This reminds me of the Canadian navy guy who was suspended after having been caught surfing pr0n with a navy laptop. After a few weeks of the media trying desperately to rile the public and sell the story, he was quietly reinstated. No one cared, in the end. I suspect the same sort of paranoid forces at work here (although according to the article, it really comes down to one man and politics.) Ah well, at least the judges will proove to be the litmus test of whether communication monitoring in the work place will eventually be accepted as routine (or even American) by our kids.
Finally, engineers can build their girlfriends! (Although they wouldn't know what to say to her.)
Look into the future ...
on
ACM vs. RIAA
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Seeing as there wouldn't be much to sell if science and research didn't exist, the RIAA would be prudent to listen. Studio technology is one of the most important aspects of (at least many genres') selling a hit record (unfortunately), and probably wouldn't be where it is today without that good old unbridled R&D. Just to expand on that, for those who don't understand what I'm getting at, studio production values are to music what happy endings are to hollywood.
Of course, we all know that no business can see past the end of it's wallet, so it's unlikely they'll suddenly grow the foresight to recognize that laws they have sponsored or are pursuing will hurt them in the long run. Ah, ya gotta love cycles.
It's much like the oil and gas industry; what exactly do you expect to be selling when you're inadvertantly being detramental to the very thing that makes you money?
History doesn't teach us anything, it seems. It teaches us about 2 or 3 heros and villains, and usually with a better ending. And you can quote me on that.
I found some pretty cool stations over the years. No surprise the RIAA is asking for more money, though. Personally, I don't see why logistically, royalties should be charged twice, once for broadcast, once for stream. Arn't they both played from the same programming scheduale? What's the rationale behind justifying an additional fee? Do similar copyright fee schemes show up in television broadcast.. where two fees are charged from the same programming if it is broadcast over two 'mediums'?
I do accept that many of these radio stations wern't getting a bigger listener base because of their online streams, so maybe it just wasn't worth the hassle.
Yeah, thats some dangerous rhetoric there. Does the dress code at your work infringe your freedom to show up naked, or does it protect the freedom of your co-workers not to have to see your wang?
If you read the article, you would understand that if no such free software exists to address your needs, most policies being discussed would allow for commercial alternatives. No one is holding a gun to your head. Also, the government isn't forcing you to use particlar software; the government is forcing the government to use particular software. It's called policy.. would you argue that not being allowed to show up at work naked is an infrigment on your 'freedom'?
C'mon, give up! We all know there is no viable business model in running a foreign country!
Or at least that's what Steve Balmer might say.;)
On a more serious note, woohoo. This is exactly what we need.. nations entrenched in capitalism forget that domestic development must almost always be sparked by the government. This is hard to do for many governments, since they have little money to begin with. Anything that saves money for governments in these types of countries is good, as they can turn around and use the money they saved to spurn domestic market development and growth. (At least somewhat.. unfortunately, one of the goals of all these free trade talks are to prevent countries from being able to award contracts to domestic companies preferrentially in order to encourage growth in the domestic economy.)
Lego killed itself when the pieces got so specialized around the mid-90s, that a set's pieces was tied inextricibly with what the set was supposed to build.
It seems to me that the earlier more generic pieces of the mid-80s Space and Technique sets were the perfect balance between your basic brick pieces and the more specialized connectors and decorative pieces.
With the pieces today, it's harder to build something completetly different than the actual model the set was built for.
"Linux, created 10 years ago this month by Finnish computer programming student Linus Torvalds, has become a popular software system used to run Web sites and is seen as a rival to Microsoft Windows, the dominant software used in personal computers."
Is it just me, or is it getting more and more annoying having to read this line in every single article ever written about Linux? I'm surprised they didn't subsequently define 'computer'.
Re:Well there's innovation.. and then there's lame
on
The New Zelda
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Sure, I'll get an offtopic for this, but what the hell:
"greatest cartoon of all time, Transformers"
ROFL, you're kidding right? Are you evaluating greatness by golf-score style cel-counts, and perspectives that look like the bastard love child of Dali and cubism?! The Transformers embodied everything that american animation stands for - get a good franchise, and the fans will be totally blind to brutal, shoestring budget art.
The CPad.. the handheld.. the side scroller... Nintendo has been responsible for so much of what is taken for granted in the console industry that it's always amusing to see people trash Nintendo.
Sure, you may not be a fan of the style in the screenshots and movie, but it does highlight what Nintendo has always been good at: innovation.
Other developers are usually content to raise the bar on the present set of conventions and standards, in terms up updated graphics (making the characters look more lifelike), etc.. Nintendo has always focused on innovative game play and a unique approach to old franchises.
I for one think that the style Nintendo is going for here is refreshing - way too many games take themselves way too seriously. And Link has always held an element of novelty and humour. I mean, how serious can you be when you're a green-garbed elf who occasionally stops by the chicken coup to ruffle a few feathers for the fun of it?
And, for the 20somethings who really won't touch a game unless its covered in blood, don't worry - Nintendo is handling their licencing issues far better this time around. We've seen some evidence that Microsoft's money will ultimatetly help see tons of the Xbox titles get ported to game cube, hopefully shutting up the thousands of console FANBOYS who only seem to pledge allegiance to systems with the darkest most 'adult' image, regardless of the reality.
Why don't they just bite the bullet and replace students with computers? They'd behave perfectly, learn at 100% efficiancy, and never skip class to smoke in the playground.
On a more serious note, the easier you make learning, the less learning remains as a primary goal of the human psyche. The goal should be to make learning difficult things personally rewarding, not fun and easy. Fun and comfort is being luaded as the primary experience for any activity, over personal gratification after hard, unpleasant work. It's akin to making your vitamins sugary; if for some reason the sugar isn't there some day, you're likely to pick the comfort of not tasting those nasty vitamins over taking the vitamins, because you just wouldn't appreciate the experience of doing something difficult in order to achieve the goal of.. well, staying alive, in this case.
Thanks to iced cappuccinnos, I have friends who've totally recinded any consumption of milk.. they're so not used to it, they think it's disgusting. They might admit that they know milk is good for you, but that doesn't outweigh the initial uncomfortability of getting used to milk (again).
I know why patents exist. At the risk of sounding like some uppity ivy leaguer (of which I'm probably the opposite), my father owns few patents; we have arguments about the system, and what role the US patent system plays in the development of the race and whatnot.
I'm not objecting to patents, nor am I suggesting that every person in the world should be able to break patent ownership at whim. I'm aware that patents are seemingly neccessary because it does encourage the sharing of technology and invention, and discourages (to some extent) the hoarding of the discovery.
BUT....
Patents exist, other than the reason above, primarily to provide the 'inherent right' (and I use quotes, because I dont think it's a right) of ownership to an inventor. But a nasty side effect is that there is very very little motivation to invent something that helps those with nothing to offer back (ie, those in need). I feel the PRIMARY role of technology and innovation should be to help thy common human, not to fuel the economy and dangle the carrot in front of the inventors nose. Reward seems to be the only reason anyone should do anything for anyone else, according to neo-liberalists. Capitalism is the system that keeps this mentality in place. Reward is important and neccessary, but should not be the end and be all of motivation. So, what motivation is there to invent something which helps those who can't afford it? Just imagine the millions and millions of inventions out there, waiting to be invented, for lack of a 'consumer base' to repay for the invention. Ironically, these are the inventions that really/would/ improve the quality of life on earth, not the quality of 10% of it's inhabitants' driveways, SUVs, and internet functionalities.
Nevermind that "an assymetric key encryption algorithm" may have many implementations, while, when it comes to medicine, there/may/ only be one (or likely, at least significantly fewer that accomplish the required task). So I don't think you can just compare invention in completetly seperate fields, and put them under the same umbrella with respect to patents (another thing I believe should be changed).
I guess what I'm saying is that, if some parts of the world can't afford to play by the 'rules', they wouldn't have been part of the planned consumer base for the investors in the first place. So there should be no 'loss' to the inventor, since they shouldn't have counted said people as possible customers in the business plan stage. This is even more relevant in the situation where the wealth of a population largely depends on its health and how badly external forces are attempting to suck it dry.. doesn't a healthy and more wealthy country that wouldn't have bought product Y in the first place make them a whole new potential market for product X; a market that may not have existed had you not licenced the use of the dicovery behind product Y for free?
Anyhow, it's a nice, big, totally contexual argument, one that has no obvious solution, but our current blanket approach to global markets and innovation belies the reality that this is a huge planet, with different people, societies, needs, geography, customs, values.. if you want to provide access to your ideas, you should be subjecting yourself to these conditions and possibilities. A world where less is invented, but no one suffers for lack of payment is a far superior world to that which plays class and market favorits with life saving technologies that exist, in my opinion. People will always suffer - I just think it's cruel that people have to suffer knowing there is something out there that could help them had they been born into a situation where they would have a hope of affording it. Maybe thats what it boils down to.
Incidentally, I also think that more innovation would take place in a world where the inventor is owed nothing.. primarily because more people would piece together new solutions from other new inventions far quicker, outweighing the downside of lack of reward to potential inventors. Also, the inventor would never not get ANY reward... surely the inventor would have an inside track on marketing the implementations, making improvements, etc. They would be able to position themselves as the 'expert'.. I refuse to accept that finacial reward would not happen in a world where the inventor was not given the right to patent fees. (Of course, you'd have to make sure that the 'public credit' for ideas wasn't being stolen from the true inventor, but that certainly can't be any more complicated than the current patent filing process.. ) I realize, however, that that's a personal opinion that is difficult to substantiate.
Okay, that was one big mess, but I hope you can glean some level of logic behind it.
The points regarding that this action will discourage R&D are probably true, to the extent that this move may cause companies to reduce their R&D budgets. But what good is R&D and new drugs and technologies if only x% of the world can take advantage of developments supposedly in the name of 'humanity'?
There are countries out there that could have many, many, many more people and companies working on the same solutions, thus spreading the R&D costs across more organizations and making information and research sharing more cost effective. Unfortunately, those countries are having a tough time, in various capacities, keeping their population alive, let alone wealthy enough to invest in new companies, research facilities, etc. Of course, neo-liberalism preaches the 'more for me, less for you' mantra, so the existing companies don't really warm to the idea of more 'competition'. If they could have their way, everyone in said countries would buy their drugs, but not get well enough to spur technological development in that country. Poor people are always a companies favorite customer.. no leverage, no money management skills (when you don't have money, you don't learn how to manage it); and less education increases the likelihood that you will repeat the act that caused you to require the product in the first place somewhere down the road.
For an industry that was caught redhanded not so long ago in an industry-wide price fixing scam (yes, Roche participated), I think they have alot of nerve complaining about losing patent fees in areas where their cure could stop an epidemic of life-threatening deseises, in addition to helping set the stage for opportunities, development, research and growth in the countries that need it.
Losing the wires is definately nice, but since 802.11b is more geared towards wireless networking outside of the home, it will probably saturate the market first - through stores a la Starbucks and corperations picking up the technology. Only once people see it at work/play will they buy into the technology at home. If bluetooth is cost/tech ready by that point, it will probably have its own successful coming out party.. but I definately agree.. two fundamental uses; I'd be suspicious I wasn't getting the most cost-effective solution if 802.11b was used in place of bluetooth in short-range wireless communication.
The idea of *nix worms are far more easy to digest, since those who wrote the software with said vulnerability arn't living in huge mansions and driving fast cars. They tried their hardest, and wern't profiting as much for demonstratably insecure software.
The OS argument always seems to be about quality, but I'm also interested in the esotaric aspects of it - if you're gunna get rich off something, than it had better damn well work; if you do it out of the kindness of your heart and/or scientific curiousity and research, well.. worms will always exist, but I'd rather the software I didn't have to pay for be guilty than the software I did.
Yeah, probably the biggest value to an open source developer is seeing their product overtake a competeting commercial product in terms of market use. So, outside of sending money, anything you can do to increase use of the product (maybe you have access to some decent web real estate to help advertise?) I'm sure would be much appreciated too. Or, writing documentation. Or, maintaining a web page. Or.. well, the list goes on, but there are a multitude of ways to help open source developers other than contributing code! (Especially since many programmers arn't exactly gifted in the arena of documentation and language.)
I release all the music I write for free. However, if you like it enough to send me a cheque, I certainly wouldn't be insulted, or complain.:) I'm sure the same principle applies to many open source developers. Often, things like web hosting, or simply the cost of a computer upgrade doesn't justify charging for software, but if one philathropist out there feels like throwing some money a developers' way, I don't see many developers rejecting the money?
If you're speaking strictly from an editing standpoint, you can also check out Code Crusader.
It's not quite a fully featured IDE (its an editor, with function/header/class browsing features and the ability to run/capture compile ouput), but the one upside is that if youre working in an environment with tons of C++ and lots of objects, it's got one of the most kickin' class browsers and method locators I've run into.
If you're also talking about toolkits for GUI for linux/windows, QT is pretty elegant and cross-platform. The look'n'feel of QT's widget set is about as close as it gets to Windows (which, sigh, does have the best ui widget look'n'feel IMHO).
Really? You'd hit me for calling you dumb as a post regarding a subject you're not familiar with? I'd love to hear you explain/that/ one to the cops.;)
I thought it was interesting hearing him compare the current Q3 and UT type games as being basically the same. He says "the current state of 3D gaming is like a world where no one invented anything but football, and the only difference is what color jersey you wear [paraphrase]"
That maybe so, but football has been around for ages, and people still play it. Everyone knows the rules, and has a general idea of how to play with other people, etc...
Nobody wants to learn a Whole New Game or Whole New Sport (especially after dropping 70 bucks for it), so I liken the online deathmatch community to the sports world.. if we can invent any kind of ball, on any kind of field, with any kind of rules, why don't we see new sports being invented weekly? Certainly that would be more interesting? I say no; I think Q3 and UT are the 'equipment and vanue' to play Deathmatch (or arena, or ctf, or what have you). Sure, other games are sure to come along with their own unique and new concepts, but these online games are only as good as their popularity, community, and support (read: variety in competition), so it's likewise important that we dont try and re-invent the sport with every new game lest we drive off the community into more fractions that it already is. (And I should know.. I stuck around Quake 1 TF for 4 years, simply because nobody could 'copy' the game well enough using the current crop of games.) I think it's time to admit that videogames can easily have a playability of over 5 years.. while many people switch and update for the eyecandy, the real gamers value the subtle details like the physics and gameplay, and arn't neccessarily drooling for a whole new way of playing.
Okay, so here it is. I make salary programming. I'm a programmer. I also write electronic music, and know the underground breaks/jazz scene fairly well. I can only assume you're dumb as a post in this area. I am dumb as a post when it comes to the heavy metal scene.
When it comes to my health, I'm dumb as a post.
When it comes to my legal rights, I'm dumb as a post.
When it comes to fixing my car, I'm dumb as a post.
When it comes to investing, I'm dumb as a post.
When any of the experts of these subjects calls me dumb as a post, I thank them for their knowledge and expertise.
Don't get so wrapped up in the semantics. I only meant to say that these users, when it comes to computers, are DUMB AS POSTS. There's nothing wrong with that, as we're all dumb as posts in some respects.
Dumb as a post wasn't meant to demean or otherwise insult these users; and I certainly don't expect them to be reading this, thus you can't claim I'm tarnishing the image. I only meant to say that when it comes to HR, I'm dumb as a post, and when it comes to an HR person knowing computers, they are dumb as posts. Lighten up and concentrate on the point, not the semantics. If we were always tip-toeing around our words and image, we'd never actually solve the problems that exist.
And hey.. you never bothered to defend the real victims of the 'dumb as a post' colloqualism - the posts!
Incidentally, I'm not lambasting the peasants here - quite the opposite. I understand that these users don't have the time, interest, or level of knowledge required to properly assess OS and desktop alternatives. That was my point.. it's nice to know that KDE has made a dent, and that a substantial number of non-computer-experts like KDE! Cause when it came to knowing the actual impressions of KDE from a dumb-as-a-post non-computer-expert, I was dumb as a post! And it's nice to know the feedback seems to be positive.. this will help other dumb-as-post people learn and hear about KDE in a positive context.
I see alot of posts basically asking the question:
"I don't think Ogg is as good as compression X, so why use it?"
Answers:
- You don't have to use it. Just support it. Be aware of it's existance. One day, it may be better than compression X.
- Should MP3 technology get hijacked by the corperate world (more so than it is today), we have an alternative that works, even if you feel it isn't the best sound in the world.
- Two researchers working on the same goal in different streams and parts of the world is a Good Thing (tm). Prevents information hoarding and management on bahalf of corperate interests.
(going off memory for the rest of this, maybe I'm wrong in some claims)
Interestingly enough, XP includes an mp3 encoder, but it only encodes up to some stupidly low bitrate (128? 64?). Since many people won't go out looking for another encoder, they will blindly encode at low bitrates.
Ironically, in the long run, I think mp3s popularity will help Ogg.. if people are unhappy with mp3s (they'll be unhappy with the low bitrate in the XP-bundled encoder, but same difference to the average Joe), they will search for an alternative. Hark! Ogg to the rescue!
People will always look at the "is X better than Y" when comparing technologies. What they are missing is that many, many industries are as far ahead as they are right now due to competing projects by seperate scientific/mathematical efforts. Finally, seperate projects also allow for validation of efforts. If, in some far off evil world, mp3s patent owner X says, "I can't improve sound quality, because that would break this and that.", a seperate camp of researchers can say, "bullshit! you're just saying that because MS is paying to help drive users to windows media". Or whatever the case may be.
The value of parallel research is almost always more than the sum of the parts.
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds me of the Canadian navy guy who was suspended after having been caught surfing pr0n with a navy laptop. After a few weeks of the media trying desperately to rile the public and sell the story, he was quietly reinstated. No one cared, in the end. I suspect the same sort of paranoid forces at work here (although according to the article, it really comes down to one man and politics.) Ah well, at least the judges will proove to be the litmus test of whether communication monitoring in the work place will eventually be accepted as routine (or even American) by our kids.
Finally, engineers can build their girlfriends! (Although they wouldn't know what to say to her.)
Seeing as there wouldn't be much to sell if science and research didn't exist, the RIAA would be prudent to listen. Studio technology is one of the most important aspects of (at least many genres') selling a hit record (unfortunately), and probably wouldn't be where it is today without that good old unbridled R&D. Just to expand on that, for those who don't understand what I'm getting at, studio production values are to music what happy endings are to hollywood.
Of course, we all know that no business can see past the end of it's wallet, so it's unlikely they'll suddenly grow the foresight to recognize that laws they have sponsored or are pursuing will hurt them in the long run. Ah, ya gotta love cycles.
It's much like the oil and gas industry; what exactly do you expect to be selling when you're inadvertantly being detramental to the very thing that makes you money?
History doesn't teach us anything, it seems. It teaches us about 2 or 3 heros and villains, and usually with a better ending. And you can quote me on that.
I found some pretty cool stations over the years. No surprise the RIAA is asking for more money, though. Personally, I don't see why logistically, royalties should be charged twice, once for broadcast, once for stream. Arn't they both played from the same programming scheduale? What's the rationale behind justifying an additional fee? Do similar copyright fee schemes show up in television broadcast .. where two fees are charged from the same programming if it is broadcast over two 'mediums'?
I do accept that many of these radio stations wern't getting a bigger listener base because of their online streams, so maybe it just wasn't worth the hassle.
Yeah, thats some dangerous rhetoric there. Does the dress code at your work infringe your freedom to show up naked, or does it protect the freedom of your co-workers not to have to see your wang?
See what I'm sayin'?
While your post borders on troll ...
.. would you argue that not being allowed to show up at work naked is an infrigment on your 'freedom'?
If you read the article, you would understand that if no such free software exists to address your needs, most policies being discussed would allow for commercial alternatives. No one is holding a gun to your head. Also, the government isn't forcing you to use particlar software; the government is forcing the government to use particular software. It's called policy
C'mon, give up! We all know there is no viable business model in running a foreign country!
;)
.. nations entrenched in capitalism forget that domestic development must almost always be sparked by the government. This is hard to do for many governments, since they have little money to begin with. Anything that saves money for governments in these types of countries is good, as they can turn around and use the money they saved to spurn domestic market development and growth. (At least somewhat .. unfortunately, one of the goals of all these free trade talks are to prevent countries from being able to award contracts to domestic companies preferrentially in order to encourage growth in the domestic economy.)
Or at least that's what Steve Balmer might say.
On a more serious note, woohoo. This is exactly what we need
Lego killed itself when the pieces got so specialized around the mid-90s, that a set's pieces was tied inextricibly with what the set was supposed to build.
It seems to me that the earlier more generic pieces of the mid-80s Space and Technique sets were the perfect balance between your basic brick pieces and the more specialized connectors and decorative pieces.
With the pieces today, it's harder to build something completetly different than the actual model the set was built for.
Steve Ballmer, is that you? Quit trolling /.!
"Linux, created 10 years ago this month by Finnish computer programming student Linus Torvalds, has become a popular software system used to run Web sites and is seen as a rival to Microsoft Windows, the dominant software used in personal computers."
Is it just me, or is it getting more and more annoying having to read this line in every single article ever written about Linux? I'm surprised they didn't subsequently define 'computer'.
The book is no good until you apply patches:
.. yeah.
106542-12
102534-06
104234-04
107555-10
102432-02
103423-08
Um
Sure, I'll get an offtopic for this, but what the hell:
"greatest cartoon of all time, Transformers"
ROFL, you're kidding right? Are you evaluating greatness by golf-score style cel-counts, and perspectives that look like the bastard love child of Dali and cubism?! The Transformers embodied everything that american animation stands for - get a good franchise, and the fans will be totally blind to brutal, shoestring budget art.
The CPad .. the handheld .. the side scroller ... Nintendo has been responsible for so much of what is taken for granted in the console industry that it's always amusing to see people trash Nintendo.
.. Nintendo has always focused on innovative game play and a unique approach to old franchises.
Sure, you may not be a fan of the style in the screenshots and movie, but it does highlight what Nintendo has always been good at: innovation.
Other developers are usually content to raise the bar on the present set of conventions and standards, in terms up updated graphics (making the characters look more lifelike), etc
I for one think that the style Nintendo is going for here is refreshing - way too many games take themselves way too seriously. And Link has always held an element of novelty and humour. I mean, how serious can you be when you're a green-garbed elf who occasionally stops by the chicken coup to ruffle a few feathers for the fun of it?
And, for the 20somethings who really won't touch a game unless its covered in blood, don't worry - Nintendo is handling their licencing issues far better this time around. We've seen some evidence that Microsoft's money will ultimatetly help see tons of the Xbox titles get ported to game cube, hopefully shutting up the thousands of console FANBOYS who only seem to pledge allegiance to systems with the darkest most 'adult' image, regardless of the reality.
Why don't they just bite the bullet and replace students with computers? They'd behave perfectly, learn at 100% efficiancy, and never skip class to smoke in the playground.
.. well, staying alive, in this case.
.. they're so not used to it, they think it's disgusting. They might admit that they know milk is good for you, but that doesn't outweigh the initial uncomfortability of getting used to milk (again).
On a more serious note, the easier you make learning, the less learning remains as a primary goal of the human psyche. The goal should be to make learning difficult things personally rewarding, not fun and easy. Fun and comfort is being luaded as the primary experience for any activity, over personal gratification after hard, unpleasant work. It's akin to making your vitamins sugary; if for some reason the sugar isn't there some day, you're likely to pick the comfort of not tasting those nasty vitamins over taking the vitamins, because you just wouldn't appreciate the experience of doing something difficult in order to achieve the goal of
Thanks to iced cappuccinnos, I have friends who've totally recinded any consumption of milk
I know why patents exist. At the risk of sounding like some uppity ivy leaguer (of which I'm probably the opposite), my father owns few patents; we have arguments about the system, and what role the US patent system plays in the development of the race and whatnot.
....
/would/ improve the quality of life on earth, not the quality of 10% of it's inhabitants' driveways, SUVs, and internet functionalities.
/may/ only be one (or likely, at least significantly fewer that accomplish the required task). So I don't think you can just compare invention in completetly seperate fields, and put them under the same umbrella with respect to patents (another thing I believe should be changed).
.. doesn't a healthy and more wealthy country that wouldn't have bought product Y in the first place make them a whole new potential market for product X; a market that may not have existed had you not licenced the use of the dicovery behind product Y for free?
.. if you want to provide access to your ideas, you should be subjecting yourself to these conditions and possibilities. A world where less is invented, but no one suffers for lack of payment is a far superior world to that which plays class and market favorits with life saving technologies that exist, in my opinion. People will always suffer - I just think it's cruel that people have to suffer knowing there is something out there that could help them had they been born into a situation where they would have a hope of affording it. Maybe thats what it boils down to.
.. primarily because more people would piece together new solutions from other new inventions far quicker, outweighing the downside of lack of reward to potential inventors. Also, the inventor would never not get ANY reward ... surely the inventor would have an inside track on marketing the implementations, making improvements, etc. They would be able to position themselves as the 'expert' .. I refuse to accept that finacial reward would not happen in a world where the inventor was not given the right to patent fees. (Of course, you'd have to make sure that the 'public credit' for ideas wasn't being stolen from the true inventor, but that certainly can't be any more complicated than the current patent filing process .. ) I realize, however, that that's a personal opinion that is difficult to substantiate.
I'm not objecting to patents, nor am I suggesting that every person in the world should be able to break patent ownership at whim. I'm aware that patents are seemingly neccessary because it does encourage the sharing of technology and invention, and discourages (to some extent) the hoarding of the discovery.
BUT
Patents exist, other than the reason above, primarily to provide the 'inherent right' (and I use quotes, because I dont think it's a right) of ownership to an inventor. But a nasty side effect is that there is very very little motivation to invent something that helps those with nothing to offer back (ie, those in need). I feel the PRIMARY role of technology and innovation should be to help thy common human, not to fuel the economy and dangle the carrot in front of the inventors nose. Reward seems to be the only reason anyone should do anything for anyone else, according to neo-liberalists. Capitalism is the system that keeps this mentality in place. Reward is important and neccessary, but should not be the end and be all of motivation. So, what motivation is there to invent something which helps those who can't afford it? Just imagine the millions and millions of inventions out there, waiting to be invented, for lack of a 'consumer base' to repay for the invention. Ironically, these are the inventions that really
Nevermind that "an assymetric key encryption algorithm" may have many implementations, while, when it comes to medicine, there
I guess what I'm saying is that, if some parts of the world can't afford to play by the 'rules', they wouldn't have been part of the planned consumer base for the investors in the first place. So there should be no 'loss' to the inventor, since they shouldn't have counted said people as possible customers in the business plan stage. This is even more relevant in the situation where the wealth of a population largely depends on its health and how badly external forces are attempting to suck it dry
Anyhow, it's a nice, big, totally contexual argument, one that has no obvious solution, but our current blanket approach to global markets and innovation belies the reality that this is a huge planet, with different people, societies, needs, geography, customs, values
Incidentally, I also think that more innovation would take place in a world where the inventor is owed nothing
Okay, that was one big mess, but I hope you can glean some level of logic behind it.
The points regarding that this action will discourage R&D are probably true, to the extent that this move may cause companies to reduce their R&D budgets. But what good is R&D and new drugs and technologies if only x% of the world can take advantage of developments supposedly in the name of 'humanity'?
.. no leverage, no money management skills (when you don't have money, you don't learn how to manage it); and less education increases the likelihood that you will repeat the act that caused you to require the product in the first place somewhere down the road.
There are countries out there that could have many, many, many more people and companies working on the same solutions, thus spreading the R&D costs across more organizations and making information and research sharing more cost effective. Unfortunately, those countries are having a tough time, in various capacities, keeping their population alive, let alone wealthy enough to invest in new companies, research facilities, etc. Of course, neo-liberalism preaches the 'more for me, less for you' mantra, so the existing companies don't really warm to the idea of more 'competition'. If they could have their way, everyone in said countries would buy their drugs, but not get well enough to spur technological development in that country. Poor people are always a companies favorite customer
For an industry that was caught redhanded not so long ago in an industry-wide price fixing scam (yes, Roche participated), I think they have alot of nerve complaining about losing patent fees in areas where their cure could stop an epidemic of life-threatening deseises, in addition to helping set the stage for opportunities, development, research and growth in the countries that need it.
Losing the wires is definately nice, but since 802.11b is more geared towards wireless networking outside of the home, it will probably saturate the market first - through stores a la Starbucks and corperations picking up the technology. Only once people see it at work/play will they buy into the technology at home. If bluetooth is cost/tech ready by that point, it will probably have its own successful coming out party .. but I definately agree .. two fundamental uses; I'd be suspicious I wasn't getting the most cost-effective solution if 802.11b was used in place of bluetooth in short-range wireless communication.
The idea of *nix worms are far more easy to digest, since those who wrote the software with said vulnerability arn't living in huge mansions and driving fast cars. They tried their hardest, and wern't profiting as much for demonstratably insecure software.
.. worms will always exist, but I'd rather the software I didn't have to pay for be guilty than the software I did.
The OS argument always seems to be about quality, but I'm also interested in the esotaric aspects of it - if you're gunna get rich off something, than it had better damn well work; if you do it out of the kindness of your heart and/or scientific curiousity and research, well
Yeah, probably the biggest value to an open source developer is seeing their product overtake a competeting commercial product in terms of market use. So, outside of sending money, anything you can do to increase use of the product (maybe you have access to some decent web real estate to help advertise?) I'm sure would be much appreciated too. Or, writing documentation. Or, maintaining a web page. Or .. well, the list goes on, but there are a multitude of ways to help open source developers other than contributing code! (Especially since many programmers arn't exactly gifted in the arena of documentation and language.)
I release all the music I write for free. However, if you like it enough to send me a cheque, I certainly wouldn't be insulted, or complain. :) I'm sure the same principle applies to many open source developers. Often, things like web hosting, or simply the cost of a computer upgrade doesn't justify charging for software, but if one philathropist out there feels like throwing some money a developers' way, I don't see many developers rejecting the money?
If you're speaking strictly from an editing standpoint, you can also check out Code Crusader.
It's not quite a fully featured IDE (its an editor, with function/header/class browsing features and the ability to run/capture compile ouput), but the one upside is that if youre working in an environment with tons of C++ and lots of objects, it's got one of the most kickin' class browsers and method locators I've run into.
If you're also talking about toolkits for GUI for linux/windows, QT is pretty elegant and cross-platform. The look'n'feel of QT's widget set is about as close as it gets to Windows (which, sigh, does have the best ui widget look'n'feel IMHO).
Really? You'd hit me for calling you dumb as a post regarding a subject you're not familiar with? I'd love to hear you explain /that/ one to the cops. ;)
Quick thought, definately not air tight:
...
.. if we can invent any kind of ball, on any kind of field, with any kind of rules, why don't we see new sports being invented weekly? Certainly that would be more interesting? I say no; I think Q3 and UT are the 'equipment and vanue' to play Deathmatch (or arena, or ctf, or what have you). Sure, other games are sure to come along with their own unique and new concepts, but these online games are only as good as their popularity, community, and support (read: variety in competition), so it's likewise important that we dont try and re-invent the sport with every new game lest we drive off the community into more fractions that it already is. (And I should know .. I stuck around Quake 1 TF for 4 years, simply because nobody could 'copy' the game well enough using the current crop of games.) I think it's time to admit that videogames can easily have a playability of over 5 years .. while many people switch and update for the eyecandy, the real gamers value the subtle details like the physics and gameplay, and arn't neccessarily drooling for a whole new way of playing.
I thought it was interesting hearing him compare the current Q3 and UT type games as being basically the same. He says "the current state of 3D gaming is like a world where no one invented anything but football, and the only difference is what color jersey you wear [paraphrase]"
That maybe so, but football has been around for ages, and people still play it. Everyone knows the rules, and has a general idea of how to play with other people, etc
Nobody wants to learn a Whole New Game or Whole New Sport (especially after dropping 70 bucks for it), so I liken the online deathmatch community to the sports world
Oh my! :)
.. you never bothered to defend the real victims of the 'dumb as a post' colloqualism - the posts!
.. it's nice to know that KDE has made a dent, and that a substantial number of non-computer-experts like KDE! Cause when it came to knowing the actual impressions of KDE from a dumb-as-a-post non-computer-expert, I was dumb as a post! And it's nice to know the feedback seems to be positive .. this will help other dumb-as-post people learn and hear about KDE in a positive context.
Okay, so here it is. I make salary programming. I'm a programmer. I also write electronic music, and know the underground breaks/jazz scene fairly well. I can only assume you're dumb as a post in this area. I am dumb as a post when it comes to the heavy metal scene.
When it comes to my health, I'm dumb as a post.
When it comes to my legal rights, I'm dumb as a post.
When it comes to fixing my car, I'm dumb as a post.
When it comes to investing, I'm dumb as a post.
When any of the experts of these subjects calls me dumb as a post, I thank them for their knowledge and expertise.
Don't get so wrapped up in the semantics. I only meant to say that these users, when it comes to computers, are DUMB AS POSTS. There's nothing wrong with that, as we're all dumb as posts in some respects.
Dumb as a post wasn't meant to demean or otherwise insult these users; and I certainly don't expect them to be reading this, thus you can't claim I'm tarnishing the image. I only meant to say that when it comes to HR, I'm dumb as a post, and when it comes to an HR person knowing computers, they are dumb as posts. Lighten up and concentrate on the point, not the semantics. If we were always tip-toeing around our words and image, we'd never actually solve the problems that exist.
And hey
Incidentally, I'm not lambasting the peasants here - quite the opposite. I understand that these users don't have the time, interest, or level of knowledge required to properly assess OS and desktop alternatives. That was my point
SirSlud
I see alot of posts basically asking the question:
.. if people are unhappy with mp3s (they'll be unhappy with the low bitrate in the XP-bundled encoder, but same difference to the average Joe), they will search for an alternative. Hark! Ogg to the rescue!
"I don't think Ogg is as good as compression X, so why use it?"
Answers:
- You don't have to use it. Just support it. Be aware of it's existance. One day, it may be better than compression X.
- Should MP3 technology get hijacked by the corperate world (more so than it is today), we have an alternative that works, even if you feel it isn't the best sound in the world.
- Two researchers working on the same goal in different streams and parts of the world is a Good Thing (tm). Prevents information hoarding and management on bahalf of corperate interests.
(going off memory for the rest of this, maybe I'm wrong in some claims)
Interestingly enough, XP includes an mp3 encoder, but it only encodes up to some stupidly low bitrate (128? 64?). Since many people won't go out looking for another encoder, they will blindly encode at low bitrates.
Ironically, in the long run, I think mp3s popularity will help Ogg
People will always look at the "is X better than Y" when comparing technologies. What they are missing is that many, many industries are as far ahead as they are right now due to competing projects by seperate scientific/mathematical efforts. Finally, seperate projects also allow for validation of efforts. If, in some far off evil world, mp3s patent owner X says, "I can't improve sound quality, because that would break this and that.", a seperate camp of researchers can say, "bullshit! you're just saying that because MS is paying to help drive users to windows media". Or whatever the case may be.
The value of parallel research is almost always more than the sum of the parts.