We in effect subsidize drug development and distribution for many third-world nations.
In rare cases. Only when the same exact disease is present in the poor country. There is no real cure for Malaria, as you don't have the disease in the US, for example...
AIDS vacines are targeted at USA/Europe stripes not African stripes, so they are relatively usefull in Africa.
Etc.
Also, what good is a drug if you can't afford it (unless you can pirate it without suffering economic penalties from the 1st world).
Economics knows the answer as it is a very simple on: harvest the demand curve.
Translated:
Bill Gates has cancer? pay the FULL price (production+reseach coverage) if you want to live.
Maria Teresa de Calcuta has cancer? Pay the cost of production only. Giving her the drug at production cost doesn't make Bill Gates or the company worst than if she it left to die.
Profit lost: $0
Oh, wait! Maybe it does... how about the goverment pay for her life? Cool, now everyone pays royalties (taxes anyone?).
Result: everyone in a poor country MUST die. US goverment health care costs are prohibiting.
What is the problem with the solution?
Being able to survive while others poor bastards die of that same thing is important so that the affording guys agree on paying the normal price. Else, they would rant and try to avoid paying or will try to prove they can't afford it and things like that. After all, the American Dream is about the comunism of prices.
Anyway, the USA labs are stating to realize this makes sense. Some (very few) vacines are being sold in Africa at production cost while they are charged full price in the USA. Why? Not because it makes sense, but because (for example) South Africa stated they will copy/pirate any patent their poors can't afford.
Note: i am NOT a communist, read the post again if you think so.
"point your telescope to vector(3,6,9), look thought it, see OUR comet...pay!".
Here's how to solve it:
Patents should be kept secret for about one or two years (that is, everyone should know there is a patent for doing "something" or whatever the patent is covering but not know the exact application o process).
Then, if someone else patents OR EVEN uses a similar process before final patent granting, then that/those patents should be dropped. Or they should allowed for a really narrow timeframe.
Economic reasoning: if more that one company patents the same thing in so little time, then the patent claim was not innovative or was an obvious thing to do. Today what we are arguing is that obvious things to patent are patented. And that is stiffles innovation because at some point, REAL (non obvious) innovations with PRACTICAL applications will need to rely on those OBVIOUS and THEORETICAL applications...
Who the hell gives a fuck of what the legal argument for why genes are patentable is? What we need is an economic argument of why genes are patentable.
After all, patents exist(ed) to promote technological advance by making it profitable. It seems though that the patents law is becoming the worst instrument ever to promote technological advance. Patenting has become a bussines on it's own where companies conduct carefull research of what is patentable and what are the probabilities that certain patent may be profitable in certain time scope, where the investor does not care to research any further down that line of thought if the said patent will allow him to claim important revenues on anything derived from it. Like iPIX patenting "making a 360 photo from a fisheye lens". Right, fisheye lens existed well before their patent and mapping pictures is older than the alphabet (probably).
Today, it's more important to have lawers than scientists to make a profit.
All i could ask is: please don't try to export you revenue diverting schema to other regions of the world. If you want to halt innovation, do it to your own country! (i know what i mean and yes, the US wants to export their illegal patents to each and every country they can put pressure on).
Maybe he meant true 3D FPS... And it is obvious. The first true 3D games were generally flight and space simulators; like Elite and it's predecesors on the PC market.
Descent was the first true 3D textured game non-flight-simulator (meaning wall's, etc) I played.
Bashing the journalist is ok, but up to some point you need to take / comment the interesting parts and forget the stupid "error trivia" everyone likes at/. (seem like bashing gives you Karma, VERY strage...)
and, second, the increasing vulnerability of our economic and technological systems to carefully aimed attacks
It just isn't. Look at the sept. 11 tragedy (for a bad example maybe); some firms had an off-city backup of all the information so the day after they where ready to run their business as usual.
Nonetheless, thouthands of people died and THAT is irreplaceable. All in all, data is just data and we HUMANS is what we should care more.
If a system or database is really important, then you need to secure it properly just like you secure access to restricted areas and such.
Obviously if you did a bad job you can blame the technology, but it's not fair. Blame the people, not the tools. If a tool can't be trusted, you probably shouldn't be using it!
They would have to release most of their distro as GPL with full source code whenever they customize a GPLd portion. Not likely...
Ximian, on the other hand has ditched GPL in favour of the X11 license(mono proyect alas.net). 3rd parties can contribute or use the source but are not required to disclose the source code).
If you can find a reason they should, please enlighten me. (Freedom of Speech aside, I am referring to real, honest to God reasons for this being out there)
The guy obviously deservers a long lasting punishment. Killing innocent people makes things worst not better.
But I don't think anyone with the resources and will to carry out terrorists acts is desperatly in the need for such a "Bombs-Mini-Howto" either.
Doesn't everyone that really intends to blow things up (bombs) already has the information? I don't think Al Qaeda or whatever need to take a peak at 'kid bomber hacker'. Making bombs is in the "public domain" for the terrorist, even nuclear weapons i believe.
You just can't get the stuff needed to build one easily or undetected (I hope).
You can make a really nasty bomb with just fertilizer (nitrogen), every chemist knows that (i am not one though).
It's not affordable nor easy to setup and it's not for the average family. Hence it DOESN'T make much sense for Sony to do this and thus my post. What WOULD make sense is trying to bundle a console that has is Linux ready from day 1 at an affordable price and that you only need a monitor or TV. Sony alone can do that.
A system based on Unix that can compete in price and leverage what's already in the public domain for everything non-game. A massive home system for the family, a la X-Box.
What would make sense for sony is to depend on Linux for the OS and become hardware producers and to collect royalties (just like they have been doing up to now, but in a different fashion).
1) Use the Linux OS
2) Build a console a la X-Box. That is, depend on almost-existing hardware (meaning the have some exclusive features, etc).
3) Sell the SDK for game producers or charge them a fee so that the games can run on the Playstation.
4) Leverage on everything that already runs on Linux. Email client, browser, DVD play, Mp3 players, etc.
That way people will have a system which has the very best games they WANT to buy, an access to email, web, etc. and at an AFFORDABLE price. And the system is always up to date and has no costs for Sony, as it's 99% already available.
Else, they will die like dog under the X-Box functionality and code leveraged from Windows and the hardware in which it runs (Nvidia, etc.).
I wouldn't enjoy Gates owing their market for LACK OF VISION.
He is not talking about the distribution of the named Operating System. You could have the Windows distro that will use everything MS wants. But then again, everyon else on earth will have a chance of making a competitive alternative.
Everyone will know what the new Kernel brings and how it works. No monopolic advantage to the MS Distro (ie: MS Kernel + Applications + Services).
That would be a fair ground for everyone. Not only that, Microsoft could make a lot of GENUINE revenues, everyone would have to license the kernel. But at least you wont have this monopolistic rape inflinged on Americans and their companies (mostly every other country pirates what they need at a large extent).
Moreover, if their kernel sucks, they lose market against other kernel producers. But their applications (which mostly everyone find usefull) will earn them money as long as it's what the consumer wants.
If many people use it for a long time, it will be a word. As with ANY word. in the vocabulary. Many zealots through the centuries and from day 1 of the alphabet made corrections just to be proved wrong.
It's evolution. Happens to the law. Happens to the alphabet. Happens to ethics and to everything that is arbitrary on nature.
- Can this guy write emails that can be also read by Outlook? YES
- Can a $100.000.000.000 produce an email client that conforms to open standars? YES
So judge both and not only the guy in this list, a list which, in fact, is of no interest to you.
As for words attachments, there are supposed NOT to be read with non Microsoft products. Have you ever complained about that? I would tend to think so because you seem well intentioned.
Moreover, capitalism is about supply and demand and prices. Some stuff is free because offer is infinite or can't be apropiated or is a common good. Red Had changes a service, it's scare and it's good and has a marginal cost (each new download costs them).
OSS in the other hand is a common good because it allows big corporation to improve it at least cost while at the same time they can profit for using it. It's a common ground to do bussiness where nobody can have a monopoly. After all, it's it GPLd, then you can make money but can never monopolize it.
Monopoly, on the other hand, is the enemy of capitalism. Oh, wait, didn't the court ruled MS was a Monopoly and has abused it's position?
Why donation (my guess): because he could manage with some effort to have an up2date redhad cheaper. But he likes the service, but he doesn't fell they are pushing him to accept it.
Microsoft, on the other hand makes decisions for you, and if at some point you don't like what they do, you are alone. There is no second distribution of Windows.
With GNU/Linux you are not highly dependant on Red Hat, but on an Open Source plataform where you have the same exact rights to use the software that Red Hat has.
Slashdot Mirror
We in effect subsidize drug development and distribution for many third-world nations.
In rare cases. Only when the same exact disease is present in the poor country. There is no real cure for Malaria, as you don't have the disease in the US, for example...
AIDS vacines are targeted at USA/Europe stripes not African stripes, so they are relatively usefull in Africa.
Etc.
Also, what good is a drug if you can't afford it (unless you can pirate it without suffering economic penalties from the 1st world).
Economics knows the answer as it is a very simple on: harvest the demand curve.
Translated:
Bill Gates has cancer? pay the FULL price (production+reseach coverage) if you want to live. Maria Teresa de Calcuta has cancer? Pay the cost of production only. Giving her the drug at production cost doesn't make Bill Gates or the company worst than if she it left to die.
Profit lost: $0
Oh, wait! Maybe it does... how about the goverment pay for her life? Cool, now everyone pays royalties (taxes anyone?).
Result: everyone in a poor country MUST die. US goverment health care costs are prohibiting.
What is the problem with the solution?
Being able to survive while others poor bastards die of that same thing is important so that the affording guys agree on paying the normal price. Else, they would rant and try to avoid paying or will try to prove they can't afford it and things like that. After all, the American Dream is about the comunism of prices.
Anyway, the USA labs are stating to realize this makes sense. Some (very few) vacines are being sold in Africa at production cost while they are charged full price in the USA. Why? Not because it makes sense, but because (for example) South Africa stated they will copy/pirate any patent their poors can't afford.
Note: i am NOT a communist, read the post again if you think so.
Ok, here is such an application:
"point your telescope to vector(3,6,9), look thought it, see OUR comet...pay!".
Here's how to solve it:
Patents should be kept secret for about one or two years (that is, everyone should know there is a patent for doing "something" or whatever the patent is covering but not know the exact application o process).
Then, if someone else patents OR EVEN uses a similar process before final patent granting, then that/those patents should be dropped. Or they should allowed for a really narrow timeframe.
Economic reasoning: if more that one company patents the same thing in so little time, then the patent claim was not innovative or was an obvious thing to do. Today what we are arguing is that obvious things to patent are patented. And that is stiffles innovation because at some point, REAL (non obvious) innovations with PRACTICAL applications will need to rely on those OBVIOUS and THEORETICAL applications...
That being say, good luck!
Who the hell gives a fuck of what the legal argument for why genes are patentable is? What we need is an economic argument of why genes are patentable.
After all, patents exist(ed) to promote technological advance by making it profitable. It seems though that the patents law is becoming the worst instrument ever to promote technological advance. Patenting has become a bussines on it's own where companies conduct carefull research of what is patentable and what are the probabilities that certain patent may be profitable in certain time scope, where the investor does not care to research any further down that line of thought if the said patent will allow him to claim important revenues on anything derived from it. Like iPIX patenting "making a 360 photo from a fisheye lens". Right, fisheye lens existed well before their patent and mapping pictures is older than the alphabet (probably).
Today, it's more important to have lawers than scientists to make a profit.
All i could ask is: please don't try to export you revenue diverting schema to other regions of the world. If you want to halt innovation, do it to your own country! (i know what i mean and yes, the US wants to export their illegal patents to each and every country they can put pressure on).
Maybe he meant true 3D FPS... And it is obvious. The first true 3D games were generally flight and space simulators; like Elite and it's predecesors on the PC market.
/. (seem like bashing gives you Karma, VERY strage...)
Descent was the first true 3D textured game non-flight-simulator (meaning wall's, etc) I played.
Bashing the journalist is ok, but up to some point you need to take / comment the interesting parts and forget the stupid "error trivia" everyone likes at
and, second, the increasing vulnerability of our economic and technological systems to carefully aimed attacks
It just isn't. Look at the sept. 11 tragedy (for a bad example maybe); some firms had an off-city backup of all the information so the day after they where ready to run their business as usual.
Nonetheless, thouthands of people died and THAT is irreplaceable. All in all, data is just data and we HUMANS is what we should care more.
If a system or database is really important, then you need to secure it properly just like you secure access to restricted areas and such.
Obviously if you did a bad job you can blame the technology, but it's not fair. Blame the people, not the tools. If a tool can't be trusted, you probably shouldn't be using it!
Federico
They would have to release most of their distro as GPL with full source code whenever they customize a GPLd portion. Not likely...
.net). 3rd parties can contribute or use the source but are not required to disclose the source code).
Ximian, on the other hand has ditched GPL in favour of the X11 license(mono proyect alas
Fede
Outperforms in what sense? For how many years have you been running the MS SQL Servers? There are some other virtues other than performance...
I thought I read somewhere that Linux ran on some other plataforms other than intel. I think it was at or maybe on a recent /. post (about a some new Linux IBM mainframe or something).
If you can find a reason they should, please enlighten me. (Freedom of Speech aside, I am referring to real, honest to God reasons for this being out there)
The guy obviously deservers a long lasting punishment. Killing innocent people makes things worst not better.
But I don't think anyone with the resources and will to carry out terrorists acts is desperatly in the need for such a "Bombs-Mini-Howto" either.
Doesn't everyone that really intends to blow things up (bombs) already has the information? I don't think Al Qaeda or whatever need to take a peak at 'kid bomber hacker'. Making bombs is in the "public domain" for the terrorist, even nuclear weapons i believe.
You just can't get the stuff needed to build one easily or undetected (I hope).
You can make a really nasty bomb with just fertilizer (nitrogen), every chemist knows that (i am not one though).
Yes, and that is exactly what i argue in my post.
It's not affordable nor easy to setup and it's not for the average family. Hence it DOESN'T make much sense for Sony to do this and thus my post. What WOULD make sense is trying to bundle a console that has is Linux ready from day 1 at an affordable price and that you only need a monitor or TV. Sony alone can do that.
A system based on Unix that can compete in price and leverage what's already in the public domain for everything non-game. A massive home system for the family, a la X-Box.
What would make sense for sony is to depend on Linux for the OS and become hardware producers and to collect royalties (just like they have been doing up to now, but in a different fashion).
1) Use the Linux OS
2) Build a console a la X-Box. That is, depend on almost-existing hardware (meaning the have some exclusive features, etc).
3) Sell the SDK for game producers or charge them a fee so that the games can run on the Playstation.
4) Leverage on everything that already runs on Linux. Email client, browser, DVD play, Mp3 players, etc.
That way people will have a system which has the very best games they WANT to buy, an access to email, web, etc. and at an AFFORDABLE price. And the system is always up to date and has no costs for Sony, as it's 99% already available.
Else, they will die like dog under the X-Box functionality and code leveraged from Windows and the hardware in which it runs (Nvidia, etc.).
I wouldn't enjoy Gates owing their market for LACK OF VISION.
His does hold it hostage (Linux) so eventually, he needs to have it as top priority above everything (work leve, i don't mean friends, family, etc.)
If we get's bored/tired he can ask for a replacement when the time comes.
He is not talking about the distribution of the named Operating System. You could have the Windows distro that will use everything MS wants. But then again, everyon else on earth will have a chance of making a competitive alternative.
Everyone will know what the new Kernel brings and how it works. No monopolic advantage to the MS Distro (ie: MS Kernel + Applications + Services).
That would be a fair ground for everyone. Not only that, Microsoft could make a lot of GENUINE revenues, everyone would have to license the kernel. But at least you wont have this monopolistic rape inflinged on Americans and their companies (mostly every other country pirates what they need at a large extent).
Moreover, if their kernel sucks, they lose market against other kernel producers. But their applications (which mostly everyone find usefull) will earn them money as long as it's what the consumer wants.
For price/performace on slow intel plataform you could use Linux + MySQL for example, which would be at the top at $0 per transaction (+hardware).
I know I woudn't trust transactions to MySQL yet, but i wouldn't trust it to a MS SQL server either.
If many people use it for a long time, it will be a word. As with ANY word. in the vocabulary. Many zealots through the centuries and from day 1 of the alphabet made corrections just to be proved wrong.
It's evolution. Happens to the law. Happens to the alphabet. Happens to ethics and to everything that is arbitrary on nature.
Just my 0.028 pesos
$100.000.000.000 company is what i meant...
There are two points:
- Can this guy write emails that can be also read by Outlook? YES
- Can a $100.000.000.000 produce an email client that conforms to open standars? YES
So judge both and not only the guy in this list, a list which, in fact, is of no interest to you.
As for words attachments, there are supposed NOT to be read with non Microsoft products. Have you ever complained about that? I would tend to think so because you seem well intentioned.
You surelly copy/pasted this answer from Word, right?
Rusia was near and US Defense beign there makes sense, for whatever excuse they could think of.
Moreover, capitalism is about supply and demand and prices. Some stuff is free because offer is infinite or can't be apropiated or is a common good. Red Had changes a service, it's scare and it's good and has a marginal cost (each new download costs them).
OSS in the other hand is a common good because it allows big corporation to improve it at least cost while at the same time they can profit for using it. It's a common ground to do bussiness where nobody can have a monopoly. After all, it's it GPLd, then you can make money but can never monopolize it.
Monopoly, on the other hand, is the enemy of capitalism. Oh, wait, didn't the court ruled MS was a Monopoly and has abused it's position?
Why donation (my guess): because he could manage with some effort to have an up2date redhad cheaper. But he likes the service, but he doesn't fell they are pushing him to accept it.
Microsoft, on the other hand makes decisions for you, and if at some point you don't like what they do, you are alone. There is no second distribution of Windows.
With GNU/Linux you are not highly dependant on Red Hat, but on an Open Source plataform where you have the same exact rights to use the software that Red Hat has.
With Microsoft you have no word processor, spreadsheet, image editing, personal organizer, let alone the server products.
How is it then cheaper? I could understand you if they where shipping Office plus the expensive version of XP.
Oh, wait, maybe you just pirate the rest...
Why not just tell them our passwords so they can agregate the data and find what are the most used ones? Oh, wait...
Maybe they just upload agregate data, but will still be a hazard (what if you type a password and then sit still?).