Probably not. There is most likely exception to services offered to general public. The same organizations also use phones, public roads, even regular mail and email services. Nothing special about Twitter in that regard.
They are measuring it by how http client announces itself to a cite (which client is specified in the http header). Most scripting libraries will put Mozilla in that header by default. So this data is scewed by all the crawlers running on the web. These are just scripts announcing themselves to be Firefox rather than actual Firefox browsers.
On the other hand, each person would have access to more stuff by eliminating the artificial scarcity.
If the copyright terms were not draconian, scarcity would be much more temporary. So we'd get both the advantage of incentivising creation and of having access to ideas which have become pervasive after some time. The current model is woefully inhibitive to creation because it effectively does not allow derivative experimentation with established models of writing, design, etc. In fact, I would argue that the only reason OSS took off was in response to lock-in copyright periods of the proprietory model.
There's actually a lot of areas where open source does dominate or at least does very well, like Firefox and now Chrome, Linux on server backends along with software like MySql or PHP.
Firefox, by the way never dominated. It never broke past 20% of the market share. And Chrome is not developed through an OSS model as much as through professional development model (Google makes it and gives it away). PHP does not dominate by any means and I would argue is largely considered sub par in quality to all other solutions in the same domain.
Well, it's granted under the theory that people wouldn't be creating as much otherwise. In other words, the 1st sharing would be a much more rare occurrence. That theory does seem to have merit (the opposite was true during the writing of the Constitution's Article 1). However, making the copyright terms as long as they have become is unquestionably draconian. If you accept the assumption that less is created if no intellectual property laws exist, then you would get the not sharing of the original A as the default behavior in most cases. If the app writers couldn't copyright their apps, there would still be apps. But there would be less of them. And there would be little incentive to put the finishing touches by the creators. As soon as they would get bored with it, they'd stop working on it (as every volunteer does). You can still have professionally written software to support your platform. There is an example of that: IBM mainframes. But that software (not the operating system, but software) is usually incredibly clunky and behind times. So if that's the model we aspire to, we have good evidence against it. If you oss model will do it, you'll have to explain why it hasn't come to dominate despite being cheaper over the last 20 years.
Re:This is what's wrong with private healthcare.
on
How Doctors Die
·
· Score: 1
He said nothing about this problem being ours alone. He simply identified the problem and a natural solution to it. Basic care can be provided with much less training than we demand of health care providers. That's all.
Re:I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my Da
on
How Doctors Die
·
· Score: 1
Don't take the premise of this article too seriously. Lifespans have increased by about 20 years in the last 40 years. Heart-attack care, for example, is generally an emergency care operation and it's generally not fatal. There is plenty of other examples. Emergency treatment works and works successfully. If it didn't, people wouldn't live as long.
It's quite another to share and then forbid everybody else from sharing.
It is quite another thing to forbid anyone from sharing. But it is your right to make that a per-condition for your sharing. Because, as you pointed out, it is your right not to share at all.
If you write a book, you as the OWNER of the intellectual property get to deny its use until you get a compensation you want. You might never get it, but that you do get the right to deny its use until you do. Again, that's what it means to own something. You don't have to give up until you get what you want in return. You may need that $1000 and then exchange the right to read that book for that $1000, but you it's your right not to do that.
They are called "greenhouse gases" because they act as a blanket around the planet
And the sky is blue, right? Any more platitudes? Do you not understand what "creating drag on heat flow" means? Cause that's what I said they did. The GP however was claiming that they "trap" the heat in the atmosphere. I assure you that I know that heat equation and its implications. The fact that you reached conclusion that I don't understand the issue speaks volumes about your ability to comprehend what you read. The fact that you think that someone discussing the best method for fact-finding in a particular context needs to know the details more than they need to understand the context is an indication that you are dogmatic about your fact-finding methods.
i see the campaign started already
on
How Doctors Die
·
· Score: 1
Now that the administration is certain they'll become the payor of choice for most people they are testing waters with the propaganda campaign which amounts to "less care is good for you." They actually think that slashdot is "their people." What a bunch of bs.
And in fact, Occam's Razor requires "skeptics" to not only model why the temperature is changing (and/or why it isn't changing but just looks like it is) but also why burning fossil carbon, causing a rise in atmospheric CO2, causing the atmosphere to absorb energy which would otherwise radiate outwards from the stratosphere, could possibly NOT be true, despite every step in the chain of causation being not only plausible, but verifiable to the best accuracy currently available.
Well, the temperature is always changing. Why are there periodic ice ages? What causes them? What causes them to subside? It is a known fact that ice ages occur and go away. I am not sure why you think that someone pointing out that correlation evidence needs null hypothesis testing is all of a sudden required to show proof of the opposite idea. Perhaps you are trapped by your own assumption. A skeptic doesn't need to prove anything. A skeptic simply points out that the evidence is far from giving a conclusive proof. A denier (which is what you accuse skeptics of being) makes a stronger statement than a skeptic. A denier makes a statement that the assertion is false. That statement would need strong evidence. Also, increased levels of CO2 would create a slightly larger drag on heat escaping the atmosphere. It wouldn't "cause the atmosphere to absorb energy". Remember how these were called "green house gasses"? If they caused actual absorption (rather than creating a drag on emission), then actual green houses would be used for melting steel rather than just increasing average local temperature.
they are embedded among tens of thousands of ignorant parrots
As a recent slashdot poll showed (http://slashdot.org/poll/2272/what-is-your-position-on-climate-change), there is more parroting among the proponents than among the deniers. And as you can gather from a bunch of replies above, the best reason for not having such debates seems vitriol against the skeptics. Debate is a method for testing an assertion in an adversarial review (rather than the more accommodating peer review). It is an appropriate means of fact finding in the face of non-repeatable evidence (as is the case to some degree with evolution and weather measurements). In fact, peer review is only useful when reviewing reproducible evidence. Richard Dawkins gets a lot of grief for publicly debating the pro-evolution position. But he still does it because he knows full well that his position is defendable. Pro-AGW camp has such accomplished debaters as Al Gore (his latest political failure notwithstanding, one has to admit that a successful political career is a clear sign of an accomplished debater) and yet it won't engage in an open debate. It will only engage in a marketing campaign. If they really do believe the science is settled, it's time they realized that the way they go about proving it only serves to undermine the confidence in that fact. I'll repeat, the confidence is not undermined despite everything they do; it is undermined because of how they go about doing it.
Corruption will always be with us. The only solution is to minimize its effects when it does occur by not giving it a chance to grow in affluence. Having one national system is just asking for a day when corruption in the voting process goes national.
You are confusing the first and second derivatives.
Wow, I have to respond with something I thought I would never respond with. No, you are! Inflection point is the point where the 2nd derivative is 0. The assertion in gp stands.
But the key point is that if you are the original creator, then you get to determine the creations worth in exchange. All property rights are rights to refuse utility to others. And if you created A, then you don't have to give it up until an appropriate B is offered in exchange. But you get to determine what that B is. Otherwise, you don't have a right to your own creation. The argument against copyright terms being as long as they are is a different argument. I happen to agree that they are too long, but it's besides the point. The point is that if you insist on B being a fixed cost (even for a limited time), then you should have the right not to part with A until you get your B.
But food doesn't have to be designed. If you had to create the seeds you planted by programming mother nature, you'd worry a lot more about those copying your seeds and a lot less about the cost of planting and growing them. In fact, that is exactly what the companies which do genetically modify seeds worry about. So the cost of design (even when it amounts to a slight modification) still contributes more to the overall cost than the cost of replication. There is nothing irrational in expecting that when you create something (A) and exchange it for something else (B), you should only exchange it if B is worth more to you than the time you spent on creating A.
If it was more efficient, it would have been done already by large fleet operators as a cost saving measure. It hasn't been. So any claims of efficiency gains are not true. The Sun may send a lot of energy our way, but trapping it in a form which can be stored and used at a later time at will is not necessarily more efficient by using your favorite type of chemical bonds.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, writing code is fun. Reading code written by a committee always in a rush to fix fires created by other committees of coders is stressful.
Probably not. There is most likely exception to services offered to general public. The same organizations also use phones, public roads, even regular mail and email services. Nothing special about Twitter in that regard.
I'm looking at stats right now that show it peaked above 30%: http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-200807-201111
They are measuring it by how http client announces itself to a cite (which client is specified in the http header). Most scripting libraries will put Mozilla in that header by default. So this data is scewed by all the crawlers running on the web. These are just scripts announcing themselves to be Firefox rather than actual Firefox browsers.
On the other hand, each person would have access to more stuff by eliminating the artificial scarcity.
If the copyright terms were not draconian, scarcity would be much more temporary. So we'd get both the advantage of incentivising creation and of having access to ideas which have become pervasive after some time. The current model is woefully inhibitive to creation because it effectively does not allow derivative experimentation with established models of writing, design, etc. In fact, I would argue that the only reason OSS took off was in response to lock-in copyright periods of the proprietory model.
There's actually a lot of areas where open source does dominate or at least does very well, like Firefox and now Chrome, Linux on server backends along with software like MySql or PHP.
Firefox, by the way never dominated. It never broke past 20% of the market share. And Chrome is not developed through an OSS model as much as through professional development model (Google makes it and gives it away). PHP does not dominate by any means and I would argue is largely considered sub par in quality to all other solutions in the same domain.
Well, it's granted under the theory that people wouldn't be creating as much otherwise. In other words, the 1st sharing would be a much more rare occurrence. That theory does seem to have merit (the opposite was true during the writing of the Constitution's Article 1). However, making the copyright terms as long as they have become is unquestionably draconian. If you accept the assumption that less is created if no intellectual property laws exist, then you would get the not sharing of the original A as the default behavior in most cases. If the app writers couldn't copyright their apps, there would still be apps. But there would be less of them. And there would be little incentive to put the finishing touches by the creators. As soon as they would get bored with it, they'd stop working on it (as every volunteer does). You can still have professionally written software to support your platform. There is an example of that: IBM mainframes. But that software (not the operating system, but software) is usually incredibly clunky and behind times. So if that's the model we aspire to, we have good evidence against it. If you oss model will do it, you'll have to explain why it hasn't come to dominate despite being cheaper over the last 20 years.
He said nothing about this problem being ours alone. He simply identified the problem and a natural solution to it. Basic care can be provided with much less training than we demand of health care providers. That's all.
Don't take the premise of this article too seriously. Lifespans have increased by about 20 years in the last 40 years. Heart-attack care, for example, is generally an emergency care operation and it's generally not fatal. There is plenty of other examples. Emergency treatment works and works successfully. If it didn't, people wouldn't live as long.
because they don't at all represent them
You fail.
Must be me then. This phrase, of course, is where you stop deserving to be treated like a human being.
It's quite another to share and then forbid everybody else from sharing.
It is quite another thing to forbid anyone from sharing. But it is your right to make that a per-condition for your sharing. Because, as you pointed out, it is your right not to share at all.
If you write a book, you as the OWNER of the intellectual property get to deny its use until you get a compensation you want. You might never get it, but that you do get the right to deny its use until you do. Again, that's what it means to own something. You don't have to give up until you get what you want in return. You may need that $1000 and then exchange the right to read that book for that $1000, but you it's your right not to do that.
They are called "greenhouse gases" because they act as a blanket around the planet
And the sky is blue, right? Any more platitudes? Do you not understand what "creating drag on heat flow" means? Cause that's what I said they did. The GP however was claiming that they "trap" the heat in the atmosphere. I assure you that I know that heat equation and its implications. The fact that you reached conclusion that I don't understand the issue speaks volumes about your ability to comprehend what you read. The fact that you think that someone discussing the best method for fact-finding in a particular context needs to know the details more than they need to understand the context is an indication that you are dogmatic about your fact-finding methods.
Now that the administration is certain they'll become the payor of choice for most people they are testing waters with the propaganda campaign which amounts to "less care is good for you." They actually think that slashdot is "their people." What a bunch of bs.
And in fact, Occam's Razor requires "skeptics" to not only model why the temperature is changing (and/or why it isn't changing but just looks like it is) but also why burning fossil carbon, causing a rise in atmospheric CO2, causing the atmosphere to absorb energy which would otherwise radiate outwards from the stratosphere, could possibly NOT be true, despite every step in the chain of causation being not only plausible, but verifiable to the best accuracy currently available.
Well, the temperature is always changing. Why are there periodic ice ages? What causes them? What causes them to subside? It is a known fact that ice ages occur and go away. I am not sure why you think that someone pointing out that correlation evidence needs null hypothesis testing is all of a sudden required to show proof of the opposite idea. Perhaps you are trapped by your own assumption. A skeptic doesn't need to prove anything. A skeptic simply points out that the evidence is far from giving a conclusive proof. A denier (which is what you accuse skeptics of being) makes a stronger statement than a skeptic. A denier makes a statement that the assertion is false. That statement would need strong evidence. Also, increased levels of CO2 would create a slightly larger drag on heat escaping the atmosphere. It wouldn't "cause the atmosphere to absorb energy". Remember how these were called "green house gasses"? If they caused actual absorption (rather than creating a drag on emission), then actual green houses would be used for melting steel rather than just increasing average local temperature.
So they deal with reporters and politicians in their efforts to stay clean?
they are embedded among tens of thousands of ignorant parrots
As a recent slashdot poll showed (http://slashdot.org/poll/2272/what-is-your-position-on-climate-change), there is more parroting among the proponents than among the deniers. And as you can gather from a bunch of replies above, the best reason for not having such debates seems vitriol against the skeptics. Debate is a method for testing an assertion in an adversarial review (rather than the more accommodating peer review). It is an appropriate means of fact finding in the face of non-repeatable evidence (as is the case to some degree with evolution and weather measurements). In fact, peer review is only useful when reviewing reproducible evidence. Richard Dawkins gets a lot of grief for publicly debating the pro-evolution position. But he still does it because he knows full well that his position is defendable. Pro-AGW camp has such accomplished debaters as Al Gore (his latest political failure notwithstanding, one has to admit that a successful political career is a clear sign of an accomplished debater) and yet it won't engage in an open debate. It will only engage in a marketing campaign. If they really do believe the science is settled, it's time they realized that the way they go about proving it only serves to undermine the confidence in that fact. I'll repeat, the confidence is not undermined despite everything they do; it is undermined because of how they go about doing it.
Corruption will always be with us. The only solution is to minimize its effects when it does occur by not giving it a chance to grow in affluence. Having one national system is just asking for a day when corruption in the voting process goes national.
You are confusing the first and second derivatives.
Wow, I have to respond with something I thought I would never respond with. No, you are! Inflection point is the point where the 2nd derivative is 0. The assertion in gp stands.
But the key point is that if you are the original creator, then you get to determine the creations worth in exchange. All property rights are rights to refuse utility to others. And if you created A, then you don't have to give it up until an appropriate B is offered in exchange. But you get to determine what that B is. Otherwise, you don't have a right to your own creation. The argument against copyright terms being as long as they are is a different argument. I happen to agree that they are too long, but it's besides the point. The point is that if you insist on B being a fixed cost (even for a limited time), then you should have the right not to part with A until you get your B.
It hasn't been retailed as much as it has been since iOS put it in phones.
Your time is your most precious commodity. It may not (always) feel that way. But it's true nonetheless.
But food doesn't have to be designed. If you had to create the seeds you planted by programming mother nature, you'd worry a lot more about those copying your seeds and a lot less about the cost of planting and growing them. In fact, that is exactly what the companies which do genetically modify seeds worry about. So the cost of design (even when it amounts to a slight modification) still contributes more to the overall cost than the cost of replication. There is nothing irrational in expecting that when you create something (A) and exchange it for something else (B), you should only exchange it if B is worth more to you than the time you spent on creating A.
Brilliant!
The slope of change is always steepest at inflection points.
If it was more efficient, it would have been done already by large fleet operators as a cost saving measure. It hasn't been. So any claims of efficiency gains are not true. The Sun may send a lot of energy our way, but trapping it in a form which can be stored and used at a later time at will is not necessarily more efficient by using your favorite type of chemical bonds.