there are areas of excellent connectivity, and other areas where even a dialup connection is hard to get. Even if you scale down music prices to accomidate the relative cost of living in India, I suspect there's a large enough market there that it would be worthwhile pursuing.
Sure. I didn't say it wasn't worth pursuing,
just that you don't want to expect similar
revenue from India.
The US has a 10 trillion dollar GDP, about
200 million telephone lines, and 166 million
Internet users. India has a 2.7 trillion
dollar GDP, 30 million telephone lines,
and 7 million Internet users. Consider also
that the lower price you suggested will
increase the gap further, because you don't
make as much money per sale, assuming the
same percentage of Internet users purchase
music in India.
Start adding in Canada, Mexico, the EU, India, Japan...
Okay, let's not get carried away. India and Mexico are
unlikely to have the purchasing power and Internet
infrastructure to present a market comparable to
the US, Canada, EU, or Japan.
It would be very interesting to know the percentage of
broadband users among the customers of the iTunes
Music Store. I would suspect that it is close to 100%.
AltiVec is important for Apple marketing because it lets them claim impressive performance figures without actually needing to push the state of the art in terms of processor design
Don't confuse "new" with "state of the art". The former
is just something that hasn't been done before. The
latter is something that yields "impressive performance
figures". If Altivec is competitive with Intel, then it
is state of the art, by definition, even if it's
20 years old. The CPU cache is a decades old concept,
yet CPUs with caches are still state of the art.
Imagine how much better it would be if Apple could ship systems based on the 970 today, rather than after a few months additional delay due to AltiVec.
Don't underestimate the cost of software. Your idea
is expensive, because it requires software vendors to
maintain two different versions of their code. This
can lead to buggier or more expensive products, or
it can lead to the "abandonment" of the G4 installed
base. That could easily be worth the few months for
Apple.
I'm just going to respond to this first of three more or
less identical responses.
What I had intended to write was a cheap shot to
point out that the explanation offered by Wil
McCarthy neglected to show how the invention
was non-obvious, a requirement for a patent.
If three people didn't get it, the "shot" obviously
missed, so I apologize for the miscommunication.
The main point remains: it's not enough to be the
first person to think of an idea, if your solution is
an obvious one to somebody of ordinary skills
confronted with the problem. It's also not enough
that a prototype can be built today. McCarthy's
explanation is conspicuously missing precisely, IMHO,
the most abused aspect of the patent system.
Nor have I, per the discussion, patented a device which a person skilled in the art could not produce. It's true that some embodiments of the invention require nanometer precision in three dimensions and are thus beyond present-day manufacturing capabilities, but other less capable embodiments could be produced today.
So what makes it patentable if a person with
ordinary skills in the art can build one?
A patent is supposed to protect inventions
beyond the abilities of those with ordinary
skills at the time of application.
If it isn't in Google then it doesn't exist - so is safe to use.
You have the right idea, but it's not quite
that simple. Even if the precise spelling of
the name you found isn't used by anyone, it
can still run afoul of existing trademarks if
it is sufficiently close and confusing.
A free software project can probably just do
that. A company with a real commercial
product would be best advised to do some
real legal legwork.
The reason why society has widely adopted back-stabbing as the road to success -- as opposed to personal responsibility and honest achievement -- is the nanny state.
I disagree. Many other countries have even
"bigger" governments, yet America's litigious
culture is nearly unique. I think the problem
is not that people sue, but that plaintiffs
are awarded ridiculous sums that are
disproportionate to their losses. This is
virtually an encouragement to gamble in the
legal system.
In my ideal world, when you win you are
awarded with what you lost (job, wages,
property, etc). If the defendants needs
further punishment, then they can be fined
by the government, but the money doesn't
go to the plaintiff.
For example, if the RIAA sues a student
for pirating 20 albums and wins, the
student should pay approximately the street
price of those 20 albums to the RIAA.
The student is additionally fined an
appropriate amount (which would differ
depending on how much money you actually
have) by the government. If the RIAA sues
a company that cranked out one thousand
illegal copies of their CDs, then they are
paid as if they sold that thousand. The
company should then be fined a much greater
amount than the student, in proportion
to their violation, their ability to pay,
and perhaps their history of offenses.
In other words, payment for the damages are
compensatory, while the fine is
punitive and intended to correct the
illegal behavior. The fact that the criminal
should be punished doesn't mean that the
victim should be rewarded beyond reason.
Finally, judges need to do more judging.
Frivolous cases must be dismissed promptly,
and if they weren't, the loser may be
liable for the legal expenses of the
winner.
When you put that all together, you still
can sue, but only when you're likely to win,
and either way you're not going to hit the
jackpot and get rich beyond imagination.
I think that will bring most of the sanity
you want.
Sure, it fits that definition, but Microsoft is lowering its price to that of a competitor who is also selling below cost.
There's a very big difference. Microsoft is a
monopoly in the OS market as determined by a
US court, and possibly would be in office suite
market as well. This means there are actions
that are legal for other companies that are
illegal for them.
In particular, lowering prices below cost is
easily used to destroy smaller competitors,
because it's essentially a cash burning
exercise. The problem is, after the competitor
is destroyed, prices will rise back far beyond
previous levels to recoup the "investment".
The consumers will only get cheaper products
for a limited time, and no competition among
vendors in the long run. This is a Bad Thing
for the consumers, which is why there are laws
against competing this way.
Try to understand that the law is not primarily intended to protect the smaller competitor, but
to protect the consumer.
If you are interested to learn, the evidence
is there.
The word "evidence", as it relates to a
discussion like this, is an observation that
actively points to the necessary existence of
a Creator, not just a passive lack of other
explanations.
Let's take the speed of light as an example.
I don't know why it's so-and-so kilometers
per second in vacuum. However, that doesn't
mean I should conclude that a Cosmic Cop
set a Universal Speed Limit, even in the
absence of all other explanations. I'm not
talking about 100% certainty, just the sort
of "beyond reasonable doubt" that could put
a man in prison.
So I'd like to hear the evidence you speak
of. Evolution remains a theory because there
is no evidence it is true, but there are many
observations that are consistent with the
theory.
Once you sing a song in public, the lyrics are now "out there".
Just like a book. If you write a book and
publish it, why, I should be able to copy it,
republish it on my web page, make an audio
book, or even translate it to another language.
It's out there!
Now, this doesn't mean that I think it's a
smart move to crack down on lyric web sites.
It just means that your reasons for opposing
the move are off base. Publication does not
imply release of copyright.
But when you are still not even sure what the nature of an atom is, to think you must stop and ponder all the possible outcomes of what that knowledge will be, is in my opinion a waste of time.
Rational people do not ask for answers to all
possible questions. However, there are obvious
examples of "progresses" where far too few
questions were asked and answered. What I'm
asking for is a balance. Science should take
reasonable risks. We should not let unanswered
questions cripple progress, nor should we let
too many questions go unanswered before it is
too late.
As for knowledge trumping all risks, as you
can imagine I completely disagree. I do not
believe in the absolute necessity for
knowledge over all else. Let me give a
ridiculous example to illustrate. If you
wanted to know whether you can sneak a
nuclear weapon into a major city and detonate
it, I don't think that the knowledge is worth
the price. Now, some knowledge can be worth
the risk of self destruction, but the point
is that this is a matter of value judgement,
not absolute belief.
It is good to ask "If we cause this atom to split, will it kill us?", but I do not think there is any value in saying "Maybe we shouldn't find out what happens if we split this atom, because if it causes an explosion, someone might use that knowledge to build a bomb..."
Of course there is value in asking the second
question. If Americans had asked that question
and decided to the Manhattan Project, then
hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians
would have lived. They did not proceed with
the program without asking that question,
because they are not stupid.
Instead, they also asked some other questions.
What would the Japanese or Germans do if they
developed an atom bomb? Will they hesitate
to nuke the US? How many American lives will be
lost to a conventional invasion of Japan?
Is there another way to demonstrate the awesome
power of atomic weapons without using them on
a real city?
The conclusion they came to may have been
colored by irrationalities, such as hatred
or fear, but that's not the same as not
asking questions.
Asimov's quote assumes a binary choice:
ignorance or self destruction. I don't
think he's saying that this premise is true
for all or even most human researches. Most
of the time, a little forethought goes a long
way to avert self destruction. Asbestos,
lead-based paint, any number of toxic waste
products from industrial processes - these
are all examples of not asking enough
questions first.
...starts by modeling the neurons of the brain dircetly as cells
This is a very difficult and interesting problem.
I do not mean to diminish the hard work of
any researcher in this area.
However, when (not if) this is understood, I
think we will be treating it as a brute force
solution. We will not likely be replacing
pocket calculators with emulated brains to
help us do long division. A computer chess
program will probably still beat an emulated
brain. The human brain is well adapted to
its environment as a result of millions of
years of evolution. However, it is not nearly
the optimal solution for a great many number
of problems.
For example, is the best doctor or programmer
necessarily a human or emulated brain?
Somehow, the CD is immune to cost reduction.
This is real price fixing.
Should a painter's work be priced lower because
she moved into a cheaper apartment?
Yes, CDs are expensive. Yes, there might be
price fixing. No, there's no proof. No,
as with any other work of art, you are not
really paying for the medium.
if you look at their contributions to free software, they've done basically what the licenses forced them to do and no more. They're happy to use free software to further their own ends, but aren't really happy to actually take part in the community.
Nonsense. While Apple doesn't release software
for free unless it suits some purpose, they
have released code when they don't have to.
Starting with Darwin (the BSD license requires
nothing of Apple), which they did not develop,
all the way to the Darwin (Quicktime)
Streaming Server and Rendezvous, which they
did. They also go out of their way to play
nice with the KHTML people (they don't have
to; all they're required to do is release
their modified source).
All of this is documented fact, though I
cannot dispute your "aren't really happy to actually take part in the community" claim.
Unlike you, I have no way of knowing what
makes a corporation happy or sad.
My local library has been lending (for free) compact discs for years. Just like books.
Libraries have different concerns than individuals.
Their mission is to spread information. An individual
who paid for something is less likely to just leave it
outside to "share", if the item can easily be broken
or stolen.
Even then, every library I've been to requires you to
get a borrower's card, which they use to track which
books are with which borrowers.
What does that have to do with legality or morality?
Nothing. I'm pointing out that traditional publishers
have "selfishness" (by that I mean the will to keep
stuff you bought in good condition) to not just give
it away freely. It works well enough for them to
make money, even though in theory one book can
be read by thousands of people.
it's like leaving your CD collection outside your house with a sign that says, "Listen to me."
That's different. In the Real World, doing that will mean
your CDs will be stolen, or perhaps damaged by users
who are not careful. On the Internet, you can share
without risk.
Point is, a publisher of a book or CD can count on the
human nature to treasure one's own belongings to not
do that. Publishers of on-line music cannot.
Actually, this is not a hole in Apple's software. It is an advertised feature. If you want to blame someone, blame Apple, not the people using their software in a way it was designed to be used.
Nonsense. Apple provides the technology that can fall
under "fair use" or "copyright infringement", the same
way that the use of a gun can fall under "sport",
"self defense", or "murder". Apple's software is
designed to transport music; guns are designed to
move projectiles at high speed. Using a product as
designed doesn't excuse you from the penalties of
law.
I think you forgot that the older programmer is far less likely to produce bugs.
I don't think anybody has anything but anecdotal
evidence to prove or disprove that. From my
personal experience, the best programmers are
significantly more productive than their peers, but
span all age groups.
Now, by "productive" I'm not counting lines of
code. I'm talking about lines of good code.
The "young hotshot" might write one thousand lines
in a week, but if he takes another three months to
debug it, his "productivity" is one thousand lines in
three months and a week.
I'm not disputing that experience makes a person
more productive. This is particularly visible in, say,
the first five years out of school. Somebody with five
years experience can probably double the productivity
of another right out of school. The experienced
engineer rightfully gets paid double.
The problem, I
reiterate, is that this doesn't scale. Twenty
years of experience will not quadruple your
productivity over somebody with five, so you won't
get paid four times more. That's why you have to
find other ways to boost your team's productivity
with the benefit of your experience, if you want
your salary to grow at all.
Most companies aren't interested in hiring older programmers. They feel that they can get current knowledge a lot cheaper from younger folks.
Age discrimination is a real and serious
problem in many industries. This post is not
an attempt to defend that illegal practice.
Having said that, the key question is whether
the older programmer generates enough value
for the company, compared to a younger
programmer. Programmer A with five years of
experience might get something done (by that
I mean debugged and ready to ship) in half
the time than programmer B fresh out of school.
That means the company can afford to pay
programmer A about twice what programmer B
is paid. Everybody is happy.
Problem is, programmer C with ten years of
experience isn't going to get stuff done in
half the time of programmer B! Your salary
as a function of personal productivity must
taper off at some point, possibly even
cutting into the company's profits.
We can easily see that even an honest
company may essentially have to freeze the
wages of older programmers, or lay them off
altogether. What we need is a way for older
programmers to become more productive, and
I think the answer is for them to teach.
If old programmer C can make young programmer B
more productive, then C deserves part of
the additional value generated by B. If
C can teach several young programmers
D, E, and F, then their additional
productivities can help sustain C's salary
requirements.
This of course requires a pretty enlightened
employer, but it also requires programmers
to understand that they will hit their pay
ceiling pretty early in their career, unless
they take on slightly different jobs as they
progress through their careers.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. I didn't say it wasn't worth pursuing, just that you don't want to expect similar revenue from India.
The US has a 10 trillion dollar GDP, about 200 million telephone lines, and 166 million Internet users. India has a 2.7 trillion dollar GDP, 30 million telephone lines, and 7 million Internet users. Consider also that the lower price you suggested will increase the gap further, because you don't make as much money per sale, assuming the same percentage of Internet users purchase music in India.
Okay, let's not get carried away. India and Mexico are unlikely to have the purchasing power and Internet infrastructure to present a market comparable to the US, Canada, EU, or Japan.
It would be very interesting to know the percentage of broadband users among the customers of the iTunes Music Store. I would suspect that it is close to 100%.
Don't confuse "new" with "state of the art". The former is just something that hasn't been done before. The latter is something that yields "impressive performance figures". If Altivec is competitive with Intel, then it is state of the art, by definition, even if it's 20 years old. The CPU cache is a decades old concept, yet CPUs with caches are still state of the art.
Imagine how much better it would be if Apple could ship systems based on the 970 today, rather than after a few months additional delay due to AltiVec.
Don't underestimate the cost of software. Your idea is expensive, because it requires software vendors to maintain two different versions of their code. This can lead to buggier or more expensive products, or it can lead to the "abandonment" of the G4 installed base. That could easily be worth the few months for Apple.
What I had intended to write was a cheap shot to point out that the explanation offered by Wil McCarthy neglected to show how the invention was non-obvious, a requirement for a patent. If three people didn't get it, the "shot" obviously missed, so I apologize for the miscommunication.
The main point remains: it's not enough to be the first person to think of an idea, if your solution is an obvious one to somebody of ordinary skills confronted with the problem. It's also not enough that a prototype can be built today. McCarthy's explanation is conspicuously missing precisely, IMHO, the most abused aspect of the patent system.
So what makes it patentable if a person with ordinary skills in the art can build one? A patent is supposed to protect inventions beyond the abilities of those with ordinary skills at the time of application.
You have the right idea, but it's not quite that simple. Even if the precise spelling of the name you found isn't used by anyone, it can still run afoul of existing trademarks if it is sufficiently close and confusing.
A free software project can probably just do that. A company with a real commercial product would be best advised to do some real legal legwork.
I disagree. Many other countries have even "bigger" governments, yet America's litigious culture is nearly unique. I think the problem is not that people sue, but that plaintiffs are awarded ridiculous sums that are disproportionate to their losses. This is virtually an encouragement to gamble in the legal system.
In my ideal world, when you win you are awarded with what you lost (job, wages, property, etc). If the defendants needs further punishment, then they can be fined by the government, but the money doesn't go to the plaintiff.
For example, if the RIAA sues a student for pirating 20 albums and wins, the student should pay approximately the street price of those 20 albums to the RIAA. The student is additionally fined an appropriate amount (which would differ depending on how much money you actually have) by the government. If the RIAA sues a company that cranked out one thousand illegal copies of their CDs, then they are paid as if they sold that thousand. The company should then be fined a much greater amount than the student, in proportion to their violation, their ability to pay, and perhaps their history of offenses.
In other words, payment for the damages are compensatory, while the fine is punitive and intended to correct the illegal behavior. The fact that the criminal should be punished doesn't mean that the victim should be rewarded beyond reason.
Finally, judges need to do more judging. Frivolous cases must be dismissed promptly, and if they weren't, the loser may be liable for the legal expenses of the winner.
When you put that all together, you still can sue, but only when you're likely to win, and either way you're not going to hit the jackpot and get rich beyond imagination. I think that will bring most of the sanity you want.
There's a very big difference. Microsoft is a monopoly in the OS market as determined by a US court, and possibly would be in office suite market as well. This means there are actions that are legal for other companies that are illegal for them.
In particular, lowering prices below cost is easily used to destroy smaller competitors, because it's essentially a cash burning exercise. The problem is, after the competitor is destroyed, prices will rise back far beyond previous levels to recoup the "investment". The consumers will only get cheaper products for a limited time, and no competition among vendors in the long run. This is a Bad Thing for the consumers, which is why there are laws against competing this way.
Try to understand that the law is not primarily intended to protect the smaller competitor, but to protect the consumer.
The word "evidence", as it relates to a discussion like this, is an observation that actively points to the necessary existence of a Creator, not just a passive lack of other explanations.
Let's take the speed of light as an example. I don't know why it's so-and-so kilometers per second in vacuum. However, that doesn't mean I should conclude that a Cosmic Cop set a Universal Speed Limit, even in the absence of all other explanations. I'm not talking about 100% certainty, just the sort of "beyond reasonable doubt" that could put a man in prison.
So I'd like to hear the evidence you speak of. Evolution remains a theory because there is no evidence it is true, but there are many observations that are consistent with the theory.
Just like a book. If you write a book and publish it, why, I should be able to copy it, republish it on my web page, make an audio book, or even translate it to another language. It's out there!
Now, this doesn't mean that I think it's a smart move to crack down on lyric web sites. It just means that your reasons for opposing the move are off base. Publication does not imply release of copyright.
I hate .wav files. They're so inefficient.
Rational people do not ask for answers to all possible questions. However, there are obvious examples of "progresses" where far too few questions were asked and answered. What I'm asking for is a balance. Science should take reasonable risks. We should not let unanswered questions cripple progress, nor should we let too many questions go unanswered before it is too late.
As for knowledge trumping all risks, as you can imagine I completely disagree. I do not believe in the absolute necessity for knowledge over all else. Let me give a ridiculous example to illustrate. If you wanted to know whether you can sneak a nuclear weapon into a major city and detonate it, I don't think that the knowledge is worth the price. Now, some knowledge can be worth the risk of self destruction, but the point is that this is a matter of value judgement, not absolute belief.
This is true, but there's probably one paper in a million that is worth more than a billion stupid little janitor robots.
Remember, E=mc^2 is just one line.
Just because robot research is useful doesn't mean everybody has to be doing it, is, I respectfully submit, the point.
Of course there is value in asking the second question. If Americans had asked that question and decided to the Manhattan Project, then hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians would have lived. They did not proceed with the program without asking that question, because they are not stupid.
Instead, they also asked some other questions. What would the Japanese or Germans do if they developed an atom bomb? Will they hesitate to nuke the US? How many American lives will be lost to a conventional invasion of Japan? Is there another way to demonstrate the awesome power of atomic weapons without using them on a real city?
The conclusion they came to may have been colored by irrationalities, such as hatred or fear, but that's not the same as not asking questions.
Asimov's quote assumes a binary choice: ignorance or self destruction. I don't think he's saying that this premise is true for all or even most human researches. Most of the time, a little forethought goes a long way to avert self destruction. Asbestos, lead-based paint, any number of toxic waste products from industrial processes - these are all examples of not asking enough questions first.
This is a very difficult and interesting problem. I do not mean to diminish the hard work of any researcher in this area.
However, when (not if) this is understood, I think we will be treating it as a brute force solution. We will not likely be replacing pocket calculators with emulated brains to help us do long division. A computer chess program will probably still beat an emulated brain. The human brain is well adapted to its environment as a result of millions of years of evolution. However, it is not nearly the optimal solution for a great many number of problems. For example, is the best doctor or programmer necessarily a human or emulated brain?
Those solutions are just as interesting.
We're talking about a country where the 10 cent coin is smaller in size than the 5 cent coin. Don't hold your breath. :)
Should a painter's work be priced lower because she moved into a cheaper apartment?
Yes, CDs are expensive. Yes, there might be price fixing. No, there's no proof. No, as with any other work of art, you are not really paying for the medium.
Nonsense. While Apple doesn't release software for free unless it suits some purpose, they have released code when they don't have to. Starting with Darwin (the BSD license requires nothing of Apple), which they did not develop, all the way to the Darwin (Quicktime) Streaming Server and Rendezvous, which they did. They also go out of their way to play nice with the KHTML people (they don't have to; all they're required to do is release their modified source).
All of this is documented fact, though I cannot dispute your "aren't really happy to actually take part in the community" claim. Unlike you, I have no way of knowing what makes a corporation happy or sad.
Libraries have different concerns than individuals. Their mission is to spread information. An individual who paid for something is less likely to just leave it outside to "share", if the item can easily be broken or stolen.
Even then, every library I've been to requires you to get a borrower's card, which they use to track which books are with which borrowers.
Nothing. I'm pointing out that traditional publishers have "selfishness" (by that I mean the will to keep stuff you bought in good condition) to not just give it away freely. It works well enough for them to make money, even though in theory one book can be read by thousands of people.
That's different. In the Real World, doing that will mean your CDs will be stolen, or perhaps damaged by users who are not careful. On the Internet, you can share without risk.
Point is, a publisher of a book or CD can count on the human nature to treasure one's own belongings to not do that. Publishers of on-line music cannot.
Nonsense. Apple provides the technology that can fall under "fair use" or "copyright infringement", the same way that the use of a gun can fall under "sport", "self defense", or "murder". Apple's software is designed to transport music; guns are designed to move projectiles at high speed. Using a product as designed doesn't excuse you from the penalties of law.
I don't think anybody has anything but anecdotal evidence to prove or disprove that. From my personal experience, the best programmers are significantly more productive than their peers, but span all age groups.
Now, by "productive" I'm not counting lines of code. I'm talking about lines of good code. The "young hotshot" might write one thousand lines in a week, but if he takes another three months to debug it, his "productivity" is one thousand lines in three months and a week.
I'm not disputing that experience makes a person more productive. This is particularly visible in, say, the first five years out of school. Somebody with five years experience can probably double the productivity of another right out of school. The experienced engineer rightfully gets paid double.
The problem, I reiterate, is that this doesn't scale. Twenty years of experience will not quadruple your productivity over somebody with five, so you won't get paid four times more. That's why you have to find other ways to boost your team's productivity with the benefit of your experience, if you want your salary to grow at all.
Age discrimination is a real and serious problem in many industries. This post is not an attempt to defend that illegal practice.
Having said that, the key question is whether the older programmer generates enough value for the company, compared to a younger programmer. Programmer A with five years of experience might get something done (by that I mean debugged and ready to ship) in half the time than programmer B fresh out of school. That means the company can afford to pay programmer A about twice what programmer B is paid. Everybody is happy.
Problem is, programmer C with ten years of experience isn't going to get stuff done in half the time of programmer B! Your salary as a function of personal productivity must taper off at some point, possibly even cutting into the company's profits.
We can easily see that even an honest company may essentially have to freeze the wages of older programmers, or lay them off altogether. What we need is a way for older programmers to become more productive, and I think the answer is for them to teach. If old programmer C can make young programmer B more productive, then C deserves part of the additional value generated by B. If C can teach several young programmers D, E, and F, then their additional productivities can help sustain C's salary requirements.
This of course requires a pretty enlightened employer, but it also requires programmers to understand that they will hit their pay ceiling pretty early in their career, unless they take on slightly different jobs as they progress through their careers.