Wow. Yet another MS innovation coming soon to a computer near you.
Funny, however, how the rendering scheme and virtualization of graphics card memmory sounds awfully like the new, and currently shipping, graphics engine in Apple's OS X. (Quartz and Quartz Extreme.)
Actually, given a major difference for say, a camera from B&H Photo, and a camera from Honest Abe's, I'd probably STILL go with B&H.
One still has to evaluate how much risk they're willing to take vs. the money they think they're going to save. If the camera from Abe's is used, repackaged, busted, missing parts, has to be returned, or comes with exorbitant shipping costs, how much time and money and frustration did you really save?
The only differentiator on the net is M-O-N-E-Y. And there's always the possibility of someone selling it for less just a click away...
Sorry, but that's not the ONLY differentiator. As another poster indicated, reputation is also a key factor.
Given a minor difference in price, I may still buy it at Amazon because I know and value their service, sales, and return policies.
Another factor is that I already have an account at big-A, whereas I have to ask if the hassles (and potential security issues) of setting up a new account and providing my credit card information are worth the buck or two I'd save with a no-name provider.
When or how? When the technology has shown to be safer than driving the car yourself.
As much as I'd like this to happen, I have doubts that it has a chance of occurring in today's overly-litigious society.
Just ONE major accident or kid running out and being hit by a car and it's MAJOR lawsuit time. Doesn't matter that had a person being driving the kid would still have been toast.
Except that by the time the kid reached 18 the law would probably have changed making removal of the tracker illegal. Too convenient to always know where everyone (kids, criminals, employees) is...
Instead of dropping prices to bring in more business to regain sagging sales, they raise prices to try to bring in more profit.... They cut their own throats because they have an understanding of the economic process that is upside-down.
If only things were that simple. It assumes, for example, that fixed costs (employee salaries and benefits, et. al.) allow prices to be reduced; that the product can in fact be produced for less; and that there is in fact an increased market for a given product at a reduced price.
As to the later I'm not so sure. Just a couple of years ago people ranted on/. that it sucked to have to buy entire albums that only contained a few decent songs. Now that a variety of places sell individual songs for a buck people say that, well, a buck is too much and they'd buy music for a nickel.
What they're really saying is that they like getting it for free and any price would be too high...
but the overall point is - circumvention of this kind of thing is trivial to the point of being pointless.
True. It also seems to ignore the fact that many of the guns and/or bullets used in crimes where such tracking would be helpful are obtained illegally.
As such, unless you recover the weapon tags that indicate the gun was stolen from a homeowner in Texas aren't going to be extremely useful.
On the flip side, some weapons, like Tasers, are already marked with micro-filaments that scatter when the weapon is fired.
So, like time travel, when is "after the fact"? It took dollars/time/effort to create the information, so when is that information suddenly supposed to be free? The second it's created? Next day? Or after some other period of time, during which the creators have the opportunity to benefit from their creation?
While we're on the topic, it should be neither corporations, nor government.
So you, personally, have the millions and/or billions of dollars needed to do something like sequencing the genome? No? Going to start a web site and hope you get enough donations, or go begging for support door-to-door?
The fact of the matter is that some problems can only be solved by groups that can amass enough resources to do so.
There's just no real money in selling information, money comes from sharing it.
People cost money. They have to buy food, clothing, shelter, and so on. Equipment costs money. The place they work costs money.
Again, unless dollars can be made from the creation of new knowledge people will not spend the dollars to create it. The funds to do so have to come from somewhere, either from corporations, the government, or donations.
And while people whine about corporations, I think we've also had some good examples of what happens when the government tries to do it all.
Information as a product is really no different than a physical product in the sense that it costs money to create and offers value to those who use it. In fact, in many cases it's much more valuable than a physical product, as the creative spark can not be duplicated and mass produced.
BTW, patented information is shared for a limited time via licensing. I put dollars in, I get my dollars back out, and you get to make stuff based on my work and sell it, making you dollars.
Then really you're no better than the burger-flipper down at McDonalds, who's not making any money unless he's working.
One of the advantages to having a album for sale and music on iTunes and so forth is the multiplier effect.
Assuming people like your music (major assumption here) they can obtain it from multiple stores, and pay for it at multiple places, even when you're not personally working. One of the FEW jobs where it's possible to get paid for work done months or even years ago.
To renounce that income is, to me, well, idiotic. Unless you like not having "paid" vacations, like having to work even when you're sick, and so on...
Again, we find information and data that SHOULD be in the public domain...
Are you sure you don't want to add "make love not war" to your rant?
The data generated would not EXIST had not investors (read people) put millions of dollars into the company to hire the researchers, buy the equipment, and develop and analyize the data. Odd that, at some point, they'd hoped to get their money back.
Some people, unlike most here it seems, understand that INFORMATION is not free, that it costs time and money and often sweat and tears to create. As such, in many cases it simply can not be given away.
However, if you believe otherwise, there's nothing stopping you from creating your own information and placing that value into the public domain.
All 6-7 billion of us at the same time? This planet literally doesn't have the resources to support that. An ugly truth that doesn't get talked about, but its true.
True? Or just an opinion?
Either way, I dispute it, as the assumption at the core of it is that we're playing a zero-sum, finite-resource game.
World peace is only achievable through some form of population control - once everyone has a decent standard of living...
Ah... missing the point here. Nations with a high standard of living tend to have flat, if not declining birth rates.
Researchers have noted the phenomenon of falling birthrates in industrialized nations for many years, as children were no longer needed for manual labor on the farms, and and as woman acquire economic opportunities and access to birth control.
So once everyone has a decent standard of living birth rates will drop on their own.
Imagine the amount of money that would have to be spent on development and debugging. If making it Open Source offsets any percentage of that amount, it would be awesome.
I love how that statement assumes there's a vast number of skilled software developers ready, willing, and able to work for free...
It's a binary-format-to-binary-format-transposition. The vast majority of the actual data is not altered, e.g. pixel value 0xFE12 is 0xFE12 in both the input raw and the output DNG.
If we had formal specifications a large number of comments would be pushed up from the code into the specification.
Unfortunately, if I'm working on code I know where the code is, but the binder containing the documentation may be halfway around the planet. Comment the code and you keep the two together.
Makes you wonder how many business owners know what rules banning communications with other businesses and their customers have been put in place without their understanding or approval...
Let's see if we can put this into words you might understand. It would save the unprocessed, raw data into a standardized file format (this byte goes there).
It describes a FILE format. The raw data is still raw.
Show me the "real science" that proves all GMOs are safe.
Actually, here, as in several other parts of your message, you hit the nail on the head.
What degree of "proof" is needed? How "safe" is safe? What degree of risk are we willing to assume? Do the benefits greatly outweigh the risks?
Unfortunately, it seems as if too many people in the environmental camp cry out for absolute proof and zero risk. Since that is obviously an impossibility, they insist we do nothing.
A case in point are the casks developed for transportation of spent nuclear fuel. They drop them from 100 feet, run trains into them, and so on, and yet for some people they never seem to be "safe" enough.
It's not that it's not safe, it's just that it's a convenient delaying tactic.
herbicide resistent crops mean that you can dump herbicides with wreckless abandon
I don't know who modded you up, but you don't deserve it, as your logic is fundamentally flawed.
They're not going to dump herbicides with "wreckless abandon" because doing so takes time and money. Farmers, like most people, don't want to spend either unproductively.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, however, how the rendering scheme and virtualization of graphics card memmory sounds awfully like the new, and currently shipping, graphics engine in Apple's OS X. (Quartz and Quartz Extreme.)
One still has to evaluate how much risk they're willing to take vs. the money they think they're going to save. If the camera from Abe's is used, repackaged, busted, missing parts, has to be returned, or comes with exorbitant shipping costs, how much time and money and frustration did you really save?
Sorry, but that's not the ONLY differentiator. As another poster indicated, reputation is also a key factor.
Given a minor difference in price, I may still buy it at Amazon because I know and value their service, sales, and return policies.
Another factor is that I already have an account at big-A, whereas I have to ask if the hassles (and potential security issues) of setting up a new account and providing my credit card information are worth the buck or two I'd save with a no-name provider.
Three.
As much as I'd like this to happen, I have doubts that it has a chance of occurring in today's overly-litigious society.
Just ONE major accident or kid running out and being hit by a car and it's MAJOR lawsuit time. Doesn't matter that had a person being driving the kid would still have been toast.
As such, who's going to make the investment?
Except that by the time the kid reached 18 the law would probably have changed making removal of the tracker illegal. Too convenient to always know where everyone (kids, criminals, employees) is...
If only things were that simple. It assumes, for example, that fixed costs (employee salaries and benefits, et. al.) allow prices to be reduced; that the product can in fact be produced for less; and that there is in fact an increased market for a given product at a reduced price.
As to the later I'm not so sure. Just a couple of years ago people ranted on /. that it sucked to have to buy entire albums that only contained a few decent songs. Now that a variety of places sell individual songs for a buck people say that, well, a buck is too much and they'd buy music for a nickel.
What they're really saying is that they like getting it for free and any price would be too high...
True. It also seems to ignore the fact that many of the guns and/or bullets used in crimes where such tracking would be helpful are obtained illegally.
As such, unless you recover the weapon tags that indicate the gun was stolen from a homeowner in Texas aren't going to be extremely useful.
On the flip side, some weapons, like Tasers, are already marked with micro-filaments that scatter when the weapon is fired.
So, like time travel, when is "after the fact"? It took dollars/time/effort to create the information, so when is that information suddenly supposed to be free? The second it's created? Next day? Or after some other period of time, during which the creators have the opportunity to benefit from their creation?
While we're on the topic, it should be neither corporations, nor government.
So you, personally, have the millions and/or billions of dollars needed to do something like sequencing the genome? No? Going to start a web site and hope you get enough donations, or go begging for support door-to-door?
The fact of the matter is that some problems can only be solved by groups that can amass enough resources to do so.
People cost money. They have to buy food, clothing, shelter, and so on. Equipment costs money. The place they work costs money.
Again, unless dollars can be made from the creation of new knowledge people will not spend the dollars to create it. The funds to do so have to come from somewhere, either from corporations, the government, or donations.
And while people whine about corporations, I think we've also had some good examples of what happens when the government tries to do it all.
Information as a product is really no different than a physical product in the sense that it costs money to create and offers value to those who use it. In fact, in many cases it's much more valuable than a physical product, as the creative spark can not be duplicated and mass produced.
BTW, patented information is shared for a limited time via licensing. I put dollars in, I get my dollars back out, and you get to make stuff based on my work and sell it, making you dollars.
One of the advantages to having a album for sale and music on iTunes and so forth is the multiplier effect.
Assuming people like your music (major assumption here) they can obtain it from multiple stores, and pay for it at multiple places, even when you're not personally working. One of the FEW jobs where it's possible to get paid for work done months or even years ago.
To renounce that income is, to me, well, idiotic. Unless you like not having "paid" vacations, like having to work even when you're sick, and so on...
Are you sure you don't want to add "make love not war" to your rant?
The data generated would not EXIST had not investors (read people) put millions of dollars into the company to hire the researchers, buy the equipment, and develop and analyize the data. Odd that, at some point, they'd hoped to get their money back.
Some people, unlike most here it seems, understand that INFORMATION is not free, that it costs time and money and often sweat and tears to create. As such, in many cases it simply can not be given away.
However, if you believe otherwise, there's nothing stopping you from creating your own information and placing that value into the public domain.
Assuming you're capable of doing so, of course.
True? Or just an opinion?
Either way, I dispute it, as the assumption at the core of it is that we're playing a zero-sum, finite-resource game.
As to the news flashes, Verhoeven simply borrowed an idea he'd already done (Robocop).
You're just trying to prove you're not weak-minded.
What poor areas?
Ah... missing the point here. Nations with a high standard of living tend to have flat, if not declining birth rates.
Researchers have noted the phenomenon of falling birthrates in industrialized nations for many years, as children were no longer needed for manual labor on the farms, and and as woman acquire economic opportunities and access to birth control.
So once everyone has a decent standard of living birth rates will drop on their own.
I love how that statement assumes there's a vast number of skilled software developers ready, willing, and able to work for free...
It's a binary-format-to-binary-format-transposition. The vast majority of the actual data is not altered, e.g. pixel value 0xFE12 is 0xFE12 in both the input raw and the output DNG.
Unfortunately, if I'm working on code I know where the code is, but the binder containing the documentation may be halfway around the planet. Comment the code and you keep the two together.
Makes you wonder how many business owners know what rules banning communications with other businesses and their customers have been put in place without their understanding or approval...
Really. They can't? So different. Huh.
Did you know that Adobe already converts about 70 RAW files formats into a single DNG file format? Including Sigma and Fuji?
Little things like real world facts are SO inconvenient, aren't they?
Let's see if we can put this into words you might understand. It would save the unprocessed, raw data into a standardized file format (this byte goes there).
It describes a FILE format. The raw data is still raw.
Actually, here, as in several other parts of your message, you hit the nail on the head.
What degree of "proof" is needed? How "safe" is safe? What degree of risk are we willing to assume? Do the benefits greatly outweigh the risks?
Unfortunately, it seems as if too many people in the environmental camp cry out for absolute proof and zero risk. Since that is obviously an impossibility, they insist we do nothing.
A case in point are the casks developed for transportation of spent nuclear fuel. They drop them from 100 feet, run trains into them, and so on, and yet for some people they never seem to be "safe" enough.
It's not that it's not safe, it's just that it's a convenient delaying tactic.
I don't know who modded you up, but you don't deserve it, as your logic is fundamentally flawed.
They're not going to dump herbicides with "wreckless abandon" because doing so takes time and money. Farmers, like most people, don't want to spend either unproductively.