trigger HAHAH" is that the former must not be a consecuence of how the brain works. You don't have a humor valve that searches for "humor patterns".
Humor should be a consecuence of how the brain works, and not a gland or "program" itself.
That leads me to though that if you think you understand the human brain (synapse level) and produce a robot, and it doesn't have a sense of humor, then you failed. It's a fake, we don't think that way!
(2.) I was thinking about Alice one day (fantasizing perhaps even) and I realized that a week point with such intelligence will be humor. How would one make a chatbot capable of understanding humor? Humor is off-the-cuff, it plays on the moment, it thwarts Grice's maxims. How do we cope with this?
For that to happen, you'd have to understand humor, and why does it makes sense. Or why humor is something at all.
Or you could just try to make a program to "detect" phrases which resemble humor and then trigger a "HAHAHAHAH" echo. This is what Alice would do.
It's like a humor impaired guy that's with a client. If he detects the stupid client has made another of those stupid "supposedly" funny jokes, then say HHAHAHA and grim: that's not humor. Humor is the real internal combustion that travels your spinal cord, triggered by proceesing words, or even better, a signal that when you brain processes, produces the "haha" reaction (and there must be an clear explanation as of why).
No insight can come from Alice. It's a nice experiment on linguistics. We need to understand the brain to know humanity.
Until then, it's a parlor machine. Or would you rather believe a robot is a human worker, because it can assemble some goods in a factory?
Compuer will be human the day they cry and smile or get curious, etc. Not the day we program them to act like they are happy, sad, etc.
Bottom line:
The AI must _trully_ BE and only then BEHAVE, and NOT the inverse. Can they trully be before behaving? Alice behaves as a human, but is not human. Same with the robot-kid in Spielberg's AI. It's scary, because maybe that's just what we are: non beigns, just behaveour!
I am always offered Metamod, so I can only keep asking when I see something I believe is insightfull.
.mono module for Apache 2.0. What if 60% of the web used .mono? :) It could be amazing (though I doubt that can happen).
I'd like to see a default
I don't know if it can be shutdown easily (legal threats). They don't close it, because MS and any big player know that, if possible at all (probably), the legal threating has to come at the right time (when the have installed the monopoly).
.asf, but many sites don punt a link to an .asf. They use other extensions an a redirection protocol or somethin that prevents most content from beign played correctly (i speak from my experience with WPM Server based radios).
And mplayer can play
What if it's easier, cheaper to stream (Server) under Linux + Real Server. Many companies will inmediatelly adopt it.
If many sources use it (and it will be in their own best interest, after all MS is the player that can take the MOST bucks from companies pockets, and so it's always the worst choice (if OSS erans critical mass)) then it will "just work".
And Real will make a short term profit and maybe a larger profit in the future. A decent, honest profit I mean.
The alternative is:
1) Lose market share
2) Lose sales
3) Lose capital
4) No investment
5) goto 1 (5 iterations)
6) file for Chapter 11 and sell IP rights for a few bucks
OSS is the price to pay if you are not in love with the Monopoly. And even then, when the Monopoly doesn't need you anymore, you are toasted ("extend").
[sarcasm]
:)
Ok, I buy it. Now show me some Cosa that can emulate my Linux Kernel, my Galeon browser and my Mplayer media player (or another tool/application at your choice) so that I can see which one's best.
[/sarcasm]
Algorithms do not make programs fail. Bad logic makes them crash and be unstable. The HIGHER the language level, the lower the failure rate and the faster/cheaper the implementation is. I'd love to see an OS developed as in a DSP fashion
The sign of a really GOOD airplane is that it then forgives you and doesn't splatter you all over the terrain.
:)
Good! Now MSCEs can defend the US in the IT and military fieldsby simply attending a 3 day intensive training seminar. As an expected bonus I can mention the HUGE savings in TOD. Oh god, the gift that keeps giving!
(TOD = Total Cost of Defense)
Then there's aliasing, which I would rather not have, thank you very much. This is the effect that you can see in old westerns in particular, when the chuck wagon is moving forward but its wheels are rotating backwards. I can't say if a higher frame rate would help here, but it can't hurt.
:) but it would be closer to the "looking through a window" experience.
:-)
:-)
It could only help, but at high frames rates. At 24 fps, you get to see the pattern the camera saw. At higher the frame rates, you get to see the patter YOUR eye would have seen. That is, everyone has it's own INTERNAL fps count. The brain processes retinal information in a discrete way and it may vary a little amoung people.
So yes, it would definetly help. 100000000 frames per second would be better than 1000 fps. Nobody will notice at that point for sure
Anyway, beyong 100 FPS i think it's pointless, and we'd be better of trying to produce "3D film" (where you can actually "focus" on different subjects at playback). But even then, non-3D film has an advanta: the pre-focus for you what's important in the directors view. Adding 3D features can then HURT a movie. More freedom implies you get to see what you want and not what the director wanted. That's ok, but it's a different genre I think (more closer to playing a FPS game than watching a movie
Some day people will realize these issues are important! (specially, sci-fi 3D TV praisers
Woah, don't trust those artificial numbers!
:)
A 3 room appartment rental in a beatufull area (top area in Buenos Aires) is NOW about (pesos) $700. (pesos) $700 is about US$ 190. Before the devaluation, that same appartment had a cost of about US$1500.
Can you rent a nice appartment in NY, with 3 rooms for US$ 190-.? NO?
The usually CORRECT way to measure real exchange rate, and a fairly simple one is to compare McDonnald's prices. Now here a combo is US$1,25. So US$ 10 would be 7,5 meals.
Anyway...you got the point