Besides being human error, it could also be an artifact of computing efficiency. Let's say they started with some list of human generated key words (XXX, nude, cock, black moma's gone wild), and then expanded this list computational be mixing and matching, mutating the terms, or looking for associated terms on known pornographic websites.
Then, with this expanded list, which is potentially huge, they might only keep the ones that are common. XFree86 could have been generated on the computationally generated list and then kept due to its high frequency. Human error but in design perhaps.
So, yeah M$, I worship Linux, what? I can't hear you, all I hear is open-source...
Joe,
Let me clarify my point. MS Windows is not merely costly or closed source--_in addition_ to being costly and closed source, the users, the customers, have very little say in getting features they want if it is not consistent with MS's goals or if they cannot make themselves heard (exert influence). While improvements to Linux are a community process, Linus has the final say. I don't challenge that he should be in control (though the same argument would return all American soil to the public domain under the stewardship of Native Americans), but I do see it as one person control that is contrary to some principles of free software.
Look, I agree, someone could try to fork it. But realistically, practically speaking, the only Linux that exists (and thus the one that most manufacturers will even consider writing a driver for) is the one that Linus is in control of. I haven't proposed a solution, but Linus definitely has a lot more say on these sort of issues regardless of technical merit or desire of Linux users. It's a level of control that isn't exerted through ownership of the copyright, but at the same time, he retains a certain amount of power over it (not to the extent that someone who retains copyright over a piece of code holds).
Linus's decision sounds quite inconsistent with the principles of free software and customizability. What do I mean?
Well, Linus doesn't like binary only because he believes in free software--and what if someone didn't like the provided driver and wanted to hack it?
Sounds like the same deal with the kernel. He, based on personal preference, refuses to make it easier for binary only drivers to remain compatible with the kernel. And you might consider, well, can jane_hacker roll her own kernel? Yeah, sure, but no manufacturer is going to support that and rewrite their driver for you.
There are means for control beyond copyright law, lawsuits, and binary only code... sitting in the middle of the Linux development network with the power to make one-handed decisions like that due to past development work (i.e. I created this shit so I will keep on making the important decisions) is also a level of control.
Linux has many characteristics that make it way different than our favorite whipping boy MS Windows. But, maybe some things are still the same.
Well I guess that makes sense, I mean, I thought that the original poster's example was hilarious:Even if your car-pooling front seat passenger is just doing some programming Vs something like...Even if your carpooling front seat passenger is just looking up directions or Even it's your front seat passenger is the one using the computer. But no, I think programming is holy so even if they don't let you do anything else, the front seat passenger should be at least allowed to program.
The problem you should have with this article and it's author Daniel Lyons is not that it doesn't portray free software in a positive light. It's that it's so blatantly biased.
"even if publishing that code means anyone can now make a knockoff of your product"
"Knockoff"? That's certainly not the most neutral way of describing it. Plus, releasing Broadcom drivers under GPL probably doesn't help anyone else out anyway. Is there anything else on the router that is really all that valuable in terms of intellectual property?
That line was followed with: "Not great news if you're Cisco, which paid $500 million for Linksys." If it's truly wrong to break the GPL license and thus the law, then does it matter how much they paid? He's appealing to our sense of waste to justify a possible crime...
"In some ways, these Free Software Foundation "enforcement actions" can be more dangerous than a typical copyright spat, because usually copyright holders seek money--say, royalties on the product that infringing companies are selling. But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners"
Um... burn your house down... meaning that is the primary goal and sharing is FSF and their zealot followers will settle for. Sharing is of course the primary goal. At the very least??? Come on now.
The final straw, ending the article with: "Such a pity, comrade." Coming from a capitalist magazine, I think I expect that. But even still, I'm disappointed. Negative associations with communism were produced by the American propaganda machine after World War II (think, for example, McCarthism, how it was possible for it to take hold and it's after effects). Yet, communism has only taken hold in countries where life in the past had been pretty shitty. Russia overthrew royalty a.k.a. a corrupt dictatorship, and China was sick of the West pushing it around, selling it drugs, and supporting it's corrupt Nationalist party. The fact that such poor writing could make it into the mainstream press and prey on even poorer biases is disheartening. Maybe it's time to move to Canada or something.
You assume too much. Don't you think that these advertisements work a lot better when there is no disclosure? And if this is true, then don't you think that instead of the best product winning out, the product with the most advertising dollar behind it is winning out?
Seriously, most advertisements just associate their product with power, beauty, and wealth. There is no informativeness about it. Fact is, people are easily duped.
How is this news?
Certainly it is significant that a foreign company almost bought a major telecommunications company based in the US, because it's never happened before, but do other countries complain that we own so much of what is critical to the survival of their countries. We supply weapons, telecommunications equipment, food, and more. The only things other countries are not dependent on us for are oil and coffee. Are we the moral elite that it's okay we can leverage grain for political reasons, but when another country tries to bargain, it's all of a sudden... "oh, no, the horror?"
Global Crossings by its very name attempts to project a non-national image--Global Crossings can be the dominant carrier in Trinidad without a problem, but Singapore (those dirty disciplined Asians) owning a chunk of the US market? No way.
Re:Microsoft shouldn't have been broken up.
on
Tim O'Reilly Interview
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The breakup of AT&T in the 80s was not so much of a failure as much as an imperfect success. Certainly in the long-distance markets, competition from MCI and Sprint, and since the late 90s any generic startup, brought insanely low prices for long distance calls.
I would argue that it is still unknown how there can be healthy competition in the local phone access markets, although perhaps the rise of VoIP and broadband access will lead to alternatives.
I guess this is obvious, but if Microsoft were not a monopoly, then one thing that might happen is Linux support for Office and Outlook. It may also lead them to provide more open format programs so that the MS OS company would want to foster more competition and better quality programs running on top of it, and the MS Office company would want to do the same on the OS side.
I'd like to point out that the high fixed costs and low variable costs scenario works quite well with price discrimination.
For the various reasons mentioned in other posts--deciding who gets to have the access point, sharing bandwith with other users, probably renting the equipment and paying a service fee--sharing the connection does not halve your costs for the same exact service. For those that cannot afford a cable modem, DSL, or T1 line on their own, they will be able to share with their neighbors, but get slightly less good service. They are gaining customers who otherwise wouldn't have been customers at no cost to themselves.
Another economic phenomenon may also be at work here. When all ISPs are offering the same service for the same price, offering additional services, as in the case of this ISP, will differentiate the provider and put it in its own market.
Lastly, it appears that this ISP is providing a service apart from just providing the line to the Internet. They mention setting up sharing for T1 lines, which although might be gotten through the local phone company, will still provide a sharing service that they can charge for. In a sense, they are doing exactly what you recommend. It took a high fixed cost to develop a residential internet sharing department/division, but providing service for each additional customer is minimal.
I see what you mean though. They are inevitably going to cannibalize their own customers... speaking of which, the NYT had an article on bacteria eating it's own... but that's something else.
The articles seem to have opposing points of view, but let me add a perspective that says they're both the same. I needlessly mention that we live in a highly interdependent world, yet still, we maintain a tribal mentality--it's always us versus them, in this case the US versus China. Both essays, regardless of their conclusions pits the US against China, but why need that be the case?
The United States purpose in the world is not to remain the sole superpower and go around and do whatever it wants. Today, our position in the world as the sole superpower is indeed unique. Instead of going around trying to squash the competition, why don't we try to improve the plight of other countries, and if other countries become both powerful and good, we should welcome them to the club with open arms.
Practically, with China, this means not letting greedy coorporations dictate foreign policy, and even more important, considering China a strategic _partner_ for the future, and not this bullshit strategic _competitor_. In an interdependent world, there are no enemies, only parts of yourself that you can improve.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides being human error, it could also be an artifact of computing efficiency. Let's say they started with some list of human generated key words (XXX, nude, cock, black moma's gone wild), and then expanded this list computational be mixing and matching, mutating the terms, or looking for associated terms on known pornographic websites.
Then, with this expanded list, which is potentially huge, they might only keep the ones that are common. XFree86 could have been generated on the computationally generated list and then kept due to its high frequency. Human error but in design perhaps.
So, yeah M$, I worship Linux, what? I can't hear you, all I hear is open-source...
Joe, Let me clarify my point. MS Windows is not merely costly or closed source--_in addition_ to being costly and closed source, the users, the customers, have very little say in getting features they want if it is not consistent with MS's goals or if they cannot make themselves heard (exert influence). While improvements to Linux are a community process, Linus has the final say. I don't challenge that he should be in control (though the same argument would return all American soil to the public domain under the stewardship of Native Americans), but I do see it as one person control that is contrary to some principles of free software. Look, I agree, someone could try to fork it. But realistically, practically speaking, the only Linux that exists (and thus the one that most manufacturers will even consider writing a driver for) is the one that Linus is in control of. I haven't proposed a solution, but Linus definitely has a lot more say on these sort of issues regardless of technical merit or desire of Linux users. It's a level of control that isn't exerted through ownership of the copyright, but at the same time, he retains a certain amount of power over it (not to the extent that someone who retains copyright over a piece of code holds).
Linus's decision sounds quite inconsistent with the principles of free software and customizability. What do I mean?
Well, Linus doesn't like binary only because he believes in free software--and what if someone didn't like the provided driver and wanted to hack it?
Sounds like the same deal with the kernel. He, based on personal preference, refuses to make it easier for binary only drivers to remain compatible with the kernel. And you might consider, well, can jane_hacker roll her own kernel? Yeah, sure, but no manufacturer is going to support that and rewrite their driver for you.
There are means for control beyond copyright law, lawsuits, and binary only code... sitting in the middle of the Linux development network with the power to make one-handed decisions like that due to past development work (i.e. I created this shit so I will keep on making the important decisions) is also a level of control.
Linux has many characteristics that make it way different than our favorite whipping boy MS Windows. But, maybe some things are still the same.
Haha, why was parent modded funny?
Well I guess that makes sense, I mean, I thought that the original poster's example was hilarious:Even if your car-pooling front seat passenger is just doing some programming
Vs something like...Even if your carpooling front seat passenger is just looking up directions or Even it's your front seat passenger is the one using the computer. But no, I think programming is holy so even if they don't let you do anything else, the front seat passenger should be at least allowed to program.
The problem you should have with this article and it's author Daniel Lyons is not that it doesn't portray free software in a positive light. It's that it's so blatantly biased. "even if publishing that code means anyone can now make a knockoff of your product" "Knockoff"? That's certainly not the most neutral way of describing it. Plus, releasing Broadcom drivers under GPL probably doesn't help anyone else out anyway. Is there anything else on the router that is really all that valuable in terms of intellectual property? That line was followed with: "Not great news if you're Cisco, which paid $500 million for Linksys." If it's truly wrong to break the GPL license and thus the law, then does it matter how much they paid? He's appealing to our sense of waste to justify a possible crime... "In some ways, these Free Software Foundation "enforcement actions" can be more dangerous than a typical copyright spat, because usually copyright holders seek money--say, royalties on the product that infringing companies are selling. But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners" Um... burn your house down... meaning that is the primary goal and sharing is FSF and their zealot followers will settle for. Sharing is of course the primary goal. At the very least??? Come on now. The final straw, ending the article with: "Such a pity, comrade." Coming from a capitalist magazine, I think I expect that. But even still, I'm disappointed. Negative associations with communism were produced by the American propaganda machine after World War II (think, for example, McCarthism, how it was possible for it to take hold and it's after effects). Yet, communism has only taken hold in countries where life in the past had been pretty shitty. Russia overthrew royalty a.k.a. a corrupt dictatorship, and China was sick of the West pushing it around, selling it drugs, and supporting it's corrupt Nationalist party. The fact that such poor writing could make it into the mainstream press and prey on even poorer biases is disheartening. Maybe it's time to move to Canada or something.
You assume too much. Don't you think that these advertisements work a lot better when there is no disclosure? And if this is true, then don't you think that instead of the best product winning out, the product with the most advertising dollar behind it is winning out?
Seriously, most advertisements just associate their product with power, beauty, and wealth. There is no informativeness about it. Fact is, people are easily duped.
How is this news? Certainly it is significant that a foreign company almost bought a major telecommunications company based in the US, because it's never happened before, but do other countries complain that we own so much of what is critical to the survival of their countries. We supply weapons, telecommunications equipment, food, and more. The only things other countries are not dependent on us for are oil and coffee. Are we the moral elite that it's okay we can leverage grain for political reasons, but when another country tries to bargain, it's all of a sudden... "oh, no, the horror?" Global Crossings by its very name attempts to project a non-national image--Global Crossings can be the dominant carrier in Trinidad without a problem, but Singapore (those dirty disciplined Asians) owning a chunk of the US market? No way.
has you.
The breakup of AT&T in the 80s was not so much of a failure as much as an imperfect success. Certainly in the long-distance markets, competition from MCI and Sprint, and since the late 90s any generic startup, brought insanely low prices for long distance calls. I would argue that it is still unknown how there can be healthy competition in the local phone access markets, although perhaps the rise of VoIP and broadband access will lead to alternatives. I guess this is obvious, but if Microsoft were not a monopoly, then one thing that might happen is Linux support for Office and Outlook. It may also lead them to provide more open format programs so that the MS OS company would want to foster more competition and better quality programs running on top of it, and the MS Office company would want to do the same on the OS side.
I'd like to point out that the high fixed costs and low variable costs scenario works quite well with price discrimination.
For the various reasons mentioned in other posts--deciding who gets to have the access point, sharing bandwith with other users, probably renting the equipment and paying a service fee--sharing the connection does not halve your costs for the same exact service. For those that cannot afford a cable modem, DSL, or T1 line on their own, they will be able to share with their neighbors, but get slightly less good service. They are gaining customers who otherwise wouldn't have been customers at no cost to themselves.
Another economic phenomenon may also be at work here. When all ISPs are offering the same service for the same price, offering additional services, as in the case of this ISP, will differentiate the provider and put it in its own market.
Lastly, it appears that this ISP is providing a service apart from just providing the line to the Internet. They mention setting up sharing for T1 lines, which although might be gotten through the local phone company, will still provide a sharing service that they can charge for. In a sense, they are doing exactly what you recommend. It took a high fixed cost to develop a residential internet sharing department/division, but providing service for each additional customer is minimal.
I see what you mean though. They are inevitably going to cannibalize their own customers... speaking of which, the NYT had an article on bacteria eating it's own... but that's something else.
The articles seem to have opposing points of view, but let me add a perspective that says they're both the same. I needlessly mention that we live in a highly interdependent world, yet still, we maintain a tribal mentality--it's always us versus them, in this case the US versus China. Both essays, regardless of their conclusions pits the US against China, but why need that be the case?
The United States purpose in the world is not to remain the sole superpower and go around and do whatever it wants. Today, our position in the world as the sole superpower is indeed unique. Instead of going around trying to squash the competition, why don't we try to improve the plight of other countries, and if other countries become both powerful and good, we should welcome them to the club with open arms.
Practically, with China, this means not letting greedy coorporations dictate foreign policy, and even more important, considering China a strategic _partner_ for the future, and not this bullshit strategic _competitor_. In an interdependent world, there are no enemies, only parts of yourself that you can improve.