This article would have been better titled: "Next-Gen DVD Formats Will Flop" because that is exactly what is going to happen. They've got a small market of people willing to replace all of their gear as it is, and now they have introduced compatibility problems on purpose with these inane restrictions. Nevermind the fact that they've got two completely incompatible formats, one of which is guaranteed to fail. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. The word of mouth on these things will be how "so-and-so spent gobs of money and it didn't work".
As I read this article I couldn't help but think of the parallels between what Microsoft is doing with VOIP and what IBM did with the personal computer. VOIP is headed for 100% adoption now, and the telcos are in serious trouble. People are going to use free or cheap internet access points, and nobody is going to pay those outrageous rates for the cell phone infrastructure anymore.
Thank you, Microsoft. You may still be evil, but you've done the world a favor by destroying the exploitative business model of an industry that is arguably more evil.
Even though they are equivalent, an iPod is a lot less suspicious than an external hard drive. Companies which rely on physical security only need to take notice and consider whether they should implement some sort of access log.
I guess the answer depends on how valuable your time is to you. If you waste hours every day, for example by posting to slashdot, then you probably won't mind working at a boring-ass job for good pay. Especially if you post to slashdot on their time. Then again, if you feel compelled to work on interesting things to the point where it is interfering with the rest of your wife, then by all means take the pay cut and move to the interesting job.
That would be the hotspot that is not connected to the internet, yet it broadcasts an SSID and automatically files computer hacking charges against you when you connect.
Sigh. I'm trying to point out that a premise Gates used ($40,000 of invested computer time) does not apply (since he stole it and thus did not "invest" it). Gates' own argument refers to himself, so I don't see how people are claiming "it doesn't matter who makes the argument". If an innocent person makes the argument "I am innocent because of these facts" and a guilty person says the same thing, are you going to say the argument is true in the second case as well ? The facts do not apply to the second person, so his argument his non-sequitur.
I think we mostly agree, I just think it needs to be broader than "pioneers".
We do agree, but I wanted to make a stronger point in the case of pioneers because they are developing a new market. This is a far greater social good than simply producing something in an established market, and I think it deserves special consideration. Hence the original motivation for patents and copyrights (which have sadly been co-opted as anti-competitive weapons for established markets).
Nobody is suggesting to reimburse failed ventures, assuming the risk of failure is part of being an entrepreneur. But Gates wasn't a failure. Lots of people were using his Altair BASIC, they just weren't paying him for it because they were able to avoid it. He the assumed the risk and made a successful product. People should have paid him if they wanted to use it.
"The Altair was featured on the cover of Popular Electronics for January 1975. It was the world's first mass-produced personal computer kit, as well as the first computer to use an Intel 8080 processor."
In 1993 ?! I'm sorry, maybe 1986 is too early, but 1993 ?! People were buying the first 486's in 1993, and I can pretty much guarantee that in 1991 people were buying 386's with DOS 5.0 and Wordperfect, and possibly Windows 3.0. Maybe their kids were still playing on Commodore 64's (if they didn't have a Nintendo), but x86 was already the dominant architecture.
This is starting to get bland and pedantic, but there is a distinction to be made. In Gates' letter he makes two arguments. One is the general argument that developers deserve to get paid ("What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"), and the other is that he specifically deserves to be paid ("The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000."). Maybe we are talking about two different things ? I think the fact that he stole that $40,000 of computer time invalidates the latter. His general argument still stands. I even supported it in a another post.
They had a majority marketshare much earlier than 1996, more like 1986-89 as the PC started to marginalize competing architectures. That's not the issue here. The issue is that in 1976 Bill Gates and Microsoft were pioneers. They wrote a BASIC interpreter for the Altair, which was the first real personal computer. Hardly anyone had a personal computer, and hardly any software existed for them.
My point was that new markets are typically developed by entrepreneurs, and taking from these people can be easily seen to inhibit the market's development. Once the market is established, new economic models become viable. At the time Gates wrote his BASIC interpreter for the Altair there were very few computer hobbyists. His doing so undoubtedly expanded the market. Everybody at that time had to program their computer, but it was much easier to write BASIC programs than write assembler. It is regrettable that he stole from others in order to do this, but a more honest person in his position deserves honest customers.
Now, I'm not going to argue that markets wouldn't develop without entrepreneurs. Certainly if nobody wrote and marketed a BASIC interpreter for the Altair someone would have eventually done it and released it for free. What I am saying is that entrepreneurs and paying customers develop markets faster, and to the extent that society values innovation that is a good thing.
There was once a hell of a lot more to making a successful software product than posting some code on the internet and asking for help. You had development, manufacturing, distribution, and marketing costs. You had the overhead of providing technical support. Smaller companies could be pushed out of the market by nefarious practices (DR-DOS, Stac, PC-Tools). It sounds a lot like the music business today. The ultimate lesson of OSS is not that the old business model is going to be completely replaced, but that an alternate ecosystem can develop and thrive under different economic rules.
If it happens, free music will exist alongside the contemporary music industry. Perhaps the source tracks will be available and artists will be able to remix and rework free music provided they release the source tracks under a similar license. A popular song could be reworked and remixed by many many people, resulting in multiple versions and mass appeal. If a traditional music label wanted to distribute the song they would have to abide by the free license as well.
It's hard to say whether this will happen, but certainly music and software have something in common: people tend to use the same software and listen to the same music over and over. Like software, songs can be reworked, refined, and changed to suit different peoples' tastes. Eventually "definitive" versions of both are developed and adopted (ie: Hendrix's arrangement of "All Along the Watchtower" was subsequently used by Bob Dylan, the original author). Software and music have many functional differences, but our patterns of how we use them are the same. This strongly suggests that their economic models might be compatible.
That would be a nice form post (especially on slashdot), except in this case Bill Gates' argument is intimately tied to him. He argues about how his company has made an investment and deserves renumeration. When $40,000 of that investment is in fact stolen from someone else, why does he deserve to be paid ?
Of course, the exact same argument is being made today, by Microsoft and Adobe, but also by the RIAA and MPAA. It's funny how Gates earlier words on the subject seem to carry so much more force. At the time he had a small company with an honest mission, and it's hard not to feel a little bit bad about how everyone was using his software but hardly anybody was paying him for it.
Fortunately, what is true for small markets is not true for larger, established markets. Enough companies make money off of OSS to help support its development, and free music will hopefully become viable as the cost of production falls closer and closer to hobbyist levels. That being said, there is a fundamental truth to Gates' words: successful pioneers deserve to be paid.
How about a list of the best video game rip-offs ? Some ripoffs improved on the original considerably. For example, Tengen's unlicensed NES Tetris is much better than the official Nintendo version. Pole Position was copied endlessly, eventually spawning an entire genre of games. There were various ripoffs of Pac-Man, some inspired by the "Pac-Man is drugs craze", where Power pellets and "fruit" (now mostly mushrooms) produced strange side-effects in Pac-Man. Last but not least are all those hacked Street Fighter 2 arcade machines. Eventually you started seeing entirely new graphics added to the ROM, with bizarre new characters and moves, and many of these were way more fun to play than the original because you never knew what the hell was going to happen.
It is extremely hard to suggest anything here unfortunately. Most mathematical research in this area requires a very strong background, and students generally just don't have the experience. The best thing you can do is point her at relatively new areas. Along those lines, I suggest quantum computing. Very few people "get" quantum computing right now, and its relatively easy to get started. From the description of the other course I gather she can program in some sort of language. Get her to simulate quantum computations on a regular computer - use a high level programming language. Then you can start investigating quantum algorithms. Start with simple algorithms like searching and sorting, and build up to quantum algorithms like Shor's algorithm for factoring integers. For the research component, have her try to devise a quantum algorithm for some sort of problem. Relatively few people have looked at this, so the field is wide open.
Slashdot Mirror
FLOPS/(W^2*cm^3) ?
This article would have been better titled: "Next-Gen DVD Formats Will Flop" because that is exactly what is going to happen. They've got a small market of people willing to replace all of their gear as it is, and now they have introduced compatibility problems on purpose with these inane restrictions. Nevermind the fact that they've got two completely incompatible formats, one of which is guaranteed to fail. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. The word of mouth on these things will be how "so-and-so spent gobs of money and it didn't work".
I should add: "Please stab Hollywood in the back next!"
As I read this article I couldn't help but think of the parallels between what Microsoft is doing with VOIP and what IBM did with the personal computer. VOIP is headed for 100% adoption now, and the telcos are in serious trouble. People are going to use free or cheap internet access points, and nobody is going to pay those outrageous rates for the cell phone infrastructure anymore.
Thank you, Microsoft. You may still be evil, but you've done the world a favor by destroying the exploitative business model of an industry that is arguably more evil.
Even though they are equivalent, an iPod is a lot less suspicious than an external hard drive. Companies which rely on physical security only need to take notice and consider whether they should implement some sort of access log.
I guess the answer depends on how valuable your time is to you. If you waste hours every day, for example by posting to slashdot, then you probably won't mind working at a boring-ass job for good pay. Especially if you post to slashdot on their time. Then again, if you feel compelled to work on interesting things to the point where it is interfering with the rest of your wife, then by all means take the pay cut and move to the interesting job.
Is this the lunatic that was mentioned on Fark.com ?
I wonder if anyone will release a Darl model too.
That would be the hotspot that is not connected to the internet, yet it broadcasts an SSID and automatically files computer hacking charges against you when you connect.
They should have called the Aliens "Steve".
Sigh. I'm trying to point out that a premise Gates used ($40,000 of invested computer time) does not apply (since he stole it and thus did not "invest" it). Gates' own argument refers to himself, so I don't see how people are claiming "it doesn't matter who makes the argument". If an innocent person makes the argument "I am innocent because of these facts" and a guilty person says the same thing, are you going to say the argument is true in the second case as well ? The facts do not apply to the second person, so his argument his non-sequitur.
I think we mostly agree, I just think it needs to be broader than "pioneers".
We do agree, but I wanted to make a stronger point in the case of pioneers because they are developing a new market. This is a far greater social good than simply producing something in an established market, and I think it deserves special consideration. Hence the original motivation for patents and copyrights (which have sadly been co-opted as anti-competitive weapons for established markets).
Nobody is suggesting to reimburse failed ventures, assuming the risk of failure is part of being an entrepreneur. But Gates wasn't a failure. Lots of people were using his Altair BASIC, they just weren't paying him for it because they were able to avoid it. He the assumed the risk and made a successful product. People should have paid him if they wanted to use it.
Sorry something strange happened with that link. I'll try it again: link
_ hardware_(1960s-present)
And in case it screwed up, here it is in text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing
I'm beginning to think you are just a troll. Congratulations, IHBT. If I am mistaken, then I invite you to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_ hardware_(1960s-present)>this article, in particular:
"The Altair was featured on the cover of Popular Electronics for January 1975. It was the world's first mass-produced personal computer kit, as well as the first computer to use an Intel 8080 processor."
In 1993 ?! I'm sorry, maybe 1986 is too early, but 1993 ?! People were buying the first 486's in 1993, and I can pretty much guarantee that in 1991 people were buying 386's with DOS 5.0 and Wordperfect, and possibly Windows 3.0. Maybe their kids were still playing on Commodore 64's (if they didn't have a Nintendo), but x86 was already the dominant architecture.
This is starting to get bland and pedantic, but there is a distinction to be made. In Gates' letter he makes two arguments. One is the general argument that developers deserve to get paid ("What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"), and the other is that he specifically deserves to be paid ("The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000."). Maybe we are talking about two different things ? I think the fact that he stole that $40,000 of computer time invalidates the latter. His general argument still stands. I even supported it in a another post.
They had a majority marketshare much earlier than 1996, more like 1986-89 as the PC started to marginalize competing architectures. That's not the issue here. The issue is that in 1976 Bill Gates and Microsoft were pioneers. They wrote a BASIC interpreter for the Altair, which was the first real personal computer. Hardly anyone had a personal computer, and hardly any software existed for them.
My point was that new markets are typically developed by entrepreneurs, and taking from these people can be easily seen to inhibit the market's development. Once the market is established, new economic models become viable. At the time Gates wrote his BASIC interpreter for the Altair there were very few computer hobbyists. His doing so undoubtedly expanded the market. Everybody at that time had to program their computer, but it was much easier to write BASIC programs than write assembler. It is regrettable that he stole from others in order to do this, but a more honest person in his position deserves honest customers.
Now, I'm not going to argue that markets wouldn't develop without entrepreneurs. Certainly if nobody wrote and marketed a BASIC interpreter for the Altair someone would have eventually done it and released it for free. What I am saying is that entrepreneurs and paying customers develop markets faster, and to the extent that society values innovation that is a good thing.
There was once a hell of a lot more to making a successful software product than posting some code on the internet and asking for help. You had development, manufacturing, distribution, and marketing costs. You had the overhead of providing technical support. Smaller companies could be pushed out of the market by nefarious practices (DR-DOS, Stac, PC-Tools). It sounds a lot like the music business today. The ultimate lesson of OSS is not that the old business model is going to be completely replaced, but that an alternate ecosystem can develop and thrive under different economic rules. If it happens, free music will exist alongside the contemporary music industry. Perhaps the source tracks will be available and artists will be able to remix and rework free music provided they release the source tracks under a similar license. A popular song could be reworked and remixed by many many people, resulting in multiple versions and mass appeal. If a traditional music label wanted to distribute the song they would have to abide by the free license as well. It's hard to say whether this will happen, but certainly music and software have something in common: people tend to use the same software and listen to the same music over and over. Like software, songs can be reworked, refined, and changed to suit different peoples' tastes. Eventually "definitive" versions of both are developed and adopted (ie: Hendrix's arrangement of "All Along the Watchtower" was subsequently used by Bob Dylan, the original author). Software and music have many functional differences, but our patterns of how we use them are the same. This strongly suggests that their economic models might be compatible.
That would be a nice form post (especially on slashdot), except in this case Bill Gates' argument is intimately tied to him. He argues about how his company has made an investment and deserves renumeration. When $40,000 of that investment is in fact stolen from someone else, why does he deserve to be paid ?
Of course, the exact same argument is being made today, by Microsoft and Adobe, but also by the RIAA and MPAA. It's funny how Gates earlier words on the subject seem to carry so much more force. At the time he had a small company with an honest mission, and it's hard not to feel a little bit bad about how everyone was using his software but hardly anybody was paying him for it.
Fortunately, what is true for small markets is not true for larger, established markets. Enough companies make money off of OSS to help support its development, and free music will hopefully become viable as the cost of production falls closer and closer to hobbyist levels. That being said, there is a fundamental truth to Gates' words: successful pioneers deserve to be paid.
How about a list of the best video game rip-offs ? Some ripoffs improved on the original considerably. For example, Tengen's unlicensed NES Tetris is much better than the official Nintendo version. Pole Position was copied endlessly, eventually spawning an entire genre of games. There were various ripoffs of Pac-Man, some inspired by the "Pac-Man is drugs craze", where Power pellets and "fruit" (now mostly mushrooms) produced strange side-effects in Pac-Man. Last but not least are all those hacked Street Fighter 2 arcade machines. Eventually you started seeing entirely new graphics added to the ROM, with bizarre new characters and moves, and many of these were way more fun to play than the original because you never knew what the hell was going to happen.
Well it's good to know the government can now save all those warrantless wiretaps indefinitely.
... but I have a shot or two in the morning, just to be shure.
It is extremely hard to suggest anything here unfortunately. Most mathematical research in this area requires a very strong background, and students generally just don't have the experience. The best thing you can do is point her at relatively new areas. Along those lines, I suggest quantum computing. Very few people "get" quantum computing right now, and its relatively easy to get started. From the description of the other course I gather she can program in some sort of language. Get her to simulate quantum computations on a regular computer - use a high level programming language. Then you can start investigating quantum algorithms. Start with simple algorithms like searching and sorting, and build up to quantum algorithms like Shor's algorithm for factoring integers. For the research component, have her try to devise a quantum algorithm for some sort of problem. Relatively few people have looked at this, so the field is wide open.