I was specifically talking about CDs, which are dramatically cheaper than copies of Windows. But I guess I can't expect you to actually follow the conversation.
Gee, and here I thought it was about the (yo, ho, ho) piracy of American IP. Excuuuuse me. A quick google shows Chinese per capita income for 2004 at $1,290. That makes average monthly income about $108. The typical pop CD is going for around $17, so that makes the purchase of one CD equivalent to 16% of the average Chinese worker's monthly income. That's more than I pay for the mortgage on my house.
The price of a car does not come close to the price of Windows. The analogy is bad if only in the scale of the price of the two products.
It scales perfectly. I gave you the figures for all those Mercedes' you claimed were sold in Asia. The vehicles sold in China are usually from Cherry, since they run about 50% of the cost of a cheap GM product. It's about the worth of a product and its value to the consumer. In China, like the US, Windows is really worthless, but Americans have the disposable income to pay for things with an imaginary value based on nothing more than marketing. It's basic economics, but you knew that already.
The Chinese government has enough cash to pay for legitimate copies of Windows. Large businesses in China also have enough money. But, neither the Chinese government or large Chinese businesses will pay for Windows if piracy is rampant.
The Chinese government is using Linux the last I heard. I wouldn't know about Chinese businesses, but that would be a tiny fraction of the (yo, ho, matey) piracy you're going on about. I find your tunnel vision fascinating. The Chinese are screwing us big time via currency exchange rates and trade barriers to the tune of $60 billion a year, and you're worried about lost sales of "IP" that would never happen anyway in the real world.
The difference is that the laws are on the books. And these people are breaking their own law. While enforcement is slack right now, these people could face penalties in the future for their current actions.
Oh, my. The danger of future possible prosecution is certainly something to worry about. It didn't help Cisco. We have laws on the books here about H1-B usage which American companies disregard because they're unenforced. There is no difference.
See the user that started this topic... Oh! That just happens to by my username! Nice of you to point out the topic that I started.
Vicissidude wrote to mention a CNN/Money article, announcing that President Bush has created a new senior-level position to fight global intellectual-property piracy
So shouldn't you have left out the parts about President Bush and the new senior-level position if you didn't want to discuss it? It looks like fair game to me. If there are aspects of the subject you'd rather not discuss, you always have the option of not clicking the "Reply to This" link.
Is this really true? Because most of the people I've talked to in IT who've been around the block say that IBM was never as reviled as MS is now.
IBM was widely reviled and prosecuted for anti-trust violations just like Microsoft, and like MS was able to outwit/outlast the prosecutors. It tried to close an architecture (the PC) that it had opened once it became a big item. But, yeah, I have to agree that it was never considered as evil as Microsoft is now. Then, MS was considered the good guy who was looking out for the little guy (us). How times, companies, and perceptions change.
Even so, foreign companies are selling cars in China. Mercedes is just as much as status symbol there as it is here.
Oh, yeah, I forgot. For 2004, sales for Mercedes in the US were 194,700. In the whole Asian/Pacifc area sales were 83,300. Run that through your 1 or 2 billion customer economic model (per capita), and project similar sales for American CDs. Are you sure you took economics?
I fought that battle previously. If you actually subscribe to Slashdot, you can look up all my previous comments. Even so, you are again going off topic.
All 169 comments?;) Obviously, neither you nor I subscribe - you can tell by looking at the header on the comments.
No where in the constitution does it set up capitalism as our economic system.
You were the one going on about capitalism. I noted that we don't have that. Period. Pay attention.
And again, you are going off topic.
No, you're afraid to address the topic.
The actual number is somewhere between one and the number of pirated copies. Given that we're talking about a billion+ people, it's likely more than a few would buy a legitimate copy. Even if the number is as low as 1% per month, that's 10,000,000 copies sold each month. That's hardly chump change and certainly more than the nothing we're selling now.
Now we're getting somewhere. You are assuming that there are ten million Chinese who are in the middle class and need to upgrade or install Windows every month. Given the normal usage patterns in the US and the rest of the world, that would indicate an installed base of, carry the 1, over a billion Chinese customers. I'm pretty sure that XP sold less that 20 million copies world-wide during the first two months. Again, there are very few Chinese who can afford retail copies of Windows. The whole piracy thing is a diversion.
Stick to the topic. We're talking CDs, DVDs, and software. A frickin car is a whole different ball game.
No, you're just unable or unwilling to make the logical connection. It's about the market. You wouldn't be able to sell many Ford Explorers in China because there is a very limited customer base. It's the same with MS Windows. The pirated copies of Windows do not equal lost sales for Microsoft any more than Ford Explorers not sold in China equal lost sales for Ford.
That's not what I said at all. If you don't know the difference, then I suggest you take an economics class. You are obviously too dense to pick this up from a few readings on Slashdot.
What you said was pointless. I've taken classes in economics from a real university, which is why I find your comments so amusing. You evidently took economics from the RIAA School of Business.
The problem is that China isn't enforcing their own laws.
Unenforced laws = no laws, much like our H1-B program restrictions. If there really are any laws, perhaps you should apply for a job as counsel for Cisco - they sure didn't have any luck trying to prosecute the thieves.
Again, can you stick to the frickin topic. We're talking about the Chinese and the wholesale theft of software, CDs, and DVDs. We're not talking about how mean and big American corporations are.
I believe the topic is about using taxpayer money to create a new bureaucracy to *protect* American corporations from the evil, pirating Chinese who couldn't afford to buy their products in the first place. It's the same corporations that are moving jobs and their IP to India and China. It's a boondoggle, and if the topic is now encompassing more than you can process, that's too bad.
So there are large amounts of Chinese that could purchase software at the legal price.
The term "large amounts of Chinese" is meaningless considering their population of over a billion people. A tiny fraction of that population is a large amount of people but has nothing to do with what the majority can afford.
Creating a level playing field where people and companies can control and sell what they create is not "special treatment".
So it's only about a level playing field for companies that create IP and not for companies that make textiles or garments or electronics? Where is your angst for them and the people they employed?
If I create something that you want and you can just take it from me, then we're not dealing in capitalism.
Tell that to the government and the SCOTUS after the recent eminent domain decision. BTW, we don't have capitalism.
BS. You are attributing someone else's argument to me. I did not make that argument because not every pirated disk would otherwise result in a sale.
However, the argument that I did make, is that someone would have bought a legitimate copy otherwise.
Okay . . . I give up. You're saying that one person would have bought a legal copy if the Chinese weren't selling cracked copies on the street? Doesn't sound like much of a gain for American business to me.
And since someone would buy those CDs, DVDs, and software from US were they not being pirated, then it does affect the bottom line. Considering that we're talking about a country with over a billion people, it would affect the bottom line dramatically.
There are millions of Chinese who would love to own a Ford Explorer. They are very difficult to copy and sell on the street corner. I suggest you open a Ford dealership in China and make boatloads of money. Let me know how it works out.
BS. The market is there, just not at the price that Microsoft wants to sell at.
So you agree that that the market isn't there.
Even so, your argument does not support the wholesale theft of software.
I am not trying to support the theft of software. Thanks for noticing.
If you could buy a $1 CD on the street corner that Wal-Mart sells for $10, that doesn't mean there is no market at Wal-Mart. However, with the rampant piracy, no one wants to pay the legal price.
There is already such an underground market in the US, but most people somehow prefer WalMart. It's about disposable income and market value.
Closing off ourselves from the rest of the world is not the answer. The answer is to get the Chinese to enforce the IP laws they already have on their books. Then that money will be flowing to the US, rather than into the pockets of the pirates.
The last I heard, there were no Chinese laws regarding foreign IP. That is why Cisco had such a problem when their firmware was stolen and sold by their Chinese coders. The answer is to remain here in first place and keep our industry here rather than wasting resources chasing phantom losses claimed by businesses that are busy leaving the country while claiming they need protection. Have you ever heard of the term corporate welfare?
The government is not the group responsible. Take it up with American businesses.
Business does not operate in a vacuum. This country does not allow pure capitalism (thank God). There are laws regulating business, and those laws are written by our government. When government gives preferential tax breaks to companies that move jobs offshore, there is a problem with both government and businesses.
All the Chinese people aren't living in huts. The Chinese economy is actually quite strong and American companies have been doing a lot to get into China and tap into the growing middle and upper class. There is no real market for software and music because a copy can be found for ten cents anywhere in China.
The percentage of "middle class" in China and India in comparison to the US is tiny. Most exist at a subsistence level. Even then, their "middle class" has nothing comparable to our middle class when it comes to disposable income, which is what we're talking about - it's not about groceries. The reason software can be found for ten cents in Asia is because that's what the market will bear. I'm sure if Microsoft sold Windows for ten cents (more than it's worth), they would have far more sales.
Sounds great. How do we do that?
Somehow convince the government that giving tax incentives to American businesses for moving jobs offshore is a bad idea. But since it's the businesses that are paying Congress to provide favorable legislation, that's a tough sell. My tack is to tell my Congresscritters that I know what is going on, and if they don't support America-first legislation, my vote will go to their next opponent. It's not a big threat, but I also get a lot of letters published in the paper. The lates polls showed more people are becoming concerned about job loss, so it may become more of an issue for Congress.
How do we change the American economy so you don't feel bad about downloading movies and music off of bittorrent?
I don't feel bad about that at all because I don't do it, and I figure most people who can afford to buy digital products do so. The only thing I get using bittorrent is the latest Linux distro, and that's the way operating systems should be distributed, IMHO.
Typical American 21st-century politics: the endless lunatic cluster-fuck. Do try to make an effort not to get caught. And keep practicing your Spanish so that you can just leave when the ship sinks.
They speak Spanish in Canada? Maybe you're thinking of La Canada - that's in California, and still in the country (technically, anyway).
Those corporations employ millions of Americans who do pay income tax, FICA, property tax, sales tax, etc. Every DVD, CD, or piece of software that is illegally copied overseas means less money that flows into these corporations, into those American's pockets, and into the US, state, and local governments.
Yet the very same companies you speak of are moving jobs overseas and removing those sources of tax revenue. Why should they get special treatment and protection for abandoning this country?
We could possibly employ all of our unemployed were we not losing this money. We are screwing ourselves over by not attempting to collect the money that is rightfully ours.
That's the same old RIAA nonsense argument that every song downloaded is a lost sale. People without money (as in China) don't buy expensive, unnecessary items.
I don't know about the other corporations listed, but up until recently, I worked for Microsoft.
That would explain a lot. We need to have an intervention and get you detoxed from the company propaganda.
It's estimated that each employee at Microsoft provides another 2 jobs to the local economy.
It's a lot greater than that world-wide if you take into account all the anti-virus and anti-spyware companies, the computer repair people, and all the people writing adware and spyware.
Bill Gates lives right near Seattle on Mercer Island. That's the world's richest man living here, paying income tax, property tax, and sales tax. He gives to local charities since he's actually from Washington. And he's done a lot to aid the local university.
Wonderful. He's also building a campus in Bangalore and moving Microsoft jobs there. There goes the tax base.
Many Microsoft millionaires, people who formerly worked for Microsoft, have stayed in this area and contribute further to Seattle. The founder of Valve Software, creater of Half-Life, is one prime example.
So is Half-Life in danger of being stolen by the Chinese? Do they get free access?
I'm no fan of Microsoft, but if Microsoft gets screwed, then Seattle gets screwed. That idea alone scares me since I love my home.
Then you might want to ask Microsoft management why they are moving jobs offshore. Instead of freaking out over possible IP theft that has no effect on the bottom line, perhaps you might want to do what you can to pressure the government to stop exporting American jobs and cease helping the companies that do so.
There is 6.4 billion people in China with a 90% piracy rate. It doesn't take a leap of faith to say that's a lot of money America is losing.
And how many of those people do you think would be able to buy a copy of Windows XP at $200? There is no real market there.
Since we have no more manufacturing jobs in the US borders, thanks to outsourcing, the only thing America "manufactures" is intellectual property. It is our best interest to protect what is supporting our economy before we are have nothing left.
It would be in our best interests to put up trade barriers as the Chinese have, declare foreign IP fair game, and repatriate a lot of those jobs before we find ourselves totally dependent on the whims of those who don't like us. If the government wants to help American business, they need to stop exporting American businesses and return to exporting American products. The whole IP czar thing is a distraction.
I've had a few +5 Funnys, and improbabilites may be funny, but impossibilities aren't. Sorry.
But if NASA were able to do so, it might have prevented many of the problems that happened during development.
There is a very good reason why federal agencies are not allowed to retain, bank, or invest allocated funds. That money comes from tax revenue. Taking money from taxpayers yearly and then socking it away is tantamount to taxation without justified need. I agree that in a perfect world, things would work differently, but the restrictions we have are there to protect taxpayers from the inevitable growth and grasp of bureaucracy. The real culprit here is Congress, which can earmark NASA's allocated funds for specific projects, like the president's recent inclination to send men to Mars, and bypass the better judgement of NASA's own management.
Maybe NASA should just take the government's money, stick in in the bank for the first three years of "development", then actually begin development in earnest after they have the finances in hand.
Government agencies are not allowed to retain appropriated funds (which makes up NASA's entire budget) past the end of the fiscal year. They cannot bank or invest funds. Agencies like NASA can fund only as much work during a year as they have funds for, which may explain the "cost cutting" you claim.
Throughout 40 years of manned space flight, there were no fatalaties.
Others have mentioned 1967, but seven astronauts were killed in 1986 when the shuttle Challenger exploded. Pioneers in any era die. The only real problem was the media circus after the last shuttle disaster. Space exploration is a dangerous occupation, and the general public has handled setbacks better than the media (and therefore Congress) has.
Yes, MS demonstrated that all some company has to do is claim they were working on product x, but couldn't compete because of the MS monopoly, and collect a big paycheck at MS's expense. That's the American way.
And what companies were those? The way I remember it, it was always a company working on product X that entered talks with MS about being acquired or licensing, and then MS backed out and built a competing product, driving the company out of business. Considering Microsoft's resident legal division, it's a little hard to believe they would have settled so often or lost so many cases if they were following the rules.
When company executives talk about cutting off the air supply of a relatively small company with a competing product to a fairly new MS offering, that is not normal business practice. Companies normally compete based on the merits of their product, not by working to destroy other companies, and that is part of why MS was convicted of abusive monopolistic practices.
I have to admit I'm with Gates on this one. At least you have to admit that his sentiments are better than Carly's attitude
I don't care for Carly one iota, but at least she said what she really thought (and was doing) about jobs. Gates on the other hand lobbies Congress for more H1-Bs and builds a new campus in Bangalore while his company hires less than 1% of applicants here. MS can't even be bothered to send recruiters to more than a very few schools. Colleges and universities have invited MS with no result. Does that sound like a company that is hurting for staff?
Give me a semi-honest, loud-mouthed corporate raider like Carly over a dangerous liar like Gates any day. Carly's mouth made people sit up and take notice of the situation. Bill's believable fabrications are diverting people down a blind alley. He has no need for more CS graduates that he won't hire anyway.
I say good! When there are no more programmers around we can charge an arm and a leg for our services. For somebody who graduated from college at the height of the market flooding with CS grads this sounds like welcome news.
There will still be plenty of programmers around - in other, low-wage countries, and that's where the jobs will be. Gates cries crocodile tears while he lobbies for increases in the H1-B cap and builds a new campus in Bangalore. The last I heard, MS hires less than 1% of US applicants. The sad part is that people still listen to him and report what he says no matter which side of his mouth it comes from.
I find people disposing affected PCs highly irresponsible. Would someone think of those homeless children who dumpster-dived and brought home (or somewhere whatever) such PC? It's like throwing out old smoke alarm with perfectly good Uranium bits inside, someone's going to get hurt.
Yes, think of the children! While doing that, we might also want to think about the installed OS that is crippling these machines and promoting the dumpster destination. Shouldn't Microsoft get taxed for a recycling charge based on a percentage of cost for every machine where its OS is preinstalled?
This may be my last reply, since my head is about to explode from repeated ignorance of content put forward.
I believe that happened before you responded to my original post.
I expect, however, that if this were worked on cooperatively between the distributions, we would end up with something far better than what we have now. Nowhere have I said that I am going to build such a system and force it on people, mainly because that is impossible - you can take your words back out of my mouth, thanks.
And what reason do the different distros have to work on a unified system when each has valid reasons for using the system they do? A group of people don't suddenly band together and say, "Hey, there's no beer. Let's go build another Linux packaging system!" Some distros aren't suited for the RPM approach. If you can resolve the differences between rpm, apt, yum, and whatever else without making some monstrous kludge, then you are the guy to build the GUPM. Go get 'em, tiger.
Who put you in charge?
Me, when I decided to use Linux.
Your words. You're the one telling me how it should be. I like the current system because it is a breeding ground for innovation. Consolidation will happen naturally (as it already has between some distros) when it is advantageous to those involved.
How would anyone silence proponents of other approaches?
Well, duh, by having this agreement by distros to use one package manager that you propose. Do you think the people working on other approaches are going to keep working on unused software? Just because one approach was chosen, wouldn't mean it's the best. I believe you're the one who said, "It's impossible to prove that the best system is always chosen."
While we're at the underhand remarks about Nazism
Excuse you? The only thing I can figure is that you're referring to a five-year plan, which is about centralized control, and has nothing to do with Nazis. Linux development is very decentralized.
There is nothing I see currently that is mutually exclusive about the systems
Look harder.
Choosing later means first improving the system, and then there will presumably be forks and changes and (shock horror) ugrades.
So we should do away with different systems in favor of one, which will then be forked, so we can return to having many incompatible systems all based on a common parent. What would you gain other than eliminating competing technologies?
If you don't fit into the 'one size fits all' (which it will probably accomplish far better than anything windows has to offer, since it will have input from all sizes) there will always be alternatives.
There won't be alternatives if a single system is chosen. Volunteers don't usually work on software projects that aren't used. Go look at SourceForge for a graveyard of examples.
I really shouldn't have replied since you invoked Godwin's Rule, but there was crap I couldn't let go unanswered. Go ahead and explode - I'm not into SS or whatever other fantasies you have, so I'm out of here.
Slashdot Mirror
I was specifically talking about CDs, which are dramatically cheaper than copies of Windows. But I guess I can't expect you to actually follow the conversation.
Gee, and here I thought it was about the (yo, ho, ho) piracy of American IP. Excuuuuse me. A quick google shows Chinese per capita income for 2004 at $1,290. That makes average monthly income about $108. The typical pop CD is going for around $17, so that makes the purchase of one CD equivalent to 16% of the average Chinese worker's monthly income. That's more than I pay for the mortgage on my house.
The price of a car does not come close to the price of Windows. The analogy is bad if only in the scale of the price of the two products.
It scales perfectly. I gave you the figures for all those Mercedes' you claimed were sold in Asia. The vehicles sold in China are usually from Cherry, since they run about 50% of the cost of a cheap GM product. It's about the worth of a product and its value to the consumer. In China, like the US, Windows is really worthless, but Americans have the disposable income to pay for things with an imaginary value based on nothing more than marketing. It's basic economics, but you knew that already.
The Chinese government has enough cash to pay for legitimate copies of Windows. Large businesses in China also have enough money. But, neither the Chinese government or large Chinese businesses will pay for Windows if piracy is rampant.
The Chinese government is using Linux the last I heard. I wouldn't know about Chinese businesses, but that would be a tiny fraction of the (yo, ho, matey) piracy you're going on about. I find your tunnel vision fascinating. The Chinese are screwing us big time via currency exchange rates and trade barriers to the tune of $60 billion a year, and you're worried about lost sales of "IP" that would never happen anyway in the real world.
The difference is that the laws are on the books. And these people are breaking their own law. While enforcement is slack right now, these people could face penalties in the future for their current actions.
Oh, my. The danger of future possible prosecution is certainly something to worry about. It didn't help Cisco. We have laws on the books here about H1-B usage which American companies disregard because they're unenforced. There is no difference.
See the user that started this topic... Oh! That just happens to by my username! Nice of you to point out the topic that I started.
So shouldn't you have left out the parts about President Bush and the new senior-level position if you didn't want to discuss it? It looks like fair game to me. If there are aspects of the subject you'd rather not discuss, you always have the option of not clicking the "Reply to This" link.
Is this really true? Because most of the people I've talked to in IT who've been around the block say that IBM was never as reviled as MS is now.
IBM was widely reviled and prosecuted for anti-trust violations just like Microsoft, and like MS was able to outwit/outlast the prosecutors. It tried to close an architecture (the PC) that it had opened once it became a big item. But, yeah, I have to agree that it was never considered as evil as Microsoft is now. Then, MS was considered the good guy who was looking out for the little guy (us). How times, companies, and perceptions change.
Having the patent doesn't mean they're going to go sue AOL, Yahoo, etc. if their messengers have custom emoticons. Clue in, guys.
Have that tattooed on your forehead. I don't want you to be able to disclaim that in five years.
No, they are patenting converting, for example, sending the character sequence :) to a client and having it converted into an image of a smiley face.
There are a number of sites that have been doing that for years, unless you mean something different by "client".
Even so, foreign companies are selling cars in China. Mercedes is just as much as status symbol there as it is here.
Oh, yeah, I forgot. For 2004, sales for Mercedes in the US were 194,700. In the whole Asian/Pacifc area sales were 83,300. Run that through your 1 or 2 billion customer economic model (per capita), and project similar sales for American CDs. Are you sure you took economics?
I fought that battle previously. If you actually subscribe to Slashdot, you can look up all my previous comments. Even so, you are again going off topic.
All 169 comments? ;) Obviously, neither you nor I subscribe - you can tell by looking at the header on the comments.
No where in the constitution does it set up capitalism as our economic system.
You were the one going on about capitalism. I noted that we don't have that. Period. Pay attention.
And again, you are going off topic.
No, you're afraid to address the topic.
The actual number is somewhere between one and the number of pirated copies. Given that we're talking about a billion+ people, it's likely more than a few would buy a legitimate copy. Even if the number is as low as 1% per month, that's 10,000,000 copies sold each month. That's hardly chump change and certainly more than the nothing we're selling now.
Now we're getting somewhere. You are assuming that there are ten million Chinese who are in the middle class and need to upgrade or install Windows every month. Given the normal usage patterns in the US and the rest of the world, that would indicate an installed base of, carry the 1, over a billion Chinese customers. I'm pretty sure that XP sold less that 20 million copies world-wide during the first two months. Again, there are very few Chinese who can afford retail copies of Windows. The whole piracy thing is a diversion.
Stick to the topic. We're talking CDs, DVDs, and software. A frickin car is a whole different ball game.
No, you're just unable or unwilling to make the logical connection. It's about the market. You wouldn't be able to sell many Ford Explorers in China because there is a very limited customer base. It's the same with MS Windows. The pirated copies of Windows do not equal lost sales for Microsoft any more than Ford Explorers not sold in China equal lost sales for Ford.
That's not what I said at all. If you don't know the difference, then I suggest you take an economics class. You are obviously too dense to pick this up from a few readings on Slashdot.
What you said was pointless. I've taken classes in economics from a real university, which is why I find your comments so amusing. You evidently took economics from the RIAA School of Business.
The problem is that China isn't enforcing their own laws.
Unenforced laws = no laws, much like our H1-B program restrictions. If there really are any laws, perhaps you should apply for a job as counsel for Cisco - they sure didn't have any luck trying to prosecute the thieves.
Again, can you stick to the frickin topic. We're talking about the Chinese and the wholesale theft of software, CDs, and DVDs. We're not talking about how mean and big American corporations are.
I believe the topic is about using taxpayer money to create a new bureaucracy to *protect* American corporations from the evil, pirating Chinese who couldn't afford to buy their products in the first place. It's the same corporations that are moving jobs and their IP to India and China. It's a boondoggle, and if the topic is now encompassing more than you can process, that's too bad.
So there are large amounts of Chinese that could purchase software at the legal price.
The term "large amounts of Chinese" is meaningless considering their population of over a billion people. A tiny fraction of that population is a large amount of people but has nothing to do with what the majority can afford.
Creating a level playing field where people and companies can control and sell what they create is not "special treatment".
So it's only about a level playing field for companies that create IP and not for companies that make textiles or garments or electronics? Where is your angst for them and the people they employed?
If I create something that you want and you can just take it from me, then we're not dealing in capitalism.
Tell that to the government and the SCOTUS after the recent eminent domain decision. BTW, we don't have capitalism.
BS. You are attributing someone else's argument to me. I did not make that argument because not every pirated disk would otherwise result in a sale.
However, the argument that I did make, is that someone would have bought a legitimate copy otherwise.
Okay . . . I give up. You're saying that one person would have bought a legal copy if the Chinese weren't selling cracked copies on the street? Doesn't sound like much of a gain for American business to me.
And since someone would buy those CDs, DVDs, and software from US were they not being pirated, then it does affect the bottom line. Considering that we're talking about a country with over a billion people, it would affect the bottom line dramatically.
There are millions of Chinese who would love to own a Ford Explorer. They are very difficult to copy and sell on the street corner. I suggest you open a Ford dealership in China and make boatloads of money. Let me know how it works out.
BS. The market is there, just not at the price that Microsoft wants to sell at.
So you agree that that the market isn't there.
Even so, your argument does not support the wholesale theft of software.
I am not trying to support the theft of software. Thanks for noticing.
If you could buy a $1 CD on the street corner that Wal-Mart sells for $10, that doesn't mean there is no market at Wal-Mart. However, with the rampant piracy, no one wants to pay the legal price.
There is already such an underground market in the US, but most people somehow prefer WalMart. It's about disposable income and market value.
Closing off ourselves from the rest of the world is not the answer. The answer is to get the Chinese to enforce the IP laws they already have on their books. Then that money will be flowing to the US, rather than into the pockets of the pirates.
The last I heard, there were no Chinese laws regarding foreign IP. That is why Cisco had such a problem when their firmware was stolen and sold by their Chinese coders. The answer is to remain here in first place and keep our industry here rather than wasting resources chasing phantom losses claimed by businesses that are busy leaving the country while claiming they need protection. Have you ever heard of the term corporate welfare?
The government is not the group responsible. Take it up with American businesses.
Business does not operate in a vacuum. This country does not allow pure capitalism (thank God). There are laws regulating business, and those laws are written by our government. When government gives preferential tax breaks to companies that move jobs offshore, there is a problem with both government and businesses.
All the Chinese people aren't living in huts. The Chinese economy is actually quite strong and American companies have been doing a lot to get into China and tap into the growing middle and upper class. There is no real market for software and music because a copy can be found for ten cents anywhere in China.
The percentage of "middle class" in China and India in comparison to the US is tiny. Most exist at a subsistence level. Even then, their "middle class" has nothing comparable to our middle class when it comes to disposable income, which is what we're talking about - it's not about groceries. The reason software can be found for ten cents in Asia is because that's what the market will bear. I'm sure if Microsoft sold Windows for ten cents (more than it's worth), they would have far more sales.
Sounds great. How do we do that?
Somehow convince the government that giving tax incentives to American businesses for moving jobs offshore is a bad idea. But since it's the businesses that are paying Congress to provide favorable legislation, that's a tough sell. My tack is to tell my Congresscritters that I know what is going on, and if they don't support America-first legislation, my vote will go to their next opponent. It's not a big threat, but I also get a lot of letters published in the paper. The lates polls showed more people are becoming concerned about job loss, so it may become more of an issue for Congress.
How do we change the American economy so you don't feel bad about downloading movies and music off of bittorrent?
I don't feel bad about that at all because I don't do it, and I figure most people who can afford to buy digital products do so. The only thing I get using bittorrent is the latest Linux distro, and that's the way operating systems should be distributed, IMHO.
Typical American 21st-century politics: the endless lunatic cluster-fuck. Do try to make an effort not to get caught. And keep practicing your Spanish so that you can just leave when the ship sinks.
They speak Spanish in Canada? Maybe you're thinking of La Canada - that's in California, and still in the country (technically, anyway).
Those corporations employ millions of Americans who do pay income tax, FICA, property tax, sales tax, etc. Every DVD, CD, or piece of software that is illegally copied overseas means less money that flows into these corporations, into those American's pockets, and into the US, state, and local governments.
Yet the very same companies you speak of are moving jobs overseas and removing those sources of tax revenue. Why should they get special treatment and protection for abandoning this country?
We could possibly employ all of our unemployed were we not losing this money. We are screwing ourselves over by not attempting to collect the money that is rightfully ours.
That's the same old RIAA nonsense argument that every song downloaded is a lost sale. People without money (as in China) don't buy expensive, unnecessary items.
I don't know about the other corporations listed, but up until recently, I worked for Microsoft.
That would explain a lot. We need to have an intervention and get you detoxed from the company propaganda.
It's estimated that each employee at Microsoft provides another 2 jobs to the local economy.
It's a lot greater than that world-wide if you take into account all the anti-virus and anti-spyware companies, the computer repair people, and all the people writing adware and spyware.
Bill Gates lives right near Seattle on Mercer Island. That's the world's richest man living here, paying income tax, property tax, and sales tax. He gives to local charities since he's actually from Washington. And he's done a lot to aid the local university.
Wonderful. He's also building a campus in Bangalore and moving Microsoft jobs there. There goes the tax base.
Many Microsoft millionaires, people who formerly worked for Microsoft, have stayed in this area and contribute further to Seattle. The founder of Valve Software, creater of Half-Life, is one prime example.
So is Half-Life in danger of being stolen by the Chinese? Do they get free access?
I'm no fan of Microsoft, but if Microsoft gets screwed, then Seattle gets screwed. That idea alone scares me since I love my home.
Then you might want to ask Microsoft management why they are moving jobs offshore. Instead of freaking out over possible IP theft that has no effect on the bottom line, perhaps you might want to do what you can to pressure the government to stop exporting American jobs and cease helping the companies that do so.
There is 6.4 billion people in China with a 90% piracy rate. It doesn't take a leap of faith to say that's a lot of money America is losing.
And how many of those people do you think would be able to buy a copy of Windows XP at $200? There is no real market there.
Since we have no more manufacturing jobs in the US borders, thanks to outsourcing, the only thing America "manufactures" is intellectual property. It is our best interest to protect what is supporting our economy before we are have nothing left.
It would be in our best interests to put up trade barriers as the Chinese have, declare foreign IP fair game, and repatriate a lot of those jobs before we find ourselves totally dependent on the whims of those who don't like us. If the government wants to help American business, they need to stop exporting American businesses and return to exporting American products. The whole IP czar thing is a distraction.
Yes, I know. It was a joke.
I've had a few +5 Funnys, and improbabilites may be funny, but impossibilities aren't. Sorry.
But if NASA were able to do so, it might have prevented many of the problems that happened during development.
There is a very good reason why federal agencies are not allowed to retain, bank, or invest allocated funds. That money comes from tax revenue. Taking money from taxpayers yearly and then socking it away is tantamount to taxation without justified need. I agree that in a perfect world, things would work differently, but the restrictions we have are there to protect taxpayers from the inevitable growth and grasp of bureaucracy. The real culprit here is Congress, which can earmark NASA's allocated funds for specific projects, like the president's recent inclination to send men to Mars, and bypass the better judgement of NASA's own management.
Maybe NASA should just take the government's money, stick in in the bank for the first three years of "development", then actually begin development in earnest after they have the finances in hand.
Government agencies are not allowed to retain appropriated funds (which makes up NASA's entire budget) past the end of the fiscal year. They cannot bank or invest funds. Agencies like NASA can fund only as much work during a year as they have funds for, which may explain the "cost cutting" you claim.
Are you serious? These are the guys that forgot to convert Metric to English and sent a multi-million dollar machine hurtling into a planet.
It was a contractor that didn't do the conversion.
Throughout 40 years of manned space flight, there were no fatalaties.
Others have mentioned 1967, but seven astronauts were killed in 1986 when the shuttle Challenger exploded. Pioneers in any era die. The only real problem was the media circus after the last shuttle disaster. Space exploration is a dangerous occupation, and the general public has handled setbacks better than the media (and therefore Congress) has.
If you're interested, try washtech, zazona , and Matloff's mailing list. It's not a secret from anyone except those in Congress.
Yes, MS demonstrated that all some company has to do is claim they were working on product x, but couldn't compete because of the MS monopoly, and collect a big paycheck at MS's expense. That's the American way.
And what companies were those? The way I remember it, it was always a company working on product X that entered talks with MS about being acquired or licensing, and then MS backed out and built a competing product, driving the company out of business. Considering Microsoft's resident legal division, it's a little hard to believe they would have settled so often or lost so many cases if they were following the rules.
When company executives talk about cutting off the air supply of a relatively small company with a competing product to a fairly new MS offering, that is not normal business practice. Companies normally compete based on the merits of their product, not by working to destroy other companies, and that is part of why MS was convicted of abusive monopolistic practices.
I have to admit I'm with Gates on this one. At least you have to admit that his sentiments are better than Carly's attitude
I don't care for Carly one iota, but at least she said what she really thought (and was doing) about jobs. Gates on the other hand lobbies Congress for more H1-Bs and builds a new campus in Bangalore while his company hires less than 1% of applicants here. MS can't even be bothered to send recruiters to more than a very few schools. Colleges and universities have invited MS with no result. Does that sound like a company that is hurting for staff?
Give me a semi-honest, loud-mouthed corporate raider like Carly over a dangerous liar like Gates any day. Carly's mouth made people sit up and take notice of the situation. Bill's believable fabrications are diverting people down a blind alley. He has no need for more CS graduates that he won't hire anyway.
I say good! When there are no more programmers around we can charge an arm and a leg for our services. For somebody who graduated from college at the height of the market flooding with CS grads this sounds like welcome news.
There will still be plenty of programmers around - in other, low-wage countries, and that's where the jobs will be. Gates cries crocodile tears while he lobbies for increases in the H1-B cap and builds a new campus in Bangalore. The last I heard, MS hires less than 1% of US applicants. The sad part is that people still listen to him and report what he says no matter which side of his mouth it comes from.
I find people disposing affected PCs highly irresponsible. Would someone think of those homeless children who dumpster-dived and brought home (or somewhere whatever) such PC? It's like throwing out old smoke alarm with perfectly good Uranium bits inside, someone's going to get hurt.
Yes, think of the children! While doing that, we might also want to think about the installed OS that is crippling these machines and promoting the dumpster destination. Shouldn't Microsoft get taxed for a recycling charge based on a percentage of cost for every machine where its OS is preinstalled?
This may be my last reply, since my head is about to explode from repeated ignorance of content put forward.
I believe that happened before you responded to my original post.
I expect, however, that if this were worked on cooperatively between the distributions, we would end up with something far better than what we have now. Nowhere have I said that I am going to build such a system and force it on people, mainly because that is impossible - you can take your words back out of my mouth, thanks.
And what reason do the different distros have to work on a unified system when each has valid reasons for using the system they do? A group of people don't suddenly band together and say, "Hey, there's no beer. Let's go build another Linux packaging system!" Some distros aren't suited for the RPM approach. If you can resolve the differences between rpm, apt, yum, and whatever else without making some monstrous kludge, then you are the guy to build the GUPM. Go get 'em, tiger.
Your words. You're the one telling me how it should be. I like the current system because it is a breeding ground for innovation. Consolidation will happen naturally (as it already has between some distros) when it is advantageous to those involved.
How would anyone silence proponents of other approaches?
Well, duh, by having this agreement by distros to use one package manager that you propose. Do you think the people working on other approaches are going to keep working on unused software? Just because one approach was chosen, wouldn't mean it's the best. I believe you're the one who said, "It's impossible to prove that the best system is always chosen."
While we're at the underhand remarks about Nazism
Excuse you? The only thing I can figure is that you're referring to a five-year plan, which is about centralized control, and has nothing to do with Nazis. Linux development is very decentralized.
There is nothing I see currently that is mutually exclusive about the systems
Look harder.
Choosing later means first improving the system, and then there will presumably be forks and changes and (shock horror) ugrades.
So we should do away with different systems in favor of one, which will then be forked, so we can return to having many incompatible systems all based on a common parent. What would you gain other than eliminating competing technologies?
If you don't fit into the 'one size fits all' (which it will probably accomplish far better than anything windows has to offer, since it will have input from all sizes) there will always be alternatives.
There won't be alternatives if a single system is chosen. Volunteers don't usually work on software projects that aren't used. Go look at SourceForge for a graveyard of examples.
I really shouldn't have replied since you invoked Godwin's Rule, but there was crap I couldn't let go unanswered. Go ahead and explode - I'm not into SS or whatever other fantasies you have, so I'm out of here.