'You're right, that's silly, Castro isn't even dead yet...'
No, but he still counts for this one because people celebrated his death. For a time people THOUGHT Castro was dead. The Cubans had parades here in Miami.
'Are you seriously lumping Hitler, Castro and Valenti together?'
Yes, they are all people whose passing is celebrated. In that respect it is valid to group them together, Hitler and Castro are well known examples of this point and therefore excellent examples. It would also be valid to say that he was male, like Hitler, Castro, Steve Austin, Sean Connery, and Myself. See how that works?
'The Magna Carta is perhaps the original document that later was among the inspirations for the US Constitution and the idea that a document of written rules could be the supreme law of a nation, above any president or king.'
That reminds me of a time in my troubled youth when an attorney told me that in some cases our laws and their interpretation actually trace back to English common law and the magna carta when there is no other precedent. She said this is particularly true of the constitution.
If you are a part of the RIAA and/or MPAA copyright regimes. Do you want to end like Hitler, Castro, or Valenti with large numbers of people celebrating your death? I don't mean in a HAHA way either. I wanted to be respectful and not to spit on the graves of the dead but I couldn't help but smile when I saw this headline.
'No. That's like saying 1 dollar is no less valuable than 10,000 dollars. Just print more money. What are the consequences? Inflation. This means that everyone who has money pays when you print and use conterfeit dollars.'
Dollars aren't worth any more than counterfeit in and of themselves. They are supposed to represent value. Music doesn't represent anything, it has only its innate value. You are right, technology has made it cost nothing to copy something as much as you like and the people have spoken, they don't see anything wrong with using that technology. This has ALREADY devalued songs to the point where they don't have a value worth measuring.
'Ultimately, the more people distribute music for free, the less the song is worth, because a cheaper source exists for free, so you need to charge less to entice people to buy the legal copy.'
Did you even read the post you are responding to. I maintain that free sources of all the music are already plentiful enough that the value is nothing. At least that is the value to the ones receiving the music. The artists can realize greater value from the recorded music by using as promotional material. Those same artists can make a living by PERFORMING music, privately and publically. Those artists can form unions that provide bittorrent trackers and P2P networks to distribute their music. Those same unions can provide recording time at cost, union dues might be enough to cover cost and if not a small surcharge (no greater than cost) would be charged. Either way, cheap equipment and software packages have made professional grade recording affordable for garage bands.
'The value of something is defined by it's demand, not by it's cost to reproduce.'
No, demand is only one side of the coin. The other side is supply. Despite your last statement that demand is the only factor everything else you have said admits that the existing ready supply of free music that is large enough to fill the demand has effectively reduced the value of recorded songs to nothing. The answer is to let the multi-billion dollar industry that revolves around song recording to collapse and let new markets that accept this reality spring up. Not to pass laws to attempt to artificially inflate the value of the recorded songs to something rather than nothing.
In fact, to everyone reading this thread. I know a few local bands. Would anyone be willing to donate bandwidth to host the torrents and trackers so that I can help get a union like this started?
' So what? You're Bruce Perens; we expected better of you. Just because it's "basic" doesn't make it right!
You don't have enough details yet to determine which side is in the wrong. In general, I would side with the customer, which is what I'm doing so far.
'
I'm with you on this Bruce, if for a reason that nobody (up to this point in the thread line anyway) has mentioned. As a developer I don't necessarily side with the customer but there is no excuse for the customer not already knowing the licensing terms BEFORE development commences. The customer may have been oblivious and inexperienced in this but the developer knows that payment, licensing, specifications, and deadline are all key items that should be at the forefront of negotiations. If the developer tried to sneak this in then the lawyers should be called.
Primarily I perform network service and installation for companies that are small enough or have small enough infrastructure that it isn't economical to have someone in house. Sometimes they need custom programming and hire me to do it. Usually I give them very reasonable flat rates but that is always with the understanding that the price is for a license for the software under the terms of the GPL. I explain that this allows me to both reuse code I have written in the past, to use portions of the project if needed in the future, and allows me to take advantage of existing code that others have written. The conditions of the GPL generally will never apply to these companies since they want to use the software internally.
I've never had a company who didn't summarily agree to those terms within 5 minutes. All that it takes is to be honest with them from the start and you never have problems like this.
'More than likely, when the next generation gets into power, they'll remember this and pass legislation that will move the pendulum the other way to the detriment of the copyright holders.'
I doubt it, this generation has learned the same lesson the Vietnam baby boomers learned. They've learned that you can't beat the man. They will grow up to do the same thing the baby boomers did, sell out and sell out hard.
'As far as outdated business models are concerned, there are legal ways to get this material, so the "outdated business model" argument is no longer valid.'
Are they still charging based upon artificial scarcity and the number of 'copies'? Supply and demand dictates that productions and distribution bottlenecks define costs. The music industry is based around old bottlenecks that no longer apply. Bittorrent and Digital copying means that 1 song is no more valuable than 10,000 songs. You can set up a studio in which to record and cut albums for less than 5k now. There are and always have been plenty of talented artists, they are a dime a dozen (sorry artists, but its true). Music is cheap to produce and in virtually unlimited supply.
Once upon a time when market dynamics changed this drastically companies went out of business, even huge companies, and new ones sprang up that worked differently. Now D.C. has sold out to the point that those companies effectively buy legislation to keep them relevant.
Music was never a good way for an artist to make a living. Most bands sound great when coupled with great recording. Its time for professional music to be about concerts and recorded music to be free promotional material. The recording industry should effectively be artist unions that do just that, offer high quality recordings as REASONABLE prices perhaps even free recording and hosting with union dues.
Thank you for responding. The fact that you are engaging in an open communication with the community like this is probably a greater comfort than the actual answers you give. That said, I have always been good at poking holes in debates.
'Risk of being bought out. - The best protection against this is fast growth. If a company doesn't grow, then it is at risk of being bought no matter whether it is private or public, large or small. (So if you want to contribute to us - then refer us to as many paying customers as you can!)'
That certainly makes sense. Is there any assurance that such growth will occur? Is there more to this move than a spin of the roulette wheel coupled with a great deal of optimism about the outcome?
Oracle already knows they want to purchase MySQL. Is there any way to protect the company if they move to make that purchase right away without giving the company a chance to grow?
'Risk of company culture becoming too corporate-like. - We try to avoid this by being very focused on cultivating our unique values. We add more structure and more procedures all the time, but we also try to stay free from bureaucracy and we always encourage our employees to make bold decisions.'
I can't really poke a hole in that. But would like to remind you; Google had a 'do no evil' policy as well. That policy and greed battled within the company and in the end, greed won.
'Risk of openness being at risk as a public company. - We make sure that all our investors (current and future) understand that the freedom of our software is vital to the success of MySQL. We also try to be open about everything else: bugs, plans, events, etc. But here we also know there will be something of a difference when going public: we will have to abide strictly by SEC rules and not disclose financial or other vital business information in any other way than publicly to everyone at given points in time.'
Do you mean to suggest that bug reports and other things that concern the community will only be released in SEC filings? Surely not, companies release information that concerns their business through the press and other outlets all the time.
'Risk of "pump and dump" investors driving MySQL strategy in the wrong direction. - Naturally a company will have to follow the instructions from its shareholders, but we believe that we have and will have strong and long-term investors who understand the value of strategic resilience. These investors will encourage us to invest in what gives the best value over time.'
Isn't this nothing but pure optimism? Anyone can purchase the stock. Are MySQL public stockholders likely to share the same characteristics as the stockholders of most companies?
'Risk of quick return to investors negatively affecting the MySQL entity or application. - I actually believe the opposite - that a successful IPO for MySQL will give us a boost in innovation and development. I believe that as a public company MySQL would attract even more innovative partners and brilliant employees.'
Don't many of those investors play key roles in MySQL today? Isn't there a good chance that many of those individuals will use this as an opportunity to cash in? Also, increased financial resources does not equate to superior results. Microsoft is probably the most typical example of this.
'P.S. I can of course be wrong in my risk assessments here and in other responses on this thread. That's why I post them for all of you to read - in the hope that you will provide your feedback and suggestions.'
Good luck Mark. I'm sure having you at the helm of the company gives everyone comfort, I know it gives me comfort. I wish you and MySQL the best and hope going public works out for you.
As a public company you will have to answer to the typical pump and dump investor that typically buys publicly traded stock. These people favor moves that yield increased stock price over long term strategies that result in both a stronger company and a stronger product. How do you intend to avoid this change?
As a publicly traded company, how would you avoid a hostile takeover by a company like Oracle who has the means to buy a controlling share of the stock?
'As many of you will know, when a company brings in venture capital (VC) as we did 6 years ago, you essentially set a plan to either be acquired or go public (IPO) after some time.'
Being acquired and going public are both things that bring a nice return for investors. There is nothing wrong with that in itself. But is that quick return coming at the expense of the entity that is MySQL or worse, the application itself?
No. If nobody was being paid to code or profiting from open source software that would be true. Selling closed source software is not the only way to profit from software. IBM hosts OSS, codes OSS, and makes a boatload of cash on OSS. The same is true of many companies. Most programmers work on in-house applications, the idea that companies like Microsoft are where programmers get their bread is a myth.
More open source software means more companies have a greater potential to make money since they have the source code to make applications run in a way that is tailored to them. That opportunity existing means that more companies would take advantage of it and that my friend means more jobs for programmers.
Yeah, that's happened to me a couple times when there were hurricanes. Of course the phone lines carry their own power but the power was out everywhere and everyone is bored when the power is out so all the circuits were busy. Outside of hurricanes I haven't seen phones not work (beyond a single home or phone) in 25 years. They are actually pretty damn reliable here in the states. If you are in a very rural area sometimes you get static during a storm. I suppose the phones might go out during storms in VERY VERY rural areas... like a ranger station in the mountains or some such but they have radios that usually reach somewhere with phones. The last time there was a hurricane here (miami) postal mail resumed the following day. The time before that it was 2 days.
'Guaranteed delivery (via signature) makes it useful for official documentation.'
Here in the states we have registered mail. Postal mail takes 2 or 3 days at most and with registered mail the recipient must show ID and sign. As far as I know that is how all legal and official documentation is sent (at least it is what attorneys always seem to recommend). It also has an air of respect that western union lacks since the U.S. Postal service is a quasi government entity.
Its no secret that we are little US centric in our thinking (not surprising because our nation is large enough that many have never left it) and I suppose I've fallen victim to this. I suppose phones are big here because they were invented here. The nation is again, very large and spread out so a strong communications backbone tied with a strong transportation backbone (consisting of roads, highways, and interstates) are the very core of our society. That some might still be using technology that became obsolete 100 years ago is mind boggling.
'doesn't believe in the existence of any deity' == 'believes in the non-existence of any deity'
It has the same meaning, regardless of where you put the negative. There are atheists who are activists and atheists who are not but if you accept the possibility of a creator you are not an atheist, you are an agnostic. You can't have both reached a conclusion (atheism) and not have reached a conclusion (agnostic) anymore than you can be a theist and agnostic.
Technically neither agnosticism or atheism is really a religion though. Technically a religion is a code of practices and behaviors not a code of beliefs. Atheists and agnostics do not follow any particular code of practices and behaviors because their beliefs don't support it.
I think your distinctions rely on outdated concepts though. Once upon a time in the western world either you believed in 'God' in some form or you didn't (my experience is that most actually believe that the deity of other religions is the same deity). Anyone who did not believe in 'God' was considered an Atheist. That definition is one more or less pushed by religion with a us and them attitude. Atheists and Agnostics are two different and mutually exclusive things.
What is a P&T company? Do you mean the phone company? Here in the US you pay for your connection to the cable or phone company as well, internet service is extra. Of course the phone and cable companies provide internet service but other providers are allowed to sell internet service through the phone company.
'This later scenario will require the *DSL equipment to only be connected to the micro-filter in the master socket.'
The extension the DSL equipment connects to requires no filter. They filter out the frequencies used for DSL, on a voice line those frequencies only provide static, but the DSL extension certainly needs access to the frequency range it operates on!
You are correct that every extension that will use the voice frequencies needs to be filtered. You can filter that at one point and run all your voice extensions from that point so that filtering will have been applied to all of them or you can use multiple filters at the end point. Either way, you have to run one unfiltered extension.
Sure you could insert anything into the blank. Although technically it only there aren't credible observations that already disprove the thing (there are credible physics observations that eliminate the possibility of Santa Claus) and if the existance of the thing isn't in itself illogical (Santa fails there again).
Creation is neither illogical nor disproved by observation. Specific dogmas adhered to on Earth written by horny ignorant Hebrews, Arabs, and orientals; sure those are illogical. But not the concept of creation itself when you eliminate all the assumptions about a creator that come from those dogmas. Is it less likely, yup. Its one more variable, but if you can believe that the universe always was or sprung into existence on its own then it is only one more step to believe that a being intelligent and capable enough could have always been or sprung into existence on its own.
Quite frankly neither sounds especially likely to me, I'm waiting for a third option.
'That's silly. You're implying that for some reason AMD is choosing not use the best process technology it can right now?'
I don't think either one is using the best technology they can right now. Quite frankly I think most high end technology companies are on a phased release cycle with developed technology far ahead of what they have announced or are shipping. Hence why AMD can magically pull out massive efficiency improvements as an immediate response to a bad quarter. AMD hasn't upgraded the fab process because they haven't needed to do so in order to have the best released technology. AMD chips have blown away Intel offerings since the first athlon chips were released, this is the first time they have lost that advantage since.
'Intel has always cared more about keeping Moore's Law alive than anybody else, and generally it's been to Intel's benefit.'
In what way? Intel has been living on nothing but brand recognition for years.
'let alone catch up'
It isn't as if they have to develop anything. The technology exists, its only a matter of buying it. If AMD chips can remain competative at 65nm then there is no reason they couldn't skip 45nm equipment and buy 35nm in '09. Just as the smart consumer doesn't buy every technology increment unless they actually need them AMD is wise to avoid wasting funds on new fab equipment with their current process is able to result in chips that outperform Intel chips.
'Yes, but how many of those third world volunteers would be qualified? What about training costs'
It isn't as if they need a degree, they only need to be trained to perform experiments and deploy the specific equipment being used. They don't need to be able to operate the ships either. It isn't as if the probes can operate their craft, the craft operate on auto-pilot.
Even if they did need degrees the biggest obstacle would be time. Remember, you could spend 3 or 4 million a pop on these volunteers and they would still be cheaper and more versatile than robots.
'communication barriers'
There are billions of people in third world nations, somehow I think we can manage to find interpreters among them.
Atheism is more like not believing in stamps because you've never seen them. Believers are the ones who believe in the stamps despite the fact that they have never seen stamps and there exists no credible evidence to prove the existance of stamps.
'I think a true atheist wouldn't capitalize "Atheist." Makes it seem like a religion by a different name.'
It is. Atheism assumes without evidence. That is just as much a matter of faith as believing in creator(s). Both are picking ideas out of a hat and calling them truth without a shred of evidence. A truly scientific outlook is agnostic pending observation either way.
Of course, the true idiots are those who actually claim a religion beyond simply believing in a generic idea of creation or lack thereof. Rather than making one large assumption without a basis in fact those ignorant fools are actually making dozens, perhaps hundreds or thousands. Further, they make those assumptions simply because someone told them it was so. The someone was probably their parents, and ultimately someone passed the word down from a long time ago. Shh, don't tell anyone but you shouldn't take the word of a nut making proclamations that they conversed with a god if it supposedly happened thousands of years ago if you wouldn't accept that proclamation from uncle Fred tomorrow.
How expensive is your AI probe? Just because we send a human doesn't mean it needs to be an american. Offer 50k/year for the immediate family of volunteers for the duration of the mission, you'll have 3rd world volunteers appearing all over the place.
We don't have a people shortage, or even a crazy people shortage. Skip the probe and send volunteers. Promise enough funds to support their families for life and you will get cheap volunteers from third world nations that are throwing babies into rivers due to overpopulation. You can't lose.
'And the purpose of education is to provide society with more productive individuals'
False, the purpose of education is to benefit oneself. Now if society wants to pay for that education society can have some say, until then it has nothing to do with society.
'If the final objective of education is productivity'
The final objective of education is to be educated. In other words, you learn for the purpose of gaining knowledge, no more, no less.
'An engineers' degree should prove that an individual can build a long standing bridge, not that he understands the math behind force propagation.'
A structural engineers degree should prove that an individual KNOWS HOW to build a long standing bridge and understands how it functions. His grade gives his instructors markers to show how well he is understanding the material as he progresses and whether he is ready to proceed to further instruction. How well he can actually apply said knowledge is something you discover the first time he attempts to apply said knowledge. If you are using a grade as a substitute for actually testing ability you are probably tossing your best candidates. How well an individual can come up with a line of plausible sounding nonsense and phrase it convincingly in a written selection tells you NOTHING about how well that individual can build a bridge. Perhaps the creativity will give you a concept of how pretty a bridge he will design but that is about it.
'Applying knowledge inevitably calls for abilities not formally taught in school benches.' 'There are some 'pure' degrees that defy this logic, namely philosophy degrees.'
'Me, I'd prefer it it the other way: all citizens of age get to vote. (fwiw I'm against denying anyone voting rights, even criminals. Seems to me like too great a risk to democracy to make it THAT easy to prevent someone from voting.)'
How about a simple IQ requirement? Tests certified by elected officials who are subject only to the authority of the supreme court so that other branches of government can't force their hand? I wouldn't support a minimum age to vote, a bright teenager has an equal capacity to follow issues and reach an intelligent decision as anyone else. Since you don't want the minors and I don't want the seniors, this seems like a happy medium that would block both groups.
'Why wait until retirement age? most of the idiot drivers I see on the street who don't belong there are far far younger than retirement age. Mandatory testing on an annual basis would keep a lot of them off the roads.'
If you think so. You can have fast reactions and good vision and still be an idiot driver. Testing like this would only be of much use against those with dementia and physical incapacities. But hey, I could be wrong, I see nothing wrong with additional testing before retirement age. You could couple it with plate renewal.
Slashdot Mirror
'You're right, that's silly, Castro isn't even dead yet...'
No, but he still counts for this one because people celebrated his death. For a time people THOUGHT Castro was dead. The Cubans had parades here in Miami.
'Are you seriously lumping Hitler, Castro and Valenti together?'
Yes, they are all people whose passing is celebrated. In that respect it is valid to group them together, Hitler and Castro are well known examples of this point and therefore excellent examples. It would also be valid to say that he was male, like Hitler, Castro, Steve Austin, Sean Connery, and Myself. See how that works?
'The Magna Carta is perhaps the original document that later was among the inspirations for the US Constitution and the idea that a document of written rules could be the supreme law of a nation, above any president or king.'
That reminds me of a time in my troubled youth when an attorney told me that in some cases our laws and their interpretation actually trace back to English common law and the magna carta when there is no other precedent. She said this is particularly true of the constitution.
If you are a part of the RIAA and/or MPAA copyright regimes. Do you want to end like Hitler, Castro, or Valenti with large numbers of people celebrating your death? I don't mean in a HAHA way either. I wanted to be respectful and not to spit on the graves of the dead but I couldn't help but smile when I saw this headline.
'No. That's like saying 1 dollar is no less valuable than 10,000 dollars. Just print more money. What are the consequences? Inflation. This means that everyone who has money pays when you print and use conterfeit dollars.'
Dollars aren't worth any more than counterfeit in and of themselves. They are supposed to represent value. Music doesn't represent anything, it has only its innate value. You are right, technology has made it cost nothing to copy something as much as you like and the people have spoken, they don't see anything wrong with using that technology. This has ALREADY devalued songs to the point where they don't have a value worth measuring.
'Ultimately, the more people distribute music for free, the less the song is worth, because a cheaper source exists for free, so you need to charge less to entice people to buy the legal copy.'
Did you even read the post you are responding to. I maintain that free sources of all the music are already plentiful enough that the value is nothing. At least that is the value to the ones receiving the music. The artists can realize greater value from the recorded music by using as promotional material. Those same artists can make a living by PERFORMING music, privately and publically. Those artists can form unions that provide bittorrent trackers and P2P networks to distribute their music. Those same unions can provide recording time at cost, union dues might be enough to cover cost and if not a small surcharge (no greater than cost) would be charged. Either way, cheap equipment and software packages have made professional grade recording affordable for garage bands.
'The value of something is defined by it's demand, not by it's cost to reproduce.'
No, demand is only one side of the coin. The other side is supply. Despite your last statement that demand is the only factor everything else you have said admits that the existing ready supply of free music that is large enough to fill the demand has effectively reduced the value of recorded songs to nothing. The answer is to let the multi-billion dollar industry that revolves around song recording to collapse and let new markets that accept this reality spring up. Not to pass laws to attempt to artificially inflate the value of the recorded songs to something rather than nothing.
In fact, to everyone reading this thread. I know a few local bands. Would anyone be willing to donate bandwidth to host the torrents and trackers so that I can help get a union like this started?
' So what? You're Bruce Perens; we expected better of you. Just because it's "basic" doesn't make it right!
You don't have enough details yet to determine which side is in the wrong. In general, I would side with the customer, which is what I'm doing so far.
'
I'm with you on this Bruce, if for a reason that nobody (up to this point in the thread line anyway) has mentioned. As a developer I don't necessarily side with the customer but there is no excuse for the customer not already knowing the licensing terms BEFORE development commences. The customer may have been oblivious and inexperienced in this but the developer knows that payment, licensing, specifications, and deadline are all key items that should be at the forefront of negotiations. If the developer tried to sneak this in then the lawyers should be called.
Primarily I perform network service and installation for companies that are small enough or have small enough infrastructure that it isn't economical to have someone in house. Sometimes they need custom programming and hire me to do it. Usually I give them very reasonable flat rates but that is always with the understanding that the price is for a license for the software under the terms of the GPL. I explain that this allows me to both reuse code I have written in the past, to use portions of the project if needed in the future, and allows me to take advantage of existing code that others have written. The conditions of the GPL generally will never apply to these companies since they want to use the software internally.
I've never had a company who didn't summarily agree to those terms within 5 minutes. All that it takes is to be honest with them from the start and you never have problems like this.
'More than likely, when the next generation gets into power, they'll remember this and pass legislation that will move the pendulum the other way to the detriment of the copyright holders.'
I doubt it, this generation has learned the same lesson the Vietnam baby boomers learned. They've learned that you can't beat the man. They will grow up to do the same thing the baby boomers did, sell out and sell out hard.
'As far as outdated business models are concerned, there are legal ways to get this material, so the "outdated business model" argument is no longer valid.'
Are they still charging based upon artificial scarcity and the number of 'copies'? Supply and demand dictates that productions and distribution bottlenecks define costs. The music industry is based around old bottlenecks that no longer apply. Bittorrent and Digital copying means that 1 song is no more valuable than 10,000 songs. You can set up a studio in which to record and cut albums for less than 5k now. There are and always have been plenty of talented artists, they are a dime a dozen (sorry artists, but its true). Music is cheap to produce and in virtually unlimited supply.
Once upon a time when market dynamics changed this drastically companies went out of business, even huge companies, and new ones sprang up that worked differently. Now D.C. has sold out to the point that those companies effectively buy legislation to keep them relevant.
Music was never a good way for an artist to make a living. Most bands sound great when coupled with great recording. Its time for professional music to be about concerts and recorded music to be free promotional material. The recording industry should effectively be artist unions that do just that, offer high quality recordings as REASONABLE prices perhaps even free recording and hosting with union dues.
Thank you for responding. The fact that you are engaging in an open communication with the community like this is probably a greater comfort than the actual answers you give. That said, I have always been good at poking holes in debates.
'Risk of being bought out. - The best protection against this is fast growth. If a company doesn't grow, then it is at risk of being bought no matter whether it is private or public, large or small. (So if you want to contribute to us - then refer us to as many paying customers as you can!)'
That certainly makes sense. Is there any assurance that such growth will occur? Is there more to this move than a spin of the roulette wheel coupled with a great deal of optimism about the outcome?
Oracle already knows they want to purchase MySQL. Is there any way to protect the company if they move to make that purchase right away without giving the company a chance to grow?
'Risk of company culture becoming too corporate-like. - We try to avoid this by being very focused on cultivating our unique values. We add more structure and more procedures all the time, but we also try to stay free from bureaucracy and we always encourage our employees to make bold decisions.'
I can't really poke a hole in that. But would like to remind you; Google had a 'do no evil' policy as well. That policy and greed battled within the company and in the end, greed won.
'Risk of openness being at risk as a public company. - We make sure that all our investors (current and future) understand that the freedom of our software is vital to the success of MySQL. We also try to be open about everything else: bugs, plans, events, etc. But here we also know there will be something of a difference when going public: we will have to abide strictly by SEC rules and not disclose financial or other vital business information in any other way than publicly to everyone at given points in time.'
Do you mean to suggest that bug reports and other things that concern the community will only be released in SEC filings? Surely not, companies release information that concerns their business through the press and other outlets all the time.
'Risk of "pump and dump" investors driving MySQL strategy in the wrong direction. - Naturally a company will have to follow the instructions from its shareholders, but we believe that we have and will have strong and long-term investors who understand the value of strategic resilience. These investors will encourage us to invest in what gives the best value over time.'
Isn't this nothing but pure optimism? Anyone can purchase the stock. Are MySQL public stockholders likely to share the same characteristics as the stockholders of most companies?
'Risk of quick return to investors negatively affecting the MySQL entity or application. - I actually believe the opposite - that a successful IPO for MySQL will give us a boost in innovation and development. I believe that as a public company MySQL would attract even more innovative partners and brilliant employees.'
Don't many of those investors play key roles in MySQL today? Isn't there a good chance that many of those individuals will use this as an opportunity to cash in? Also, increased financial resources does not equate to superior results. Microsoft is probably the most typical example of this.
'P.S. I can of course be wrong in my risk assessments here and in other responses on this thread. That's why I post them for all of you to read - in the hope that you will provide your feedback and suggestions.'
Good luck Mark. I'm sure having you at the helm of the company gives everyone comfort, I know it gives me comfort. I wish you and MySQL the best and hope going public works out for you.
As a public company you will have to answer to the typical pump and dump investor that typically buys publicly traded stock. These people favor moves that yield increased stock price over long term strategies that result in both a stronger company and a stronger product. How do you intend to avoid this change?
As a publicly traded company, how would you avoid a hostile takeover by a company like Oracle who has the means to buy a controlling share of the stock?
'As many of you will know, when a company brings in venture capital (VC) as we did 6 years ago, you essentially set a plan to either be acquired or go public (IPO) after some time.'
Being acquired and going public are both things that bring a nice return for investors. There is nothing wrong with that in itself. But is that quick return coming at the expense of the entity that is MySQL or worse, the application itself?
'If all there was was OSS,'
No. If nobody was being paid to code or profiting from open source software that would be true. Selling closed source software is not the only way to profit from software. IBM hosts OSS, codes OSS, and makes a boatload of cash on OSS. The same is true of many companies. Most programmers work on in-house applications, the idea that companies like Microsoft are where programmers get their bread is a myth.
More open source software means more companies have a greater potential to make money since they have the source code to make applications run in a way that is tailored to them. That opportunity existing means that more companies would take advantage of it and that my friend means more jobs for programmers.
'IE when a phone call won't work'
Yeah, that's happened to me a couple times when there were hurricanes. Of course the phone lines carry their own power but the power was out everywhere and everyone is bored when the power is out so all the circuits were busy. Outside of hurricanes I haven't seen phones not work (beyond a single home or phone) in 25 years. They are actually pretty damn reliable here in the states. If you are in a very rural area sometimes you get static during a storm. I suppose the phones might go out during storms in VERY VERY rural areas... like a ranger station in the mountains or some such but they have radios that usually reach somewhere with phones. The last time there was a hurricane here (miami) postal mail resumed the following day. The time before that it was 2 days.
'Guaranteed delivery (via signature) makes it useful for official documentation.'
Here in the states we have registered mail. Postal mail takes 2 or 3 days at most and with registered mail the recipient must show ID and sign. As far as I know that is how all legal and official documentation is sent (at least it is what attorneys always seem to recommend). It also has an air of respect that western union lacks since the U.S. Postal service is a quasi government entity.
Its no secret that we are little US centric in our thinking (not surprising because our nation is large enough that many have never left it) and I suppose I've fallen victim to this. I suppose phones are big here because they were invented here. The nation is again, very large and spread out so a strong communications backbone tied with a strong transportation backbone (consisting of roads, highways, and interstates) are the very core of our society. That some might still be using technology that became obsolete 100 years ago is mind boggling.
'doesn't believe in the existence of any deity' == 'believes in the non-existence of any deity'
It has the same meaning, regardless of where you put the negative. There are atheists who are activists and atheists who are not but if you accept the possibility of a creator you are not an atheist, you are an agnostic. You can't have both reached a conclusion (atheism) and not have reached a conclusion (agnostic) anymore than you can be a theist and agnostic.
Technically neither agnosticism or atheism is really a religion though. Technically a religion is a code of practices and behaviors not a code of beliefs. Atheists and agnostics do not follow any particular code of practices and behaviors because their beliefs don't support it.
I think your distinctions rely on outdated concepts though. Once upon a time in the western world either you believed in 'God' in some form or you didn't (my experience is that most actually believe that the deity of other religions is the same deity). Anyone who did not believe in 'God' was considered an Atheist. That definition is one more or less pushed by religion with a us and them attitude. Atheists and Agnostics are two different and mutually exclusive things.
There are countries that still have telegraph services?
What is a P&T company? Do you mean the phone company? Here in the US you pay for your connection to the cable or phone company as well, internet service is extra. Of course the phone and cable companies provide internet service but other providers are allowed to sell internet service through the phone company.
'This later scenario will require the *DSL equipment to only be connected to the micro-filter in the master socket.'
The extension the DSL equipment connects to requires no filter. They filter out the frequencies used for DSL, on a voice line those frequencies only provide static, but the DSL extension certainly needs access to the frequency range it operates on!
You are correct that every extension that will use the voice frequencies needs to be filtered. You can filter that at one point and run all your voice extensions from that point so that filtering will have been applied to all of them or you can use multiple filters at the end point. Either way, you have to run one unfiltered extension.
Sure you could insert anything into the blank. Although technically it only there aren't credible observations that already disprove the thing (there are credible physics observations that eliminate the possibility of Santa Claus) and if the existance of the thing isn't in itself illogical (Santa fails there again).
Creation is neither illogical nor disproved by observation. Specific dogmas adhered to on Earth written by horny ignorant Hebrews, Arabs, and orientals; sure those are illogical. But not the concept of creation itself when you eliminate all the assumptions about a creator that come from those dogmas. Is it less likely, yup. Its one more variable, but if you can believe that the universe always was or sprung into existence on its own then it is only one more step to believe that a being intelligent and capable enough could have always been or sprung into existence on its own.
Quite frankly neither sounds especially likely to me, I'm waiting for a third option.
'That's silly. You're implying that for some reason AMD is choosing not use the best process technology it can right now?'
I don't think either one is using the best technology they can right now. Quite frankly I think most high end technology companies are on a phased release cycle with developed technology far ahead of what they have announced or are shipping. Hence why AMD can magically pull out massive efficiency improvements as an immediate response to a bad quarter. AMD hasn't upgraded the fab process because they haven't needed to do so in order to have the best released technology. AMD chips have blown away Intel offerings since the first athlon chips were released, this is the first time they have lost that advantage since.
'Intel has always cared more about keeping Moore's Law alive than anybody else, and generally it's been to Intel's benefit.'
In what way? Intel has been living on nothing but brand recognition for years.
'let alone catch up'
It isn't as if they have to develop anything. The technology exists, its only a matter of buying it. If AMD chips can remain competative at 65nm then there is no reason they couldn't skip 45nm equipment and buy 35nm in '09. Just as the smart consumer doesn't buy every technology increment unless they actually need them AMD is wise to avoid wasting funds on new fab equipment with their current process is able to result in chips that outperform Intel chips.
'Yes, but how many of those third world volunteers would be qualified? What about training costs'
It isn't as if they need a degree, they only need to be trained to perform experiments and deploy the specific equipment being used. They don't need to be able to operate the ships either. It isn't as if the probes can operate their craft, the craft operate on auto-pilot.
Even if they did need degrees the biggest obstacle would be time. Remember, you could spend 3 or 4 million a pop on these volunteers and they would still be cheaper and more versatile than robots.
'communication barriers'
There are billions of people in third world nations, somehow I think we can manage to find interpreters among them.
Atheism is more like not believing in stamps because you've never seen them. Believers are the ones who believe in the stamps despite the fact that they have never seen stamps and there exists no credible evidence to prove the existance of stamps.
'I think a true atheist wouldn't capitalize "Atheist." Makes it seem like a religion by a different name.'
It is. Atheism assumes without evidence. That is just as much a matter of faith as believing in creator(s). Both are picking ideas out of a hat and calling them truth without a shred of evidence. A truly scientific outlook is agnostic pending observation either way.
Of course, the true idiots are those who actually claim a religion beyond simply believing in a generic idea of creation or lack thereof. Rather than making one large assumption without a basis in fact those ignorant fools are actually making dozens, perhaps hundreds or thousands. Further, they make those assumptions simply because someone told them it was so. The someone was probably their parents, and ultimately someone passed the word down from a long time ago. Shh, don't tell anyone but you shouldn't take the word of a nut making proclamations that they conversed with a god if it supposedly happened thousands of years ago if you wouldn't accept that proclamation from uncle Fred tomorrow.
How expensive is your AI probe? Just because we send a human doesn't mean it needs to be an american. Offer 50k/year for the immediate family of volunteers for the duration of the mission, you'll have 3rd world volunteers appearing all over the place.
We don't have a people shortage, or even a crazy people shortage. Skip the probe and send volunteers. Promise enough funds to support their families for life and you will get cheap volunteers from third world nations that are throwing babies into rivers due to overpopulation. You can't lose.
'And the purpose of education is to provide society with more productive individuals'
False, the purpose of education is to benefit oneself. Now if society wants to pay for that education society can have some say, until then it has nothing to do with society.
'If the final objective of education is productivity'
The final objective of education is to be educated. In other words, you learn for the purpose of gaining knowledge, no more, no less.
'An engineers' degree should prove that an individual can build a long standing bridge, not that he understands the math behind force propagation.'
A structural engineers degree should prove that an individual KNOWS HOW to build a long standing bridge and understands how it functions. His grade gives his instructors markers to show how well he is understanding the material as he progresses and whether he is ready to proceed to further instruction. How well he can actually apply said knowledge is something you discover the first time he attempts to apply said knowledge. If you are using a grade as a substitute for actually testing ability you are probably tossing your best candidates. How well an individual can come up with a line of plausible sounding nonsense and phrase it convincingly in a written selection tells you NOTHING about how well that individual can build a bridge. Perhaps the creativity will give you a concept of how pretty a bridge he will design but that is about it.
'Applying knowledge inevitably calls for abilities not formally taught in school benches.'
'There are some 'pure' degrees that defy this logic, namely philosophy degrees.'
There could possibly be a reason for that.
'Me, I'd prefer it it the other way: all citizens of age get to vote. (fwiw I'm against denying anyone voting rights, even criminals. Seems to me like too great a risk to democracy to make it THAT easy to prevent someone from voting.)'
How about a simple IQ requirement? Tests certified by elected officials who are subject only to the authority of the supreme court so that other branches of government can't force their hand? I wouldn't support a minimum age to vote, a bright teenager has an equal capacity to follow issues and reach an intelligent decision as anyone else. Since you don't want the minors and I don't want the seniors, this seems like a happy medium that would block both groups.
'Why wait until retirement age? most of the idiot drivers I see on the street who don't belong there are far far younger than retirement age. Mandatory testing on an annual basis would keep a lot of them off the roads.'
If you think so. You can have fast reactions and good vision and still be an idiot driver. Testing like this would only be of much use against those with dementia and physical incapacities. But hey, I could be wrong, I see nothing wrong with additional testing before retirement age. You could couple it with plate renewal.
'If you go the way of removing the right to vote to seniors, where do draw the line?'
Easy enough, full mental capacity at a minimum. I would support a minimum IQ for voters as well.
'Also, do you realize that most of the people ruling your country are elder people?'
Yes. Thank you for pointing out this fact that solidly supports my position.