It's time for MS to be taken out of the marketplace via former customers kicking the habit. If the recession has a silver lining, it will be that this plan won't fly.
I haven't read this essay before, and have only had time to skim part of it now, but Dijkstra's criticism of mathematicians has merit, IMHO. [I have an MS in Math, so I don't claim to be an expert.] It's been over 40 years since the introduction of nonstandard analysis (including hyperreals and later surreal numbers), but it's still not a mainstream topic. In fact, it boggles my mind why a professor or department would choose to teach their students "hard" analysis (Bartle or Royden) instead of "soft" analysis (Rudin) -- "soft" analysis uses topological results to arrive at key theorems faster, while "hard" uses Real Analysis as if it were the only option on the market. Not that there's anything wrong with using Rudin and Royden in tandem, but to ignore topological results altogether smacks of willful ignorance. To paraphrase Stephen King: do you expect brownie points for being ignorant of your own discipline?
The light on the horizon is the development of proof via programming, as covered by/. I'm sure there will be 50+ years of mathematicians screaming and kicking to avoid its introduction into the mainstream, but that will change the first time a computed proof that could not have been developed in one lifetime via the usual methods earns someone an Abel Prize. Until then, I suspect Dijkstra's point will still stand.
I'm neither saying you're wrong and nor saying that my experience is universal, but I installed RH/Fedora twice between 2003 and 2008, and both times I erased the install because of dependency hell. OTOH, I have used Kanotix and then Kubuntu on a daily basis since 2002 and have only found one non-standard package that refused to install (in 2007), and that issue got resolved with the next release.
At this point, you could not pay me to install Fedora as my working OS. Whether or not RPM's have something to do with this, I would hope that Fedora fans would take note -- I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.
If Cray would have spent the amount of time and money equivalent to what was put into this deal at their end by recoding FreeBSD to their needs, they could have rebranded the result as their own OS/hardware package a la Apple without all of the bugs and security holes that MS has brought to the table.
(And I'm a Linux guy! How hard is this stuff to figure out?!)
Of course, that usually doesn't mean a gag order, but with topic, we'll make an exception. That's how we maintain our status as open-minded, free thinkers.
Layers of entire forests do not turn into fossils via slow, gradual change. I'm not trying to ignite any stupid arguments here, but has anyone read of a geological theory that covers such widespread, repeated mudslides or mud bursts?
I wouldn't be surprised if evidence surfaced some day to support your theory. I suspect that the geopolitical history of pre-literate societies is far more interesting that we have any idea of right now.
I know you don't approve of Chou because he's from the North, but I LOVE HIM and WE'RE GETTING MARRIED! I'm running away with him and his family, so by the time you learn how to read, I'll be gone. Chou's just bought a boat, and we're going to sail north until we find a New World to live in. Maybe one along the coast so we can surf, ya know?
I'll leave it up to you to tell Liam that I've gone. I couldn't marry a Celt anyway! All that red hair on his face? YUCK!
I know you wanted to me to stay and grow rice and stuff, but I really just want a life where I can soak up the sun and tell everyone to lighten up.... And who knows? Thousands of years from now, maybe they'll find my remains and it'll ROYALLY screw up their view of ethnic migrations, cause you and I KNOW that the only people who ever sail north and never come back are from the North. I mean, who'd be dumb enough to jump to a conclusion based on one person? AS IF!! Oh well -- as long as I'm famous, ya know?
Sorry about never seeing you again and stuff. Hugs and kisses! Zang
1.) No one is obliged to buy an item that is overpriced. In fact, an underground economy cannot exist without either rationing or artificially high price floors. Since we don't have rationing in this case, it follows that the price of music media is too high given the current market. If you really want to make a sale, remember the adage: "If a customer wants to give you money, you let them." Customers have spoken with their wallets and said, "Let us download good, DRM-free content." The RIAA has enforced the media industries' stance that such sales will be considered piracy. But the term "piracy" has lost it historical meaning, since now it is no longer the case that 1 pirate sale equals 1 lost sale in the legitimate market. Someone who downloaded the entire Beatles catalog will still buy paraphernalia. It does mean that the market has shifted such that a good song is now a vehicle for concert attendance, t-shirts, posters, etc., rather than a source of income in and of itself. This is a much better arrangement from the consumer's POV compared to 20 years ago, when it was likely that a $15 CD with 11 songs would contain 2 worth listening to. And in a market driven economy, what's good for the consumer generally wins out in the end.
2.) If humans want to make a profit, they have to make a product that others want to buy at prices that reflect the current market. If I choose to sell a decent graphic novel of my own creation for $100 per issue, I shouldn't be surprised when I find it for free on the Internet. $100 is too high for a graphic novel by any stretch, and I didn't offer it in the media my customers' wanted. The tack you would seem to advocate is to sue my customers because they've broken the law. True, but if I want to stay in business, it might not hurt to try offering the issues for free on the net and then selling paper editions: regular for $10, deluxe for $100. The market will then dictate what to do next. Humans tend to upgrade their stuff based on their incomes, be it better editions, DVD's, or concert attendance of their favorite artists, so with my model, good content will still generate a profit.
3.) Content creators are not owed a profit by their customers or by their management. They have to earn it based on what they have to offer and what the public is willing to pay for. Offer what the customer wants at a price the market reflects, and profit generally occurs. Doing otherwise, especially suing customers, shows short-sightedness, greed, and egotism.
It comes down to this: do you want to make a profit in this market or not? This market is not the market of 20 years ago, and no amount of name-calling or foot-stamping will change that. It's no longer possible to have a millionaire lifestyle through royalties off of one song written in 1960. If your customers want music for free, remember that they buy tickets, t-shirts, coffee mugs, posters, and subscribe to a web site in order to be the first to download the latest album.
In P2P file sharing, copyright infringement is taking place. It is almost certainly NOT fair use.
Responding to the above (and not your post in general), it's worth noting that:
We have a international cartel engaged in price-fixing their product.
This cartel uses their profits to have laws rewritten so that their ownership is extended ad infinitum.
This cartel uses the weight of the law to prop up a revenue model that has been outdated by current technology.
When all else fails, they claim that they are "victims" of "piracy".
Victims? If these people had owned the telegraph companies 120 years ago, they would have sued Bell out of existence. If they had been a blacksmith cartel, cars would have been outlawed because auto owners hadn't purchased a license to use the roads, which were clearly designed for horse-drawn buggies.
Piracy? As in rapine and murder? Really? Sounds like guilt bubbling to the surface to me. Deep down, these people know they are thieves. You can't be a middleman and take 70%+ of the profit without stealing from someone.
Back the "good old days" of Napster, I discovered Garrison Starr, David Shutrick, and got hold of the remaining episodes of "The Goon Show". If Napster had been legalized in the same way that cable television was in the early 80's, I would have paid a subscription fee to stay on it. I would certainly pay one now. Why? Because I never would have come across these musicians and comedians otherwise. But the content providers shot themselves in the foot not because of their fear of piracy but because of their desire to control the entire entertainment market from top to bottom. That is what they held out for, that is what they still hold out for, and that is why they want to sue P2P users, censor Usenet, eliminate the public domain, and move to a model where all entertainment is leased on a per-use basis.
In actual fact, downloading is a lot like speeding; nearly everyone is a little guilty, and a few are extremely guilty. But no one in America would claim that a $200,000 speeding ticket is justified. And in the case downloading, it's only the international cartel, clinging to it's outdated business model, that's holding us back from finding a revenue model that will allow legitimate transactions. We would not be having this discussion today if this cartel wasn't using its full force to stop the inevitable: a change in business model which they will not profit from.
How about mathematical gems like "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" by Walter Rudin or "Algebra" by MacLane & Birkhoff? Or even "Zero: A Biography of a Dangerous Idea"?
Parents and teachers think it is [okay], but it is a light-weight model of knowledge and people don't know about the underlying model of how it operates.
Which is fine if you're seeking a general overview of a subject, as most undergraduates are. One should no more trust it than any other single source.
As for academia, it is a heavy-weight model, top-loaded with egotistical professionals who will smite you down for not obeying-- sorry, agreeing with them, and the people who use Wikipedia heavily don't know much if anything about the underlying model of how it operates.
How about this? Create an alternative to Wikipedia administered by professionals in the various fields and see how many people find it useful.
IMO, this is how the average dissenter (for lack of a better word) sees the situation:
SCIENTIST: I am a scientist. What I discover, you will learn.
AVERAGE JOE: What if I disagree with your results?
SCIENTIST: You can't disagree meaningfully unless you're also a scientist.
AVERAGE JOE: OK, how do I become a scientist?
SCIENTIST: You must first learn everything I know.
AVERAGE JOE: I don't have time or the money for that.
SCIENTIST: It's the only way.
AVERAGE JOE: If I do, at what point do I get to question the theories I think are BS? Aren't people fired for not being pro-evolution?
SCIENTIST: They aren't scientists!
AVERAGE JOE: So in order to be a scientist, I have to agree with you. But once I agree with you, I'm allowed to disagree with you.
SCIENTIST: That's not what I was trying to convey --
AVERAGE JOE: Forget it. You're just trying to tell me what to think about everything. I'll just wait until someone proves you wrong. You scientists are always correcting yourselves, anyway.
*** I'm not saying that the dissenter is right, but based on my interactions with various people, I think this is a snapshot of the mindset. I also think the above is a snapshot of a certain type of PhD. The pro-science case would certainly be helped if certain arrogant voices didn't pipe up so often.
Slashdot Mirror
Brother, welcome to the fold.
It's time for MS to be taken out of the marketplace via former customers kicking the habit. If the recession has a silver lining, it will be that this plan won't fly.
And it really deserves the title: General Topology, by John L. Kelley.
Its notation is out of date in certain respects, but other than that, it's aged well.
I haven't read this essay before, and have only had time to skim part of it now, but Dijkstra's criticism of mathematicians has merit, IMHO. [I have an MS in Math, so I don't claim to be an expert.] It's been over 40 years since the introduction of nonstandard analysis (including hyperreals and later surreal numbers), but it's still not a mainstream topic. In fact, it boggles my mind why a professor or department would choose to teach their students "hard" analysis (Bartle or Royden) instead of "soft" analysis (Rudin) -- "soft" analysis uses topological results to arrive at key theorems faster, while "hard" uses Real Analysis as if it were the only option on the market. Not that there's anything wrong with using Rudin and Royden in tandem, but to ignore topological results altogether smacks of willful ignorance. To paraphrase Stephen King: do you expect brownie points for being ignorant of your own discipline?
The light on the horizon is the development of proof via programming, as covered by /. I'm sure there will be 50+ years of mathematicians screaming and kicking to avoid its introduction into the mainstream, but that will change the first time a computed proof that could not have been developed in one lifetime via the usual methods earns someone an Abel Prize. Until then, I suspect Dijkstra's point will still stand.
I'm neither saying you're wrong and nor saying that my experience is universal, but I installed RH/Fedora twice between 2003 and 2008, and both times I erased the install because of dependency hell. OTOH, I have used Kanotix and then Kubuntu on a daily basis since 2002 and have only found one non-standard package that refused to install (in 2007), and that issue got resolved with the next release. At this point, you could not pay me to install Fedora as my working OS. Whether or not RPM's have something to do with this, I would hope that Fedora fans would take note -- I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.
...and you still suffer dependency hell. Drop RPM's for deb's, and I'll use Fedora.
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1190142
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00004/protest120206_4781t.jpg
http://atangledweb.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/muslim_protest_2.jpg
http://www.goofigure.com/images/library/muslim_protest_1.jpg
http://www.goofigure.com/images/library/muslim_protest_7.jpg
If Cray would have spent the amount of time and money equivalent to what was put into this deal at their end by recoding FreeBSD to their needs, they could have rebranded the result as their own OS/hardware package a la Apple without all of the bugs and security holes that MS has brought to the table.
(And I'm a Linux guy! How hard is this stuff to figure out?!)
When you're able to shut everybody else down.
Of course, that usually doesn't mean a gag order, but with topic, we'll make an exception. That's how we maintain our status as open-minded, free thinkers.
Layers of entire forests do not turn into fossils via slow, gradual change. I'm not trying to ignite any stupid arguments here, but has anyone read of a geological theory that covers such widespread, repeated mudslides or mud bursts?
I wouldn't be surprised if evidence surfaced some day to support your theory. I suspect that the geopolitical history of pre-literate societies is far more interesting that we have any idea of right now.
I know you don't approve of Chou because he's from the North, but I LOVE HIM and WE'RE GETTING MARRIED! I'm running away with him and his family, so by the time you learn how to read, I'll be gone. Chou's just bought a boat, and we're going to sail north until we find a New World to live in. Maybe one along the coast so we can surf, ya know?
I'll leave it up to you to tell Liam that I've gone. I couldn't marry a Celt anyway! All that red hair on his face? YUCK!
I know you wanted to me to stay and grow rice and stuff, but I really just want a life where I can soak up the sun and tell everyone to lighten up.... And who knows? Thousands of years from now, maybe they'll find my remains and it'll ROYALLY screw up their view of ethnic migrations, cause you and I KNOW that the only people who ever sail north and never come back are from the North. I mean, who'd be dumb enough to jump to a conclusion based on one person? AS IF!! Oh well -- as long as I'm famous, ya know?
Sorry about never seeing you again and stuff. Hugs and kisses!
Zang
1.) No one is obliged to buy an item that is overpriced. In fact, an underground economy cannot exist without either rationing or artificially high price floors. Since we don't have rationing in this case, it follows that the price of music media is too high given the current market. If you really want to make a sale, remember the adage: "If a customer wants to give you money, you let them." Customers have spoken with their wallets and said, "Let us download good, DRM-free content." The RIAA has enforced the media industries' stance that such sales will be considered piracy. But the term "piracy" has lost it historical meaning, since now it is no longer the case that 1 pirate sale equals 1 lost sale in the legitimate market. Someone who downloaded the entire Beatles catalog will still buy paraphernalia. It does mean that the market has shifted such that a good song is now a vehicle for concert attendance, t-shirts, posters, etc., rather than a source of income in and of itself. This is a much better arrangement from the consumer's POV compared to 20 years ago, when it was likely that a $15 CD with 11 songs would contain 2 worth listening to. And in a market driven economy, what's good for the consumer generally wins out in the end.
2.) If humans want to make a profit, they have to make a product that others want to buy at prices that reflect the current market. If I choose to sell a decent graphic novel of my own creation for $100 per issue, I shouldn't be surprised when I find it for free on the Internet. $100 is too high for a graphic novel by any stretch, and I didn't offer it in the media my customers' wanted. The tack you would seem to advocate is to sue my customers because they've broken the law. True, but if I want to stay in business, it might not hurt to try offering the issues for free on the net and then selling paper editions: regular for $10, deluxe for $100. The market will then dictate what to do next. Humans tend to upgrade their stuff based on their incomes, be it better editions, DVD's, or concert attendance of their favorite artists, so with my model, good content will still generate a profit.
3.) Content creators are not owed a profit by their customers or by their management. They have to earn it based on what they have to offer and what the public is willing to pay for. Offer what the customer wants at a price the market reflects, and profit generally occurs. Doing otherwise, especially suing customers, shows short-sightedness, greed, and egotism.
It comes down to this: do you want to make a profit in this market or not? This market is not the market of 20 years ago, and no amount of name-calling or foot-stamping will change that. It's no longer possible to have a millionaire lifestyle through royalties off of one song written in 1960. If your customers want music for free, remember that they buy tickets, t-shirts, coffee mugs, posters, and subscribe to a web site in order to be the first to download the latest album.
All I got back was an email that read "ROTFLMAO!"
a) Less than 1/3 of all Americans support the censorship of political blogs.
b) 70% of Americans do not support regulation of political blogging.
Same data, different spin.
Responding to the above (and not your post in general), it's worth noting that:
Victims? If these people had owned the telegraph companies 120 years ago, they would have sued Bell out of existence. If they had been a blacksmith cartel, cars would have been outlawed because auto owners hadn't purchased a license to use the roads, which were clearly designed for horse-drawn buggies.
Piracy? As in rapine and murder? Really? Sounds like guilt bubbling to the surface to me. Deep down, these people know they are thieves. You can't be a middleman and take 70%+ of the profit without stealing from someone.
Back the "good old days" of Napster, I discovered Garrison Starr, David Shutrick, and got hold of the remaining episodes of "The Goon Show". If Napster had been legalized in the same way that cable television was in the early 80's, I would have paid a subscription fee to stay on it. I would certainly pay one now. Why? Because I never would have come across these musicians and comedians otherwise. But the content providers shot themselves in the foot not because of their fear of piracy but because of their desire to control the entire entertainment market from top to bottom. That is what they held out for, that is what they still hold out for, and that is why they want to sue P2P users, censor Usenet, eliminate the public domain, and move to a model where all entertainment is leased on a per-use basis.
In actual fact, downloading is a lot like speeding; nearly everyone is a little guilty, and a few are extremely guilty. But no one in America would claim that a $200,000 speeding ticket is justified. And in the case downloading, it's only the international cartel, clinging to it's outdated business model, that's holding us back from finding a revenue model that will allow legitimate transactions. We would not be having this discussion today if this cartel wasn't using its full force to stop the inevitable: a change in business model which they will not profit from.
Will he have to reprogram the English syntax algorithm to add an "eh?" at the end of every sentence?
How about mathematical gems like "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" by Walter Rudin or "Algebra" by MacLane & Birkhoff? Or even "Zero: A Biography of a Dangerous Idea"?
Which is fine if you're seeking a general overview of a subject, as most undergraduates are. One should no more trust it than any other single source.
As for academia, it is a heavy-weight model, top-loaded with egotistical professionals who will smite you down for not obeying-- sorry, agreeing with them, and the people who use Wikipedia heavily don't know much if anything about the underlying model of how it operates.
How about this? Create an alternative to Wikipedia administered by professionals in the various fields and see how many people find it useful.
Turn on ED-209.
and then ask innocently, "What?"
And it works because men can't figure out the mixed signals. Not until they're too old to make use of it, anyway.
You misunderstood my post. The dialog describes how the "dissenters" view the situation.
IMO, this is how the average dissenter (for lack of a better word) sees the situation:
SCIENTIST: I am a scientist. What I discover, you will learn.
AVERAGE JOE: What if I disagree with your results?
SCIENTIST: You can't disagree meaningfully unless you're also a scientist.
AVERAGE JOE: OK, how do I become a scientist?
SCIENTIST: You must first learn everything I know.
AVERAGE JOE: I don't have time or the money for that.
SCIENTIST: It's the only way.
AVERAGE JOE: If I do, at what point do I get to question the theories I think are BS? Aren't people fired for not being pro-evolution?
SCIENTIST: They aren't scientists!
AVERAGE JOE: So in order to be a scientist, I have to agree with you. But once I agree with you, I'm allowed to disagree with you.
SCIENTIST: That's not what I was trying to convey --
AVERAGE JOE: Forget it. You're just trying to tell me what to think about everything. I'll just wait until someone proves you wrong. You scientists are always correcting yourselves, anyway.
***
I'm not saying that the dissenter is right, but based on my interactions with various people, I think this is a snapshot of the mindset. I also think the above is a snapshot of a certain type of PhD. The pro-science case would certainly be helped if certain arrogant voices didn't pipe up so often.
"Point it at ED-209."
So, we can legally rebrand every BSD codebase as MS products? No kidding...!