"I have had great hope for this network since stations supposedly for science like the Discovery Channel and PBS have become much more show than substance."
Discovery Channel is trying to be politically correct so of course we are not going to see any truly uncensored scientific research results there until we overcome the "moral" outrage of uneducated people who are trying to stop us playing God for purely religious reasons. In my opinion, however, stem cell research is important, because when we are talking about a potential to save literally millions of human beings, I believe that ethics should always take precedence before morality.
Notwithstanding the rather unfortunate name this project has a serious potential.
"Does the new version look legal?"
Of course it looks legal, but is it enough to avoid lawsuits? Very unlikely. MIT is the very place where the hacker culture were born, so obviously it is the first place for RIAA to keep an eye on.
It's important to note that Window Maker is part of the GNUStep project which is a cross-platform, object-oriented framework for desktop application development, free software implementation of NeXT's OpenStep, which celebrated its 10th birthday on October 19th. For anyone who is interested, there is much more info here.
"GForge is a fork of the original GPL'd SourceForge code and like sf.net provides forums, mailing lists, revision control via CVS or Subversion"
Do we really need another fork? We all remember the last time when the community was divided. It is never easy to marge branches of forked codebase tree. I think Eric Raymond has described all of the disadvantages of frivolous forking more than inadequately. The open source community is already using CVS, RCS, Rsync, Bytekeeper and Subversion. Wouldn't our creative resources be better invested if we tried to integrate some of the already available systems instead of dividing them even more?
But, seriously. My favourite equation is (EURval/USDval)=EURperUSDrate, where EURperUSDrate is the current EUR per USD rate. Why? Because every time I use it, it means that I have some money.
There are severe problems with the GNU FDL, primarily the fact that it's incompatible with the GPL. As I understand it, that makes it problematic to put docs into code (e.g. Doxygen comments) or code into docs (e.g. API usage examples).
If it is your code than you can always
dual-license it, or release code examples
in the documentation
(or documentation in the code)
explicitly into the public domain.
The "invariant sections" provision of the FDL is also a worry, and has already been abused by people making their entire contribution an invariant section, which kind of defeats the object.
Invariant sections and cover texts
are Optional Features of the GFDL.
For example, this is the actual license of Wikipedia:
"Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts."
I thought that RMS referred to GNU/Linux that way because he is still hopeful that HURD will become fully operational, this would give 2 systems GNU/Linux and GNU/HURD.
True.
Debian is a good example.
There is
Debian GNU/Linux
but also
Debian GNU/Hurd
and those are hardly different operating systems.
Everything is the same except for the kernel.
As soon as both versions are equally mature
it will be quite hard to tell the difference
even for a typical administrator who doesn't mess with
the kernel, because everything else, from the libraries,
shells, low-level tools and the filesystem to
the packaging system,
desktop environment and web browsers will be identical.
The evolution of The Beastie Boys'
consciousness is truly amazing,
almost unbelievable.
Their last album silently installed DRM code and now it is released under a Creative Commons Licence for everyone to share! Isn't it wonderful that
there are people who really can listen to our community and
adapt to the information era instead of trying to halt the progress
like the RIAA? This CD will be a perfect Christmas gift
for anyone who doesn't realize that not every rights are "reserved"
and that copying and sharing is not inherently illegal.
Anyone got a torrent link?
So, assume you're a Joe Blow (no law degree or PhD, as you quite proudly boast) and you have to pick a license. Do you:
a) pick the guy who has stood up in front of the supreme court fighting for the prevention of copyright extensions, and who developed the licence that The Beastie Boys have released work under; or
b) pick the guy that quit MIT, is in serious need of a haircut/shave and who gets up on his soapbox regularly about it should be GNU/Linux, not just Linux?
So what do you actually want me to pick? A license or a guy?
Because in either case the answer might be different.
Of course if you want me to pick a guy, then obviously
I will pick the prettiest one.
However if I was going to base my opinions about texts I read
only on the appearance of their respective authors,
a priori excluding those
"in serious need of a haircut/shave and who gets up on his soapbox regularly" as you suggest, I would never read the Bible, or
the United States Constitution, for that matter.
Doesn't matter about whose right or whose wrong. It's just how it's perceived. I admire RMS, I think the world needs people like him, but I think that what he's proposing is flawed. I think that Linus's philosophy is much more realistic than RMS's semi-communist approach, and in trying to create freedom for the users he denies freedom for the developers - the people whose software it is.
If it doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong,
then it's probably pointless to argue, since that
who is more popular is rather obvious, and
that who is handsomer is a subjective matter.
Nevertheless let's not confuse the difference between
Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds with that
between GPL and X11/BSD-style licenses.
Linus Torvalds has released Linux under
The GNU General Public License written by Richard Stallman
and considers it "one of the very best design decisions"
he has ever made, so the freedom of their users and developers
is exactly identical.
And to be honest neither one of them has ever
denied me any freedom--as a user, as a developer,
or any other one.
They may say different things,
but their work is equally "communistic"--they both
use the very same license.
First of all I respect opinions of both
Stallman and Torvalds, even though I tend to agree
with the former more often, which
makes me a saint in the Church of Emacs, if nothing else.
The important thing to understand, however, is that
in any practical terms the
free software/open source schism doesn't really matter.
Both movements have very different reasons and
slightly different goals, but their means are exactly the same.
In other words open source software and free software is
the same thing, even if backed by two movements.
Those movements do essentially the same
even if for different reasons.
One of those movement is a "fork" of the other one,
made relatively recently, only six years ago.
They may have different opinions on many important issues,
but at the end every single line of Linux
can be legally used in GNU and vice versa.
What I have observed is that people usually stick to one
side of the percieved conflict--be it Linux vs. GNU/Linux,
free software vs. open source, GPL vs. BSD,
Gnome vs. KDE or anything--and fight stronger than
those people who have started that conflic
Kudos for the time-travel-was-only-phase-1 dept. for writing a story that made me actually RTFA, because even after reading it few times in a row I didn't understand a single thing. Now, when I have RTFA and know what are we talking about, I have an idea. Why cannot they install CD-R burners and CD/booklet printers in booths of some sort to allow buying the same music as a customly composed CD having only to reload it with CD-Rs, paper and ink once in a while, while making every single song ever recorded available in the most convenient way imaginable and for relatively low cost and minimal overhead?
Call me frivolous, but I would be more
concerned if it was a real security alert.
On the other hand, it may be rather understandable
that Redhat, while having much less of free publicity
on Slashdot than Microsoft does with daily
news about newly discovered vulnerabilities,
cannot really do much more than resort to posting
"Beware: Redhat is secure!" stories like this one.
What can I say, kudos for Redhat security team
for not having real security alerts to talk about.
This by itself is an impressive achievement.
Because Lawrence Lessig is cool Stanford Professor that argued in front of the Supreme Court about copyright extensions, and Richard Stallman is hippy-looking MIT drop-out that argues with geeks about Linux really being GNU/Linux?
I know this is a trendy thing here
to insult Richard Stallman,
but please at least stick to facts.
First of all, he is not an "MIT drop-out."
Back in 1971, as an 18 years old freshman at Harvard University
he was hired by MIT as a hacker in the
AI Lab.
If working as a teenager in
The Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in the early
'70s is not "cool" than I seriously don't know what is.
Second of all,
it is slightly more complicated than
"Linux really being GNU/Linux."
You might want to read the GNU/Linux naming controversy article on Wikipedia for a good start.
Do you remember the Seattle Times
interview with Linus Torvalds which was posted here just a week ago? This is the first sentence of the opening paragraph: "Linus Torvalds [pronounced LEE-nus] started a revolution of sorts in the computer industry when he created the Linux operating system and decided to share it with fellow programmers on the Internet."
The problem is that Torvalds didn't start any revolution in 1991.
The revolution had already been happening
becuase that very operating system had been being written
since Linus was 14 years old.
Eight years later he wrote the final piece, the kernel,
and finally made GNU usable.
This was a great achievemnt.
But the fact that taking an 8 years old project
and renaming it after one's name
can often start flame wars
should not be surprising to anyone.
Do you remember the recent outrage with CherryOS and PearPC?
There are a lot of strong emotions involved
where one puts many years of hard work into a project.
But that is even not the most important thing here.
It is not important whose name is on the project.
It is not important who started it,
but it is very important why.
The GNU project was started because of some ideals.
Those very ideals made it possible.
And those ideals made it needed in the first place.
When people read such intervies and get the impression
that Torvalds wrote the entire operating system
starting a revolution and don't even know that GNU has ever existed, they read "Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary" Torvald's autobiography and get the impression that it is all about fun. Meanwhile, the real revolution has started because of freedom
and nothing else.
And this revolution was not about starting something new,
but rather saving something old.
I strongly urge you to read
Free as in Freedom written
by Sam Williams to know how, when and why the revolution was started.
The entire book is released under the GNU Free Documentation License
and is
available on-line.
Stallman, an MIT hacker in the 1970s,
wanted a source code for his printer drivers to fix them.
A fellow programmer refused to give it to him
because of an NDA.
It outraged Stallman who considered it a personal
insult and
who repeatedly refused to get software
which was offered to him for free but with an NDA,
alienating himself and making his life as a programmer much harder, because at the end
he was pretty much the only person in the
AI Lab with no access to all of the proprietary software there.
There are strong emotions involved. There are ideals, fight for freedom at the cost of personal sacrifices. It is not "just for fun."
Richard Stallman was not an "MIT drop-out."
He r
Does anyone know why the Creative Commons license was used instead if the GNU Free Documentation License? Are those licenses compatible? For example, would it be possible to made that work available on Wikibooks and parts of that documentation incorporated into relevant Wikipedia articles? I hope so, becuase it is going to be a magnificent project and Wikipedia is a central respository of free knowledge today.
will we be able to watch our favourite movies legally using our favourite, free software in the future?
What would make you think that would be a possibility in the future, when it isn't even the case today?
None of the Unix MPEG-2 players are licensed, and you can bet that the CSS decryption is of questionable legality as well.
That is a very good point and that is precisely what makes me so concered. We haven't seen any patent attacks on Linux and free software yet, but as soon as Microsoft starts losing enough customers and money to Linux, we will see them.
After all, they are not fools investing literally millions in their "defensive" patent porfolios. Just look at IBM. They only use their patents "defensively." But what does it mean? When SCO sued them, they instantly countersued with tens of patents. SCO being wrong suing IBM in the first place is irrelevant. They could do the same thing against almost anyone because everyone violates some of the bogus and obvious patents thay have. The point is that they have the power to do so. So does Microsoft. They have the power to attack if they need it. And that's very dangerous.
And I am only talking about bogus patents right now, which in the case of Linux might cost anyone too much bad publicity or make the patents invalidated with the help of EFF, FSF or OSI, and only hurt the attacker in the long run. The very specific patents for modern audio and video codecs, and violating them to do exactly what they were designed for, is a completely different matter. They most probably wouldn't get invalidated in court. They will be a powerful weapon even for getting good publicity--"Linux was working only because those pirates stole our patented algorithms, without them it can't even play a movie, you should use Windows."
You're right, we don't have today what I fear we won't have in the future. It is not possible to legally play an original, purchased DVD on Linux. Would you believe that I still don't have a DVD drive because of that?
This is something which we have to address before it starts to be a problem. Because using patented algorithms in free software only makes the software vulnerable to legal attacks, and this is the only kind of attack that can be directed against free software. Most of people don't care about them because we haven't seen any attacks yet. Yet.
This need for precision is why outboard midi controllers have been around for so long, and why people like Roland brought out things like the JP 8000 years ago.
I've never heard about this JP before,
which is rather understandable considering
how old it is.
Interesting article but why there is no review of Media Center 2005 by Microsoft which some people consider one of the most important products on the market or at least a one backed by one of the biggest players? Are we supposed to uderstand it as a silent kind of boycott after the recent behaviour regarding the media in general and electronic media formats in particular? Why has Microsoft been so ostensibly ignored?
Which is why you should send this to everybody you know:
"Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community."
That's a good idea, I will.
I'll also tell them to forward it to everybody they know,
to spread the message. Thanks!
You cannot fix social problems with legislation. Spam will never end as long as there will be fools who buy products advertised by unsolicited commercial e-mail. Period.
Having another button or a knob on the kayboard might be a good idea, but we're years off since no mainstream operating system supports multiple desktops at this time.
Call me old-fashioned but I find pressing Alt-number or Alt-arrow more than adequate.
So I don't think that "pirate" is the correct term, since no copyright is being violated.
Actually, "pirate" is not the correct term indeed, but because piracy is not being commited. A pirate is someone who robs or plunders at sea without a commission from a recognized sovereign nation, not someone who violate the copyright law. Acts of the former are called piracy. Acts of the latter are called copyright infringement.
is why doesn't anyone massively manufacture faster CPUs basing their underlying design on the ZX Spectrum architecture which while being notably simple algorithmically (low count of transistor gates and intergate connections) would be significantly more effective considering the heat and power they would produce as compared to the legacy 386 architecture we use now. That might be something we all wait for: battery powered, silent PCs with no moving parts. Could that be the ironic future of computing: simplicity?
Slashdot Mirror
"I have had great hope for this network since stations supposedly for science like the Discovery Channel and PBS have become much more show than substance."
Discovery Channel is trying to be politically correct so of course we are not going to see any truly uncensored scientific research results there until we overcome the "moral" outrage of uneducated people who are trying to stop us playing God for purely religious reasons. In my opinion, however, stem cell research is important, because when we are talking about a potential to save literally millions of human beings, I believe that ethics should always take precedence before morality.
Unless they're antigressive! Sorry, just an old MIT joke, I couldn't resist.
Who doesn't?
Notwithstanding the rather unfortunate name this project has a serious potential.
"Does the new version look legal?"
Of course it looks legal, but is it enough to avoid lawsuits? Very unlikely. MIT is the very place where the hacker culture were born, so obviously it is the first place for RIAA to keep an eye on.
It's important to note that Window Maker is part of the GNUStep project which is a cross-platform, object-oriented framework for desktop application development, free software implementation of NeXT's OpenStep, which celebrated its 10th birthday on October 19th. For anyone who is interested, there is much more info here.
"GForge is a fork of the original GPL'd SourceForge code and like sf.net provides forums, mailing lists, revision control via CVS or Subversion"
Do we really need another fork? We all remember the last time when the community was divided. It is never easy to marge branches of forked codebase tree. I think Eric Raymond has described all of the disadvantages of frivolous forking more than inadequately. The open source community is already using CVS, RCS, Rsync, Bytekeeper and Subversion. Wouldn't our creative resources be better invested if we tried to integrate some of the already available systems instead of dividing them even more?
Karma = Mensa + Harvard
But, seriously. My favourite equation is (EURval/USDval)=EURperUSDrate, where EURperUSDrate is the current EUR per USD rate. Why? Because every time I use it, it means that I have some money.
If it is your code than you can always dual-license it, or release code examples in the documentation (or documentation in the code) explicitly into the public domain.
Invariant sections and cover texts are Optional Features of the GFDL. For example, this is the actual license of Wikipedia: "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts."
True. Debian is a good example. There is Debian GNU/Linux but also Debian GNU/Hurd and those are hardly different operating systems. Everything is the same except for the kernel. As soon as both versions are equally mature it will be quite hard to tell the difference even for a typical administrator who doesn't mess with the kernel, because everything else, from the libraries, shells, low-level tools and the filesystem to the packaging system, desktop environment and web browsers will be identical.
The evolution of The Beastie Boys' consciousness is truly amazing, almost unbelievable. Their last album silently installed DRM code and now it is released under a Creative Commons Licence for everyone to share! Isn't it wonderful that there are people who really can listen to our community and adapt to the information era instead of trying to halt the progress like the RIAA? This CD will be a perfect Christmas gift for anyone who doesn't realize that not every rights are "reserved" and that copying and sharing is not inherently illegal. Anyone got a torrent link?
So what do you actually want me to pick? A license or a guy? Because in either case the answer might be different. Of course if you want me to pick a guy, then obviously I will pick the prettiest one. However if I was going to base my opinions about texts I read only on the appearance of their respective authors, a priori excluding those "in serious need of a haircut/shave and who gets up on his soapbox regularly" as you suggest, I would never read the Bible, or the United States Constitution, for that matter.
If it doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong, then it's probably pointless to argue, since that who is more popular is rather obvious, and that who is handsomer is a subjective matter.
Nevertheless let's not confuse the difference between Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds with that between GPL and X11/BSD-style licenses. Linus Torvalds has released Linux under The GNU General Public License written by Richard Stallman and considers it "one of the very best design decisions" he has ever made, so the freedom of their users and developers is exactly identical.
And to be honest neither one of them has ever denied me any freedom--as a user, as a developer, or any other one. They may say different things, but their work is equally "communistic"--they both use the very same license.
First of all I respect opinions of both Stallman and Torvalds, even though I tend to agree with the former more often, which makes me a saint in the Church of Emacs, if nothing else. The important thing to understand, however, is that in any practical terms the free software/open source schism doesn't really matter. Both movements have very different reasons and slightly different goals, but their means are exactly the same.
The first version of the Open Source Definition by OSI is nothing more but Free Software Guidelines from the Debian Social Contract with words "free software" changed to "open source" and every "Debian" changed to "project." I urge everyone who wants to know the difference between free software and open source to read both of those definitions very carefully.
In other words open source software and free software is the same thing, even if backed by two movements. Those movements do essentially the same even if for different reasons. One of those movement is a "fork" of the other one, made relatively recently, only six years ago. They may have different opinions on many important issues, but at the end every single line of Linux can be legally used in GNU and vice versa.
What I have observed is that people usually stick to one side of the percieved conflict--be it Linux vs. GNU/Linux, free software vs. open source, GPL vs. BSD, Gnome vs. KDE or anything--and fight stronger than those people who have started that conflic
Kudos for the time-travel-was-only-phase-1 dept. for writing a story that made me actually RTFA, because even after reading it few times in a row I didn't understand a single thing. Now, when I have RTFA and know what are we talking about, I have an idea. Why cannot they install CD-R burners and CD/booklet printers in booths of some sort to allow buying the same music as a customly composed CD having only to reload it with CD-Rs, paper and ink once in a while, while making every single song ever recorded available in the most convenient way imaginable and for relatively low cost and minimal overhead?
"Beware 'Fedora-Redhat' Fake Security Alert"
Call me frivolous, but I would be more concerned if it was a real security alert. On the other hand, it may be rather understandable that Redhat, while having much less of free publicity on Slashdot than Microsoft does with daily news about newly discovered vulnerabilities, cannot really do much more than resort to posting "Beware: Redhat is secure!" stories like this one. What can I say, kudos for Redhat security team for not having real security alerts to talk about. This by itself is an impressive achievement.
I know this is a trendy thing here to insult Richard Stallman, but please at least stick to facts. First of all, he is not an "MIT drop-out." Back in 1971, as an 18 years old freshman at Harvard University he was hired by MIT as a hacker in the AI Lab. If working as a teenager in The Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in the early '70s is not "cool" than I seriously don't know what is.
Second of all, it is slightly more complicated than "Linux really being GNU/Linux." You might want to read the GNU/Linux naming controversy article on Wikipedia for a good start. Do you remember the Seattle Times interview with Linus Torvalds which was posted here just a week ago? This is the first sentence of the opening paragraph: "Linus Torvalds [pronounced LEE-nus] started a revolution of sorts in the computer industry when he created the Linux operating system and decided to share it with fellow programmers on the Internet."
The problem is that Torvalds didn't start any revolution in 1991. The revolution had already been happening becuase that very operating system had been being written since Linus was 14 years old. Eight years later he wrote the final piece, the kernel, and finally made GNU usable.
This was a great achievemnt. But the fact that taking an 8 years old project and renaming it after one's name can often start flame wars should not be surprising to anyone. Do you remember the recent outrage with CherryOS and PearPC? There are a lot of strong emotions involved where one puts many years of hard work into a project. But that is even not the most important thing here.
It is not important whose name is on the project. It is not important who started it, but it is very important why. The GNU project was started because of some ideals. Those very ideals made it possible. And those ideals made it needed in the first place. When people read such intervies and get the impression that Torvalds wrote the entire operating system starting a revolution and don't even know that GNU has ever existed, they read "Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary" Torvald's autobiography and get the impression that it is all about fun. Meanwhile, the real revolution has started because of freedom and nothing else.
And this revolution was not about starting something new, but rather saving something old.
I strongly urge you to read Free as in Freedom written by Sam Williams to know how, when and why the revolution was started. The entire book is released under the GNU Free Documentation License and is available on-line.
Stallman, an MIT hacker in the 1970s, wanted a source code for his printer drivers to fix them. A fellow programmer refused to give it to him because of an NDA. It outraged Stallman who considered it a personal insult and who repeatedly refused to get software which was offered to him for free but with an NDA, alienating himself and making his life as a programmer much harder, because at the end he was pretty much the only person in the AI Lab with no access to all of the proprietary software there.
There are strong emotions involved. There are ideals, fight for freedom at the cost of personal sacrifices. It is not "just for fun." Richard Stallman was not an "MIT drop-out." He r
Does anyone know why the Creative Commons license was used instead if the GNU Free Documentation License? Are those licenses compatible? For example, would it be possible to made that work available on Wikibooks and parts of that documentation incorporated into relevant Wikipedia articles? I hope so, becuase it is going to be a magnificent project and Wikipedia is a central respository of free knowledge today.
That is a very good point and that is precisely what makes me so concered. We haven't seen any patent attacks on Linux and free software yet, but as soon as Microsoft starts losing enough customers and money to Linux, we will see them.
After all, they are not fools investing literally millions in their "defensive" patent porfolios. Just look at IBM. They only use their patents "defensively." But what does it mean? When SCO sued them, they instantly countersued with tens of patents. SCO being wrong suing IBM in the first place is irrelevant. They could do the same thing against almost anyone because everyone violates some of the bogus and obvious patents thay have. The point is that they have the power to do so. So does Microsoft. They have the power to attack if they need it. And that's very dangerous.
And I am only talking about bogus patents right now, which in the case of Linux might cost anyone too much bad publicity or make the patents invalidated with the help of EFF, FSF or OSI, and only hurt the attacker in the long run. The very specific patents for modern audio and video codecs, and violating them to do exactly what they were designed for, is a completely different matter. They most probably wouldn't get invalidated in court. They will be a powerful weapon even for getting good publicity--"Linux was working only because those pirates stole our patented algorithms, without them it can't even play a movie, you should use Windows."
You're right, we don't have today what I fear we won't have in the future. It is not possible to legally play an original, purchased DVD on Linux. Would you believe that I still don't have a DVD drive because of that?
This is something which we have to address before it starts to be a problem. Because using patented algorithms in free software only makes the software vulnerable to legal attacks, and this is the only kind of attack that can be directed against free software. Most of people don't care about them because we haven't seen any attacks yet. Yet.
By the way, thanks for posting a very good comment in the Free Software Friendly Graphics Card discussion. When I was criticising the lack of support for that project and the lack of understanding why is it so important, I hadn't read you post, because I gave up after reading the top half of +5 comments which was basically saying "bad idea" which I quite honestly couldn't understand.
I've never heard about this JP before, which is rather understandable considering how old it is.
Interesting article but why there is no review of Media Center 2005 by Microsoft which some people consider one of the most important products on the market or at least a one backed by one of the biggest players? Are we supposed to uderstand it as a silent kind of boycott after the recent behaviour regarding the media in general and electronic media formats in particular? Why has Microsoft been so ostensibly ignored?
That's a good idea, I will. I'll also tell them to forward it to everybody they know, to spread the message. Thanks!
Keeping computers warm? I am personally more concerned about the problem of keeping computers cool, even in winter.
You cannot fix social problems with legislation. Spam will never end as long as there will be fools who buy products advertised by unsolicited commercial e-mail. Period.
Call me old-fashioned but I find pressing Alt-number or Alt-arrow more than adequate.
"how about such controls around the monitor?"
As any mouse user can tell you, taking your hands off your keyboard is damaging to your productivity.
Actually, "pirate" is not the correct term indeed, but because piracy is not being commited. A pirate is someone who robs or plunders at sea without a commission from a recognized sovereign nation, not someone who violate the copyright law. Acts of the former are called piracy. Acts of the latter are called copyright infringement.
is why doesn't anyone massively manufacture faster CPUs basing their underlying design on the ZX Spectrum architecture which while being notably simple algorithmically (low count of transistor gates and intergate connections) would be significantly more effective considering the heat and power they would produce as compared to the legacy 386 architecture we use now. That might be something we all wait for: battery powered, silent PCs with no moving parts. Could that be the ironic future of computing: simplicity?
Can this decision be related to the recent fact that IBM agreed to reduce dire working conditions (at least for some) workers?