2) maintain its own repositories, guarantee everything keeps working, but then if you upgrade things like your video card you have to link in to new repositories, and god help you (pretty unlikely since 8 computer models down the line this could be a serious pita)
Actually it's #4: something else entirely?
Dell "customers will have the option to purchase support from Ubuntu backer Canonical, said Jane Silber, the start-up's director of operations."
Someone... might like the idea of having all that done for them so they get a sqeaky-clean install that works out of the box?
We have a winner. This is why Windows and Macintosh have had commercial success in the desktop market while Linux flails: the computer works out of the box... The big problem with Linux distros is a lack of usable, pre-installed software and working drivers. Users have never liked or understood command lines.
Yeap, most people don't install an OS, instead they use the OS that was preinstalled. As more OEMs provide Linux preinstalled PCs more people will use it. Of course at first it'll be those who are adventurous. But then when they see it can do just about as much as a Windows PC and won't crash other they know will be willing to give it a try too.
And Windows wins out of the two because PCs are cheaper than Macs.
You haven't checked out the prices of Macs lately have you? Similarly configured Macs and PCs run head to head in prices. Of course there is a problem with Macs, there isn't the range of configurations that are available on PCs. A glariing hole is a mid range Mac that's expandable, something between the iMac and Mac Pro.
The only thing missing is some form of Bootcamp: Linux Edition (UboontuCamp? nah...) so people can play their games.
There are a number of bootloaders that can be used with both Linux and Windows including Lilo. Though I only have Windows on my PC for an OS I also have V Com's System Commander from which I could choose what OS I wanted to boot if I had more than one.
Duh, the point is that software patents aren't needed.
You could have the same argument about any other kind of patent
Designing hardware can be very expensive and unless there is some sort of patent protection for it not many would risk spending the millions of dollars doing research. Couldn't this be part of the reason communism failed?
I'm not saying it's all because of the patent system, but I don't think you have much evidence to support your assertion.
And I doubt you have any evidence to support your belief software patents help, whereas all the open source software is evidence patents aren't needed. One of the first computer games, Spacewar written in 1961 was open source. Of course it wasn't called open source back then.
Unless you have the air conditioner on, any household appliance is 100% efficient, since the 'waste' heat goes towards heating your house
There are more efficient methods of heating than by wasting electricity because most electronic equipment are always on. Even better is good insolation and building design. Even the windows can make a big difference with good ones used and properly sealed. And the heat does drive up cooling needs. And though I've moved where I used to live I had the air conditioning on a few months a year and didn't need heating.
SCOTUS interprets the laws. They don't make them. So I'd say no... IANAL
Oh really? Ever heard of Roe vs. Wade? Brown vs. Board of Education?
Um, no the USSC didn't make laws. In the case Roe v Wade they ruled a law unconstitutional and in Brown v Board of Education they ruled segregation violated the 14th Amendment.
when companies apply for patents just to keep others from using a technology
Isn't that exactly what patents are for? You come up with an idea, explain what it is and get a temporary monopoly. One might argue that given the rate at which technology advances, it might be best to shorten the monopoly period
No. that's not what patents are for. Patetns are there to encourage progress in the Arts and Sciences. If you invent something and are issued a patent but never release a protect with the patent then you are not helping art or science progress. All you are is a scum sucking troll.
the point is that inventors have the right to their inventions.
Right? Where does this right come from? There is no right to patents! Patents are just government granted limited monopolies.
All of the software you mention is very few.
I neither know nor have the tyme to list all of the open source software available for download from freshmeat or sourceforge forget all the other websites that have OS software But I bet even if I did, seeing as how you already dismissed software I already gave, it still wouldn't satisfy you.
And worse, if you hold a patent and do not produce the item but merely hold other producers to ransom for royalties with it, then you're just a patent troll and a completely negative contributer to progress --- you should be penalized, not rewarded.
Eliminating patent trolls would be nice, but doing it like this would also take patents away from the small inventor. Inventors licensing/selling their patents to companies capable of mass producing the product in question is about as old as mass production itself.
That's easy and simple to deal with, records of contacting manufacturers trying to get someone to manufacture your invention should do the trick.
Algorithms are designed according to the availability of several functional units not offered by the human brain.
You may want to revise your definition of algorithms. Originally algorithms were simply a problem-solving procedure or noun a process or set of rules used in calculations or other problem-solving operations. Neither of these require a computer or anything else other than the human brain.
First of all, the purpose of patents is not to spur inventors to invent.
Wrong, patents are specifically issued to encourage progress in the Arts and Sciences, at least in the USA: Section 8 - Powers of Congress...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Abolish patents, and software firms will have no incentive to write anything: anyone can steal it.
Software has been written long before the first software patent was issued. If patents were needed as an incentive to write software then open source software would never exist. There is plenty of incentive to write software without patents.
Their only solution? Do what Microsoft does and have ridiculous anti-piracy measures that don't even work.
So Apache, Firefox, the Gimp, and Linux don't exist? Or do they have MS's anti-priracy measure built in?
I am not a proponent of software patents; I just don't see what makes software patents so different from other patents, and I haven't seen a single logical argument against software patents that doesn't involve circular reasoning.
I think this is simple. Patents, and copyrights, are supposed to encourage progress in the Arts and Sciences. Software patents don't do this. Many software programs have been written without any patent protection. A lot have actually been written without any protection, like open source software. Without patents software has grown a lot.
am i the only one that prefers the white of CFLs to the yellow of incandescents?
No you're not the only one, I prefer them myself. Even more I prefer the ones that have a slight bluish tint. Now if only they'd come out with an area LED that has an adjustable colour temp.
"You don't have curbside collection of recyclables?"
I don't know actually. In some areas, I think I have seen a weird 'blue' container that might be for that, but, it certainly isn't mandatory. I've never bothered with it...
Where I live if you don't separate recyclables from waste you can be fined. And we have two bins, blue and green. One is for glass I think, I don't recall right now, and the other for everything else. They pick up glass, metal, paper, and plastic. My kitchen stuff I recycle myself. I have a compost pile I add "waste" food such as banana peels to then use the compost when finished in my garden.
My biggest problem with CFLs is that the ballasts often break, so the bulbs actually lasts much less than an incadescent. This happened with both cheap and expensive ones; it could be that the power in our neighborhood is "dirty," but who knows? Thus the savings in energy get wasted in replacing the bulbs, which are not cheap, especially compared to incadescents going for $1 per 8-pack.
I've never had the ballast go bad, and in the more than 15 years of using CLFs I have only had two burnout.
My second biggest problem is that they are not bright.
Have you looked at the color temperature of the lights you get? The CFLs I've gotten as just as bright if not brighter than incandesecnt lights. I hear a bunch of people saying how bad CFLs are but in the more than 15 years of using them myself I have only ever had one problem with CFLs, they do strangle things like adding a tint to film in photography.
And yes, in business settings - you can get payed for your recycling. Different items get different rates and you can also get a reduction in how much you pay total for your trash being taken away.
I used to get paid for recycling but now with curbside collection you have to pay to have it collected instead of you getting paid to recycle.
You don't have curbside collection of recyclables? Everyplace I've lived since the 1980s, if not the 1970s, has collected recyclables curbside. While I like this what I don't like is that they raise your taxes to pay for it, I recall walking along the side of roads collecting recyclables then taking them down to the recycling center and getting paid by weight for what I collected. Making you pay to pick up recyclables then collecting money from the recyclers is double dipping. And if they aren't collecting from the recyclers then I don't know what to say other than perhaps they need to go to a business school. Simply even if a person isn't getting paid for recycling curbside recycling should pay for itself!!!
OHWAIT. No, they don't. Those power plants are still creating the same amount of waste, you're just able to go "I'm saving the world!" and pat yourself on the back when you look at your light bulbs.
Unfortunately dispite the energy efficiency gains in some areas, as with CFLs, there are greater energy "needs" now. The number of appliances and other energy users grows in the average house and many of these items are always on now. For instance even though they are turned off my tv, dvd player, and stereo are still using power. Because of this I got a power strip to plug these items into which I can then turn off. One switch actually turns them all off, and not just on standby.
If you like one, go back and get enough to set up your home.
While I suggest buying a pack of lights once good ones are found I also suggest that instead of replacing all of the lights at once instead replace them as incandsescent light burnout. If a light is used a lot then it would be long before it needs to be replaced and if it's not used often or for very long then switching before it burns out may not make much sense.
I first started doing this when others kept saying how much more expensive CFLs were. So I stated telling them to just replace the most frequently use lights then slowly change the rest.
I suspect the 'one or the other' mentality comes from those people who are looking to make illegal the sale of traditional bulbs.
Except in this case s/he wants to buy incandescent lights not make them illegal. I use, and prefer, CFLs but I oppose any attempt to make them illegal. Instead I prefer to have incentives to encourage efficiency and discourage waste. For instance maybe, just maybe, have the sales tax take into consideration the efficiency of light bulbs. Have a tax base then have lower sales tax on more efficient lights. Perhaps this could be combined with a services tax on the energy used. Then have the revenues these taxes raise be used for energy efficiency.
The issue is when you take 5mg of mercury and multiply it by the number of people who just toss these in landfills. Let us take a reasonably small number of say 40,000 bulbs in your local landfill that is 200,000 mg of mercury. I can assure you that 200,000 mg could easily leach into your local water supply if the land fill is poorly designed or overused (which happens frequently).
Ah but burning coal, which many powerplants burn to produce energy, releases mercury too. By using CFLs people don't use as much power and therfore not as much coal is burned. Niether this article nor you mention this. If it's just concern for mercury then a comparison of how much mercury is released by burning coal for the power to light incandescents and CFLs vr how much mercury is in CFLs needs to be done. However it's not so simple because by using CFLs greenhouse gas emissions are also cut, then there the pollution from coal mining.
I bet an overall analysis, ROI or TCO, of incandsescent lights and CFLs will conclude CFLs are better. Oh, also you mention about CFLs ending up in landfills however some places take them for recycling. I can't vouch for it but here's a business that recycles and makes equipment to recycle CFLs, Air Cycle.
..find these energy efficent bulbs really irritating?
Not at all. I've been using CFLs for more than 15 years and while some of the early ones had problems new CFLs have handled them pretty well. However I'm still waiting for LEDs that are good for area lighting and not just spot lighting. Whereas CFLs use 1/4 the power most incandescent lughts use, LEDS only use one tenth the amount.
I hate the fact the bulbs have a 'warm up' period
With the exception of one I have outside none of the CFLS I have require a "warmup", at least longer than a few seconds.
whatever 'colour' bulb I get, it still throws a nasty fluro hue.
Have you tried CFLs with different temperatures? I've seen them from 5000 to 7000 degrees.
No, Compuserve, and The Well, were better products. However AOL's marketing beat Compuserve after which AOL bought it and The Well dropped it's access and went to just being an online community instead of also offering access.
I write a couple hundred songs.
I run a web radio site and broadcast these.
The U.S. Copyright Office authorizes SoundExchange to collect royalties on my "use" of these songs.
I therefore owe SoundExchange royalties for the "compulsory license" to broadcast.
No. The law does not require a copyright holder to pay royalties that are ultimately due to himself. It's not a statutory license to broadcast music over Internet radio at all, it's a statutory license to broadcast music over Internet radio where you otherwise don't have a right to do so (i.e. you're not the copyright holder and you don't have a separately-negotiated license with the copyright holder, and there is a copyright)
Ah but if I start my own web radio station playing my own music how in the world would the RIAA ever know whether I either own or have a license to play the music?
Slashdot Mirror
NTLDR, the Windows bootloader
Yea, my NT box uses the Windows bootloader. On my other Windows box I have V Com's System Commander.
Falcon2) maintain its own repositories, guarantee everything keeps working, but then if you upgrade things like your video card you have to link in to new repositories, and god help you (pretty unlikely since 8 computer models down the line this could be a serious pita)
Actually it's #4: something else entirely?
Dell "customers will have the option to purchase support from Ubuntu backer Canonical, said Jane Silber, the start-up's director of operations."
FalconSomeone ... might like the idea of having all that done for them so they get a sqeaky-clean install that works out of the box?
We have a winner. This is why Windows and Macintosh have had commercial success in the desktop market while Linux flails: the computer works out of the box... The big problem with Linux distros is a lack of usable, pre-installed software and working drivers. Users have never liked or understood command lines.
Yeap, most people don't install an OS, instead they use the OS that was preinstalled. As more OEMs provide Linux preinstalled PCs more people will use it. Of course at first it'll be those who are adventurous. But then when they see it can do just about as much as a Windows PC and won't crash other they know will be willing to give it a try too.
And Windows wins out of the two because PCs are cheaper than Macs.
You haven't checked out the prices of Macs lately have you? Similarly configured Macs and PCs run head to head in prices. Of course there is a problem with Macs, there isn't the range of configurations that are available on PCs. A glariing hole is a mid range Mac that's expandable, something between the iMac and Mac Pro.
The only thing missing is some form of Bootcamp: Linux Edition (UboontuCamp? nah...) so people can play their games.
There are a number of bootloaders that can be used with both Linux and Windows including Lilo. Though I only have Windows on my PC for an OS I also have V Com's System Commander from which I could choose what OS I wanted to boot if I had more than one.
FalconI fail to see your point.
Duh, the point is that software patents aren't needed.
You could have the same argument about any other kind of patent
Designing hardware can be very expensive and unless there is some sort of patent protection for it not many would risk spending the millions of dollars doing research. Couldn't this be part of the reason communism failed?
I'm not saying it's all because of the patent system, but I don't think you have much evidence to support your assertion.
And I doubt you have any evidence to support your belief software patents help, whereas all the open source software is evidence patents aren't needed. One of the first computer games, Spacewar written in 1961 was open source. Of course it wasn't called open source back then.
FalconUnless you have the air conditioner on, any household appliance is 100% efficient, since the 'waste' heat goes towards heating your house
There are more efficient methods of heating than by wasting electricity because most electronic equipment are always on. Even better is good insolation and building design. Even the windows can make a big difference with good ones used and properly sealed. And the heat does drive up cooling needs. And though I've moved where I used to live I had the air conditioning on a few months a year and didn't need heating.
FalconSCOTUS interprets the laws. They don't make them. So I'd say no... IANAL
Oh really? Ever heard of Roe vs. Wade? Brown vs. Board of Education?
Um, no the USSC didn't make laws. In the case Roe v Wade they ruled a law unconstitutional and in Brown v Board of Education they ruled segregation violated the 14th Amendment.
Falconwhen companies apply for patents just to keep others from using a technology
Isn't that exactly what patents are for? You come up with an idea, explain what it is and get a temporary monopoly. One might argue that given the rate at which technology advances, it might be best to shorten the monopoly period
No. that's not what patents are for. Patetns are there to encourage progress in the Arts and Sciences. If you invent something and are issued a patent but never release a protect with the patent then you are not helping art or science progress. All you are is a scum sucking troll.
Falconthe point is that inventors have the right to their inventions.
Right? Where does this right come from? There is no right to patents! Patents are just government granted limited monopolies.
All of the software you mention is very few.
I neither know nor have the tyme to list all of the open source software available for download from freshmeat or sourceforge forget all the other websites that have OS software But I bet even if I did, seeing as how you already dismissed software I already gave, it still wouldn't satisfy you.
And worse, if you hold a patent and do not produce the item but merely hold other producers to ransom for royalties with it, then you're just a patent troll and a completely negative contributer to progress --- you should be penalized, not rewarded.
Eliminating patent trolls would be nice, but doing it like this would also take patents away from the small inventor. Inventors licensing/selling their patents to companies capable of mass producing the product in question is about as old as mass production itself.
That's easy and simple to deal with, records of contacting manufacturers trying to get someone to manufacture your invention should do the trick.
FalconAlgorithms are designed according to the availability of several functional units not offered by the human brain.
You may want to revise your definition of algorithms. Originally algorithms were simply a problem-solving procedure or noun a process or set of rules used in calculations or other problem-solving operations. Neither of these require a computer or anything else other than the human brain.
FalconFirst of all, the purpose of patents is not to spur inventors to invent.
Wrong, patents are specifically issued to encourage progress in the Arts and Sciences, at least in the USA:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Abolish patents, and software firms will have no incentive to write anything: anyone can steal it.
Software has been written long before the first software patent was issued. If patents were needed as an incentive to write software then open source software would never exist. There is plenty of incentive to write software without patents.
Their only solution? Do what Microsoft does and have ridiculous anti-piracy measures that don't even work.
So Apache, Firefox, the Gimp, and Linux don't exist? Or do they have MS's anti-priracy measure built in?
FalconI am not a proponent of software patents; I just don't see what makes software patents so different from other patents, and I haven't seen a single logical argument against software patents that doesn't involve circular reasoning.
I think this is simple. Patents, and copyrights, are supposed to encourage progress in the Arts and Sciences. Software patents don't do this. Many software programs have been written without any patent protection. A lot have actually been written without any protection, like open source software. Without patents software has grown a lot.
FalconGood, now only they will throwout softwares!!!
Falconam i the only one that prefers the white of CFLs to the yellow of incandescents?
No you're not the only one, I prefer them myself. Even more I prefer the ones that have a slight bluish tint. Now if only they'd come out with an area LED that has an adjustable colour temp.
Falcon"You don't have curbside collection of recyclables?"
I don't know actually. In some areas, I think I have seen a weird 'blue' container that might be for that, but, it certainly isn't mandatory. I've never bothered with it...
Where I live if you don't separate recyclables from waste you can be fined. And we have two bins, blue and green. One is for glass I think, I don't recall right now, and the other for everything else. They pick up glass, metal, paper, and plastic. My kitchen stuff I recycle myself. I have a compost pile I add "waste" food such as banana peels to then use the compost when finished in my garden.
FalconMy biggest problem with CFLs is that the ballasts often break, so the bulbs actually lasts much less than an incadescent. This happened with both cheap and expensive ones; it could be that the power in our neighborhood is "dirty," but who knows? Thus the savings in energy get wasted in replacing the bulbs, which are not cheap, especially compared to incadescents going for $1 per 8-pack.
I've never had the ballast go bad, and in the more than 15 years of using CLFs I have only had two burnout.
My second biggest problem is that they are not bright.
Have you looked at the color temperature of the lights you get? The CFLs I've gotten as just as bright if not brighter than incandesecnt lights. I hear a bunch of people saying how bad CFLs are but in the more than 15 years of using them myself I have only ever had one problem with CFLs, they do strangle things like adding a tint to film in photography.
FalconAnd yes, in business settings - you can get payed for your recycling. Different items get different rates and you can also get a reduction in how much you pay total for your trash being taken away.
I used to get paid for recycling but now with curbside collection you have to pay to have it collected instead of you getting paid to recycle.
FalconYou can't just throw it in one can?
You don't have curbside collection of recyclables? Everyplace I've lived since the 1980s, if not the 1970s, has collected recyclables curbside. While I like this what I don't like is that they raise your taxes to pay for it, I recall walking along the side of roads collecting recyclables then taking them down to the recycling center and getting paid by weight for what I collected. Making you pay to pick up recyclables then collecting money from the recyclers is double dipping. And if they aren't collecting from the recyclers then I don't know what to say other than perhaps they need to go to a business school. Simply even if a person isn't getting paid for recycling curbside recycling should pay for itself!!!
FalconOHWAIT. No, they don't. Those power plants are still creating the same amount of waste, you're just able to go "I'm saving the world!" and pat yourself on the back when you look at your light bulbs.
Unfortunately dispite the energy efficiency gains in some areas, as with CFLs, there are greater energy "needs" now. The number of appliances and other energy users grows in the average house and many of these items are always on now. For instance even though they are turned off my tv, dvd player, and stereo are still using power. Because of this I got a power strip to plug these items into which I can then turn off. One switch actually turns them all off, and not just on standby.
FalconIf you like one, go back and get enough to set up your home.
While I suggest buying a pack of lights once good ones are found I also suggest that instead of replacing all of the lights at once instead replace them as incandsescent light burnout. If a light is used a lot then it would be long before it needs to be replaced and if it's not used often or for very long then switching before it burns out may not make much sense.
I first started doing this when others kept saying how much more expensive CFLs were. So I stated telling them to just replace the most frequently use lights then slowly change the rest.
FalconI suspect the 'one or the other' mentality comes from those people who are looking to make illegal the sale of traditional bulbs.
Except in this case s/he wants to buy incandescent lights not make them illegal. I use, and prefer, CFLs but I oppose any attempt to make them illegal. Instead I prefer to have incentives to encourage efficiency and discourage waste. For instance maybe, just maybe, have the sales tax take into consideration the efficiency of light bulbs. Have a tax base then have lower sales tax on more efficient lights. Perhaps this could be combined with a services tax on the energy used. Then have the revenues these taxes raise be used for energy efficiency.
FalconThe issue is when you take 5mg of mercury and multiply it by the number of people who just toss these in landfills. Let us take a reasonably small number of say 40,000 bulbs in your local landfill that is 200,000 mg of mercury. I can assure you that 200,000 mg could easily leach into your local water supply if the land fill is poorly designed or overused (which happens frequently).
Ah but burning coal, which many powerplants burn to produce energy, releases mercury too. By using CFLs people don't use as much power and therfore not as much coal is burned. Niether this article nor you mention this. If it's just concern for mercury then a comparison of how much mercury is released by burning coal for the power to light incandescents and CFLs vr how much mercury is in CFLs needs to be done. However it's not so simple because by using CFLs greenhouse gas emissions are also cut, then there the pollution from coal mining.
I bet an overall analysis, ROI or TCO, of incandsescent lights and CFLs will conclude CFLs are better. Oh, also you mention about CFLs ending up in landfills however some places take them for recycling. I can't vouch for it but here's a business that recycles and makes equipment to recycle CFLs, Air Cycle.
Falcon..find these energy efficent bulbs really irritating?
Not at all. I've been using CFLs for more than 15 years and while some of the early ones had problems new CFLs have handled them pretty well. However I'm still waiting for LEDs that are good for area lighting and not just spot lighting. Whereas CFLs use 1/4 the power most incandescent lughts use, LEDS only use one tenth the amount.
I hate the fact the bulbs have a 'warm up' period
With the exception of one I have outside none of the CFLS I have require a "warmup", at least longer than a few seconds.
whatever 'colour' bulb I get, it still throws a nasty fluro hue.
Have you tried CFLs with different temperatures? I've seen them from 5000 to 7000 degrees.
Falconbetter price.
No, Compuserve, and The Well, were better products. However AOL's marketing beat Compuserve after which AOL bought it and The Well dropped it's access and went to just being an online community instead of also offering access.
FalconI write a couple hundred songs.
I run a web radio site and broadcast these.
The U.S. Copyright Office authorizes SoundExchange to collect royalties on my "use" of these songs.
I therefore owe SoundExchange royalties for the "compulsory license" to broadcast.
No. The law does not require a copyright holder to pay royalties that are ultimately due to himself. It's not a statutory license to broadcast music over Internet radio at all, it's a statutory license to broadcast music over Internet radio where you otherwise don't have a right to do so (i.e. you're not the copyright holder and you don't have a separately-negotiated license with the copyright holder, and there is a copyright)
Ah but if I start my own web radio station playing my own music how in the world would the RIAA ever know whether I either own or have a license to play the music?
Falcon