That's 1.4 cents/page, or $2 to print a typical paper.
Sorry, I can't multiply. I'm off by a factor of 10. That should be 20, not $2. Just makes my "this would be worth it" point better. ($2 is borderline and would depend on the class.)
The solution is to encourage electronic distribution, charge students for printing.
That won't stop us, or at least won't stop me. I'll just bring in my personal printer. (A Xerox-made toner cartridge for my printer, the LaserJet 4+, gives 7000 pages for $40. A case of 10 reams of the paper at least our dept uses, Hammermill 20lb, 92 brightness paper, is another $40. That's 1.4 cents/page, or $2 to print a typical paper. That'd usually be worth it to me to not have to read it on a computer.) Or print from home. Sure, it'd save the OP his $10K/year on printers, but it wouldn't reduce my printouts, and would be at the cost of a little ill will if I thought the quota was unreasonably low or the per-page cost too high.
As a current grad student, I'm not sure university is what you want to bring up as "reality".;-)
And most everyone in the class just prints the damn things out instead of reading them online.
*raises hand*. I did that for all my paper-reading courses. Between a filing cabinet drawer and a couple stacks of papers on my desk, I've easily got 2 to 2-1/2 feet of printouts. Most of them are conference or journal papers, and most of those were printed for classes.
When someone gives me a (1) light (2) battery-less (3) easy-to-write-on (4) easy-to-read alternative to paper, maybe I'll stop doing that as much. In the meantime, it's nice to be able to read when I'm not at my desk (e.g. on the bus) while being able to easily make margin notes. I recently got a research tablet PC, and that solves (3), but not (1) (even though it's one of the smallest non-Mac-Air laptops out there) or (2). I am going to try to use this for notes for a while; we'll see how it goes. The Kindle solves (1) and part of (4), but the smaller screen just goes ahead and destroys that. The Kindle DX or whatever the larger version is called does better at (4) (though I do wish it has higher contrast than the little I've seen in real life, and the screen is still several inches smaller than an 8-1/2x11 sheet of paper so those conference papers will still be a little small, so between these issues paper is still well in the lead), but still doesn't do well at (3). And that's not to mention the cost issue -- if I lose a printout or whatever, I'm out having my notes. If I lose my Tablet, I probably owe the department a couple grand.
Sure, digital offers a number of benefits over paper too; but right now the balance is too-often in favor of "print it".
Maybe. Some non-Steam games are quite easy to update. Hell, Starcraft is trivial to update, and it doesn't render your game unplayable if the update gets partway done and you lose internet connection, decide that you don't want to update and want to play now, etc.
on the other hand there are lots of discount deals that steam does which end up being cheaper than most used copies would be
Are you taking into account not just the "Steam price" vs. "used price" but also the "what do I get when I sell something" benefit of being able to have used copies?
Not to mention the flexibility to loan someone a game so they can try it and borrow games from others so you can.
I'd much prefer the flexibility of steam over the install x times or keep disc in tray nonsense that you do with physical copies
I prefer steam to "install x times"; I just flat out won't buy a game that has that. However, I would very much prefer "keep disc in tray and no online activation" to Steam.
Valve will likely eventually extend the "gift games you already own" feature to any games you own two copies off in the future
1) "Eventually" is a pretty vague term.
2) Duplicate games are one thing, but used games are another. Even if they do eventually allow you to gift duplicate games in general, that's still a far cry from allowing used game sales.
I will admit I'm puzzled as to why they haven't already extended the feature.
Because in the end, they're as greedy as any other company.
You might want to tell them that. Here's their response to my support request (from Jan 30, 2008; admittedly a while ago):
"The gifting system you are referring to - which allows you to gift games between accounts - is only a feature of 'the Orange Box'. This system allows you to gift your extra copies of 'Half-Life 2' and 'Half-Life 2: Episode 1'; assuming you already owned them.
"At this time, there are no gifting systems implemented into other titles. With that in mind, please purchase your titles accordingly. We are unable to gift any other duplicate titles."
What they told me was that gifting HL2 and HL2:Ep1 from the Orange Box was a special case, and you could never do it in general. (HL2 and Ep1 show up as giftable for me too; Portal does not.)
As someone who bought two copies of Portal (one standalone, then as part of the Orange Box) and got pissed at the Steam for not letting me give one of the copies away, I sympathize with this. I've already decided that I won't buy stuff on Steam any more unless (like for Portal 2 and HL Episode 3) there's no other source.
There are plenty of ways such a decision would make sense. For instance, population A ("the south") is DDoSing 4chan. In so doing, they are disrupting access for everyone everywhere, including population B ("the north"), population C ("europe"), and population D ("alpha proxima"). By cutting off access from population A, they have made things only marginally worse for population A (since they couldn't get to it anyway), but have 'fixed' the problem for populations B, C, and D.
The way I imagine things going is having Linus try say, Mercurial, then its technical issues leading to large improvements or the creation of Git anyway, except perhaps at a more relaxed pace due to a lack of a crisis.
It's possible, but it's also possible that Linus would have decided that Mercurial was too broken, decided that the present situation was working well enough, and continued without version control, at least for a couple more years.
I think it's entirely possible that Linus was of the opinion that version control was bascially fundamentally broken, that BitKeeper showed him that it wasn't, and that was possible to make one that works (for his definition of "works").
Which is more likely? I don't know. But I do agree with the guy who originally replied saying that the BK fiasco seems like a pretty poor example to point to when arguing that pragmatism can backfire.
If Linus HADN'T made Git, then it seems he still would have been using patches past at least mid-2005, and the time lost writing Git was probably less than the time lost to BK
Sorry, I had a mind fart; that's not quite what I meant to say. What I meant was "If Linus HADN'T made Git, then it seems he still would have been using patches past at least mid-2005, and the time gained by efficiency improvements from BK were probably less than the time lost to BK because of the fiasco in 2005"
That's not what he claims; I've seen him (maybe in a Google tech talk?) claim that the parting was mostly amicable. He's also said that Linux is better because of the BK fiasco, since he and others were so much more efficient with it.
If it weren't for BK, would he have still written Git, or would he still be using email and patches? I don't know. What I do know is that Linux was around for almost a decade before they decided to take up any version control at all, and that in 2005 when they lost the ability to use BK, nothing else was still good enough for them.
Linus had to drop what he was doing and deal with the political mess, and the practical consequences.
Furthermore, it was only about 40 days from when Linus decided to write git to when he turned it over to Junio Hamano, and a few more months (about 6 from initial start) until 1.0. I'm not sure exactly when they started using it for Linux, but it seems to me that even the lost time creating git wasn't that high.
So basically:
1. Linus has said Linux is better for using BK 2. Linus might not have made Git, nor might Linux be on version control now, if he hadn't seen how things could be under BK. 2a. If Linus HAD made Git, then he would have lost the time anyway 2b. If Linus HADN'T made Git, then it seems he still would have been using patches past at least mid-2005, and the time lost writing Git was probably less than the time lost to BK
Removing them significantly reduces the power of the language...
I don't think I buy this. I haven't followed the concept discussions for a couple years (and even then the extent of my knowledge was watching a Google tech talk and reading a couple pages of stuff), but I did not see any way that they actually added power to the language.
I would describe concepts as increasing the usability of templates because you start to get readable error messages, but I don't see anything that can be done with concepts that can't be done without.
You can distribute binary device drivers alongside the Linux kernel if you wish, as long as you have the permissions of the rights holders.
Sure. You think you're gonna get said permission? Not in a million years.
Nvidia drivers anyone?
You want to know how Nvidia gets away with distributing a binary blob driver? Not quite all of it is a binary. The (relatively small) part of it that could be considered a derivative work of the kernel is available as source under the GPL v.2 since that's what the license requires.
All or almost all of what remains closed actually lives in user space.
There is absolutely zero preventing distributing GPLv3 device drivers.
You could do the same thing as Nvidia, and release a part of the driver as GPL v.3 and an interface layer as GPL v.2 if your driver is amenable to that, but otherwise yes, there are very much restrictions on distributing GPL v.3 drivers.
I think that your series of events can only happen if MS is contributing anew. But, I would guess the driver itself is derivative work of other parts of the kernel -- a believable proposition on the face of it, especially as MS has said that they used software in Linux for it (in a FAQ they released that is linked to somewhere in this area of the thread; I can find it if you really want).
If that guess is true, then my reading is that your step 2 ("Microsoft releases drives under GPLv2") can't occur if MS wants to hold onto the option to sue over patent use.
Too bad the software in question is released under the GPL V2 which doesn't have patent clauses in them.
You know, except for the part that says "if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
No, they couldn't have, at least not if they wanted it to be distributable with Linux (which was kinda the point). The Linux kernel is GPL v.2 only, which is incompatible with the GPL v.3.
Furthermore, even the GPL 2 provides some protection against patents, as a couple people have pointed out.
Slashdot Mirror
That's 1.4 cents/page, or $2 to print a typical paper.
Sorry, I can't multiply. I'm off by a factor of 10. That should be 20, not $2. Just makes my "this would be worth it" point better. ($2 is borderline and would depend on the class.)
The solution is to encourage electronic distribution, charge students for printing.
That won't stop us, or at least won't stop me. I'll just bring in my personal printer. (A Xerox-made toner cartridge for my printer, the LaserJet 4+, gives 7000 pages for $40. A case of 10 reams of the paper at least our dept uses, Hammermill 20lb, 92 brightness paper, is another $40. That's 1.4 cents/page, or $2 to print a typical paper. That'd usually be worth it to me to not have to read it on a computer.) Or print from home. Sure, it'd save the OP his $10K/year on printers, but it wouldn't reduce my printouts, and would be at the cost of a little ill will if I thought the quota was unreasonably low or the per-page cost too high.
Somebody's not living in reality here.
As a current grad student, I'm not sure university is what you want to bring up as "reality". ;-)
And most everyone in the class just prints the damn things out instead of reading them online.
*raises hand*. I did that for all my paper-reading courses. Between a filing cabinet drawer and a couple stacks of papers on my desk, I've easily got 2 to 2-1/2 feet of printouts. Most of them are conference or journal papers, and most of those were printed for classes.
When someone gives me a (1) light (2) battery-less (3) easy-to-write-on (4) easy-to-read alternative to paper, maybe I'll stop doing that as much. In the meantime, it's nice to be able to read when I'm not at my desk (e.g. on the bus) while being able to easily make margin notes. I recently got a research tablet PC, and that solves (3), but not (1) (even though it's one of the smallest non-Mac-Air laptops out there) or (2). I am going to try to use this for notes for a while; we'll see how it goes. The Kindle solves (1) and part of (4), but the smaller screen just goes ahead and destroys that. The Kindle DX or whatever the larger version is called does better at (4) (though I do wish it has higher contrast than the little I've seen in real life, and the screen is still several inches smaller than an 8-1/2x11 sheet of paper so those conference papers will still be a little small, so between these issues paper is still well in the lead), but still doesn't do well at (3). And that's not to mention the cost issue -- if I lose a printout or whatever, I'm out having my notes. If I lose my Tablet, I probably owe the department a couple grand.
Sure, digital offers a number of benefits over paper too; but right now the balance is too-often in favor of "print it".
I'm guessing the OP meant to say "on phones", not "on computers".
...and easier to update too
Maybe. Some non-Steam games are quite easy to update. Hell, Starcraft is trivial to update, and it doesn't render your game unplayable if the update gets partway done and you lose internet connection, decide that you don't want to update and want to play now, etc.
on the other hand there are lots of discount deals that steam does which end up being cheaper than most used copies would be
Are you taking into account not just the "Steam price" vs. "used price" but also the "what do I get when I sell something" benefit of being able to have used copies?
Not to mention the flexibility to loan someone a game so they can try it and borrow games from others so you can.
I'd much prefer the flexibility of steam over the install x times or keep disc in tray nonsense that you do with physical copies
I prefer steam to "install x times"; I just flat out won't buy a game that has that. However, I would very much prefer "keep disc in tray and no online activation" to Steam.
Valve will likely eventually extend the "gift games you already own" feature to any games you own two copies off in the future
1) "Eventually" is a pretty vague term.
2) Duplicate games are one thing, but used games are another. Even if they do eventually allow you to gift duplicate games in general, that's still a far cry from allowing used game sales.
I will admit I'm puzzled as to why they haven't already extended the feature.
Because in the end, they're as greedy as any other company.
They do let you give the games away dumbass.
You might want to tell them that. Here's their response to my support request (from Jan 30, 2008; admittedly a while ago):
"The gifting system you are referring to - which allows you to gift games between accounts - is only a feature of 'the Orange Box'. This system allows you to gift your extra copies of 'Half-Life 2' and 'Half-Life 2: Episode 1'; assuming you already owned them.
"At this time, there are no gifting systems implemented into other titles. With that in mind, please purchase your titles accordingly. We are unable to gift any other duplicate titles."
Is this just something you can't do with Portal?
What they told me was that gifting HL2 and HL2:Ep1 from the Orange Box was a special case, and you could never do it in general. (HL2 and Ep1 show up as giftable for me too; Portal does not.)
dare I ask if you bothered to contact their customer service?
Yes, I did. They refused to transfer the license.
This is what I've always had happen with Steam games as well
Does "always" mean just HL2 and Ep1? Because they also said those were special cases. (Those show up as transferable for me too; Portal does not.)
You can always boycott their policies by *not* playing their games and doing something productive instead
I don't have the will power to do that. ;-) Portal in particular was just too awesome to miss out on the next installment, even if it's half as good.
As someone who bought two copies of Portal (one standalone, then as part of the Orange Box) and got pissed at the Steam for not letting me give one of the copies away, I sympathize with this. I've already decided that I won't buy stuff on Steam any more unless (like for Portal 2 and HL Episode 3) there's no other source.
Same here. I'll prove it and go turn it o#hteu943h {NO CARRIER}
Am I the only one seeing the irony here?
There are plenty of ways such a decision would make sense. For instance, population A ("the south") is DDoSing 4chan. In so doing, they are disrupting access for everyone everywhere, including population B ("the north"), population C ("europe"), and population D ("alpha proxima"). By cutting off access from population A, they have made things only marginally worse for population A (since they couldn't get to it anyway), but have 'fixed' the problem for populations B, C, and D.
Was that the case here? Who knows.
The way I imagine things going is having Linus try say, Mercurial, then its technical issues leading to large improvements or the creation of Git anyway, except perhaps at a more relaxed pace due to a lack of a crisis.
It's possible, but it's also possible that Linus would have decided that Mercurial was too broken, decided that the present situation was working well enough, and continued without version control, at least for a couple more years.
I think it's entirely possible that Linus was of the opinion that version control was bascially fundamentally broken, that BitKeeper showed him that it wasn't, and that was possible to make one that works (for his definition of "works").
Which is more likely? I don't know. But I do agree with the guy who originally replied saying that the BK fiasco seems like a pretty poor example to point to when arguing that pragmatism can backfire.
If Linus HADN'T made Git, then it seems he still would have been using patches past at least mid-2005, and the time lost writing Git was probably less than the time lost to BK
Sorry, I had a mind fart; that's not quite what I meant to say. What I meant was "If Linus HADN'T made Git, then it seems he still would have been using patches past at least mid-2005, and the time gained by efficiency improvements from BK were probably less than the time lost to BK because of the fiasco in 2005"
And he was quite annoyed about it, IIRC.
That's not what he claims; I've seen him (maybe in a Google tech talk?) claim that the parting was mostly amicable. He's also said that Linux is better because of the BK fiasco, since he and others were so much more efficient with it.
If it weren't for BK, would he have still written Git, or would he still be using email and patches? I don't know. What I do know is that Linux was around for almost a decade before they decided to take up any version control at all, and that in 2005 when they lost the ability to use BK, nothing else was still good enough for them.
Linus had to drop what he was doing and deal with the political mess, and the practical consequences.
Furthermore, it was only about 40 days from when Linus decided to write git to when he turned it over to Junio Hamano, and a few more months (about 6 from initial start) until 1.0. I'm not sure exactly when they started using it for Linux, but it seems to me that even the lost time creating git wasn't that high.
So basically:
1. Linus has said Linux is better for using BK
2. Linus might not have made Git, nor might Linux be on version control now, if he hadn't seen how things could be under BK.
2a. If Linus HAD made Git, then he would have lost the time anyway
2b. If Linus HADN'T made Git, then it seems he still would have been using patches past at least mid-2005, and the time lost writing Git was probably less than the time lost to BK
Concepts let you "overload" templates depending on whether a template parameter conforms to some concept or not.
Ah, okay; that makes sense. I didn't know you could do that (though it also doesn't really surprise me in some sense).
Removing them significantly reduces the power of the language...
I don't think I buy this. I haven't followed the concept discussions for a couple years (and even then the extent of my knowledge was watching a Google tech talk and reading a couple pages of stuff), but I did not see any way that they actually added power to the language.
I would describe concepts as increasing the usability of templates because you start to get readable error messages, but I don't see anything that can be done with concepts that can't be done without.
You can distribute binary device drivers alongside the Linux kernel if you wish, as long as you have the permissions of the rights holders.
Sure. You think you're gonna get said permission? Not in a million years.
Nvidia drivers anyone?
You want to know how Nvidia gets away with distributing a binary blob driver? Not quite all of it is a binary. The (relatively small) part of it that could be considered a derivative work of the kernel is available as source under the GPL v.2 since that's what the license requires.
All or almost all of what remains closed actually lives in user space.
There is absolutely zero preventing distributing GPLv3 device drivers.
You could do the same thing as Nvidia, and release a part of the driver as GPL v.3 and an interface layer as GPL v.2 if your driver is amenable to that, but otherwise yes, there are very much restrictions on distributing GPL v.3 drivers.
Do you know anything about the GPL?
So you want the "Ask Slashdot" section dropped entirely? After all, none of them are really news.
I think that your series of events can only happen if MS is contributing anew. But, I would guess the driver itself is derivative work of other parts of the kernel -- a believable proposition on the face of it, especially as MS has said that they used software in Linux for it (in a FAQ they released that is linked to somewhere in this area of the thread; I can find it if you really want).
If that guess is true, then my reading is that your step 2 ("Microsoft releases drives under GPLv2") can't occur if MS wants to hold onto the option to sue over patent use.
Yes, but Microsoft is the licenser, not the licensee, and as such they are not bound by the license terms!
MS is bound if the driver can be considered derivative work of other bits of the kernel. I suspect, though don't know, that this is the case.
Too bad the software in question is released under the GPL V2 which doesn't have patent clauses in them.
You know, except for the part that says "if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
There is plenty of other code in the Linux kernel that they could base a strategic lawsuit on.
Sure, but it's not like there's a rule that says "you can only file a patent lawsuit against Linux if you first submit a new feature" or something.
The Hyper-V patch doesn't affect that; if they could claim patent infringements in other parts of the kernel now, they could do it before too.
They could have.
No, they couldn't have, at least not if they wanted it to be distributable with Linux (which was kinda the point). The Linux kernel is GPL v.2 only, which is incompatible with the GPL v.3.
Furthermore, even the GPL 2 provides some protection against patents, as a couple people have pointed out.
In short, FUD.