It was still winter, spring was just around the corner. The milk was picked up from the farmers as usual, except that it was dumped. The radiation level in milk was too high. And we were warned not to go outside.
This could be real handy when you need to distroy the encryption device without a trace that it ever existed.
A spy gets caught with what looks like a fussy picture of her family stored in the spy's pda. And with no trace of a encryption device, I guess it must be just a bad picture.
The FCC said requiring the companies to provide access to the upgraded lines would deter the former Bells from making better systems.
troll ON
Then why in hell did to they allow phone and cable companies to own each other.
troll OFF
In Canada the cable company, by the way which is not owned by the phone company, is provides broadband service in competition with the phone company. Because of this competition internet is cheaper in Canada.
Please don't tell me you think there is any real competition in the US cell phone market.
Each company needs to construct its own towers nation wide. This cost allow effectively keeps out competition. In other countries such as Hong Kong were the cell phone service providers rent tower time, service is a lot cheaper. And you will not believe it, customer service does not suck like it does in the US. Until the US market is broken into tower providers and cell phone service providers there will be no effective competition.
Isn't that why internet is reasonally priced in the US. The phone companies are required to lease access to the local teleco switch office. "Creating competition". I guess competition is NOT good for business.
Someone please explain how this decision is good for me as a consumer.
Actually, $1000 in cash is not all that much for a trucker to carry.
Remember most long distance truckers are on the road for a week at a time. This includes tolls, fuel, food, etc. I did a rough calculation a trip from Ontario to New York and back cost about $500 out of pocket. And lots of truckers transport fruit from California.
What part of,
"Seriously, a thank you is appreciated. And an extra helping hand will make light work of the improvements needed. If you can't be thankful or helpful, SHUT THE FUCK UP!",
you don't understand? If you pay me, then I will SHUT THE FUCK UP. But until then, read it again carefully this time.
Anyone who can't use an interface you understand isn't as smart as you and therefore is not worthy of consideration.
Wow, that is exactly what I was thinking when I read this article.
WTF, You are either stupid or too lazy to read docs. And bow damit to the developers who spend long hours working on this code. If you don't like it, become a developer yourself and improve it.
Seriously, a thank you is appreciated. And an extra helping hand will make light work of the improvements needed. If you can't be thankful or helpful, SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Corporate Tech support is a little different. The basic rule here is to monitor the client's system so that Tech support knows the problem before the client calls. This works great for Tech support, because they either quickly describ the problem to the client, or just sit on the phone an baby sit, giving them a constant status. Corporate clients seem to like baby sitters a lot, because they don't measure the time of the call. They measure the time from when they notice a problem to a solution. But the very nature of humans means if someone if on the other end making you feel good, you lose track of time. So onless the client diligent it does not get reported a problem, long time outage.
As an operations admin, I use these tech support guys to the fullest. My workers for free. After a little "training" they make sure I get notified BEFORE management, giving me time to fix my mistakes. Management doesn't really need to know I made a mistake do they? And my loyal tech support guys, will gladly screw some else.
Missiles, aircraft, ships, ground troops all rely on satellites to relay target information and make sure weapons are on target. Not just the military systems rely on satellites, logistic support is also dependent on them.
Take out the satellites, and it makes fight a war 21th century style a lot more difficult.
Actually we all ready have adiquite models. The problem is actaully appling these models. Or creating a silicon equivalent of the model.
I am not sure how this rating system works. But I always get marked as sore 1. If you just take a look at my messages, you can see how neural networks can work. I have not discussed time domain averaging, which is actually closest to the biological neuron. But if you are interested and my rating rises above score 1. I also discribe in detail how time domain averging can be utilized in ANNs
Since my score is 1 there is no fsck point spell checking.
As you so accurately noted the eye does preprocessing in the analog domain. With feed back suppression to correct for light levels, enhance edge contrast.
With a charged based ANN the CCDs of a digital camera are the direct charge inputs into the ANN. This first "level" preprocessing provides edge detection and a simple historieous for motion detection. The edge and motion information is then supplied along with the full picture to the next level of image process, which classifies objects.
With this kind of preprocessing provided at the sensor level the "cpu" based image processing is a greatly simplified task. There is tight feed back between the "cpu" based image processing and the object classification. With extra effort the "cpu" can decide that the current object classification needs to be refined. The objects for extra evaluation are easily select by there "low" confidence levels. These new object classifications can in turned used to improved the training of the ANN object classification. Classifiers are parallel image processors by there very nature. So even though the system often needs to take a "second" look at objects with low confidence levels it is extremely fast.
It just goods to show the best designed system by man work like nature. Nature had it right all along.:)
You are most definitely correct our brains use the 3rd dimension to good effect. However to get around that limitation that silicon is "2D", it runs 5 to 10 times faster. Assuming your 200MHz figure is correct, "I believe it is much lower, must check". So by feeding past results into current calculations you get 5 to 10 times the effective connections. Which is equivalent to using the 3rd dimension to a depth of 5 to 10. Not to bad when you think about it. Also given that fact the Artificial neurons are much smaller than real neurons, ANN could quickly surpass the capabilities of the human brain.
Even though you could conceivable construct a neural network out of these organic chips. The basic structure of neural networks is well understood. So there is no reason to go to this trouble. It is more compact and efficient to construct ANN completely out of silicon.
Artificial Neural networks comprised of multipliers, adders or averagers, and signmod functions and do an adequate job of simulating biological neural networks. With that said to properly simulate biological neural networks, ANN need to have programmable multiplier weights, signmod functions and "connections". Most ANN you read about do not have programmable connections. As a result the designer has the difficult task if not impossible task of predetermining the what connections should be present before the ANN is fabricated. Its kind of like a child being born to only do certain tasks. We all know a child's brain is not rigidly designed to do only certain tasks, but rather neural connections form and break as required. This allows the child to quickly strengthen their brain to so whatever task they are exposed to, quickly.
The other point often over looked in ANN design is programmable signmod functions. When Signmod functions programmable into linear, low pass, high pass and mid pass functions, the ANN can be designed to imitate a fussy logic processor. These fussy logic rules gives the ANN a good starting point to begin training. The issue is training needs to continue throughout the ANN operation to accommodate for variations of the controlled system an the ANN itself. High density ANN are essential analog devices, whose characteristics will change over time and portions will fail. Accommodating for the fact that portions of the ANN will fail is another reason why the connections must be programmable.
ANN can be designed out of binary systems, but are much simpler when designed as ternary logic systems "base 2". "2^2 or 2^3 or 2^4 etc" In these ternary systems 2's complement operations apply. One of the reasons "base 2" systems are so successful is that every logic gate drives the signal to a low or high value. Such quantization must also exist in a ternary logic system. Ternary logic systems can be designed to work using charge, or standing waves. Standing waves are added and subtracted via constructive and destructive interference. Charge is probably the easier at this time. However in the future quantum effect ANN would most definitely use waves.
Patents on standards create artifical economic barriers. The only legitment use of patents on standards is to re-inforce manopoly power. Good examples of this are Microsoft's XML patents.
The good news is the European Union has reconized that patents in public standards are not valid. Please see the Rambus patent case.
However removing the 110mpg/180km speed limit is easy.
There is no point driving 140km, because the cops are going to catch you. I you are going to drive fast you need to drive atleast 175km or above. The the only way you are going to get caught is helocopiers and road blocks. Both take time to put in place. And if they never get a fix you your license, "mud / grease covered".:)
Re:p2p valid uses and Movie/Music cost too much!!!
on
Kazaa Offices Raided
·
· Score: 2, Informative
p2p networks have lots of other uses besides music and movie sharing. p2p networks good for sharing any very popular files. A good example where p2p networks might work very well for sharing debian packages.
IMHO some of the reasons why sharing movies online is so popular are
1) movies are released 6 months after they are in the US. So if I want to see a recent movie I must get it "illegally"!!
2) movies are simply too expensive to see in the movie theaters. Last year I saw 2 movies. I simply can not afford the "price" of movies, sorry I am not rich!!
3) renting movies alwasy struck me as dumb idea. I find watching a movie twice to be a rather unpleasent experience. a) After I watching the movie once, it is worthless. b) The movies I rent always have scratches.
So IMHO I should be able to buy a movie for around half the price of a movie ticket, because I don't have a big screen at home. And a movie that'a an old release should cost half as much again.
I currently buy most of the movies I watch for a little under $2.00 US per CD. And at that price p2p sharing is not worth the bother.
p2p valid uses and Movie/Music cost too much!!!!
on
Kazaa Offices Raided
·
· Score: 1
p2p networks have lots of other uses besides music and movie sharing.
p2p networks good for sharing any very popular files. A good example where p2p networks might work very well for sharing debian packages.
IMHO some of the reasons why sharing movies online is so popular are
1) movies are released 6 months after they are in the US. So if I want to see a recent movie I must get it "illegally"!!
2) movies are simply too expensive to see in the movie theaters. Last year I saw 2 movies. I simply can not afford the "price" of movies, sorry I am not rich!!
3) renting movies alwasy struck me as dumb idea.
I find watching a movie twice to be a rather unpleasent experience.
a) After I watching the movie once, it is worthless.
b) The movies I rent always have scratches.
So IMHO I should be able to buy a movie for around half the price of a movie ticket, because I don't have a big screen at home. And a movie that'a an old release should cost half as much again.
I currently buy most of the movies I watch for a little under $2.00 US per CD. And at that price p2p sharing is not worth the bother.
Yes I know about the Russian plasma torch drag reduction.
But I wonder about the technical difficulties of actually creating a "continous" plasma leading edge.
I couple ideas are possible, such as "continously" moving plasma torch to fill in the gaps between the torches.
Or even more radical is a "continously" moving leading edge. The only possible configuration I can think of that can achieve this is a rotating disk.
Something I am curious about is using plasma torches to reduce leading edge drag through water. Now if that could be done at "supersonic" speeds. Hmmm, supersonic underwater. Can anybody direct me to research investigating ionizing water with plasma torches?
Scramjet technology began around the 1950's. It has been since the 1970's research in to plasma torches in supersonic flows. The plasma torch servers as an igniter and combustion enhancer. Plasma torches offer a couple of advanrages. The plasma torch servers as an ignition source for the fuel and combustion enhancing radicals produced by the plasma torch.
Scramjets also use the hypersonic shock wave for compression. A high compression "point" is where the forebody and engine fence shock waves cross. One of the problems faced it is how to design the inlets to maximise the compression. To keep things simple many scramjet engines are designed as 2D engines.
Designs my attempt to use air stream swirl to enhance fuel and oxidizing air mixing.
For more details please see
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cache/papers/cs/3623/ft p:zSzzSztechreports.larc.nasa.govzSzpubzSztechrepo rtszSzlarczSz1998zSzaiaazSzNASA-aiaa-98-2506.pdf/r ogers98experimental.pdf
1) All data storage formats and application communication protocols need to publicly available at no charge. In other words make make "Open Standards" the law.
Methods how to implement such data storage formats and application communication protocols could be perhaps patented, copyrighted or a trade secret. But NOT the data storage formats and application communication protocols.
This is the only effective solution to the artificial bearers Microsoft has put in place to protect its Monopoly. This is not a Microsoft problem per say. Microsoft is just the best example of this problem.
The Europe as the European Union is able to and should apply this law retroactively in to all Union Countries. This will give competitors to Microsoft sufficient market to be "economically" successful. The European Union can not force other or even suggest other countries outside the Union follow suit. And I strongly doubt that the US will be happy about this, because United States protected Microsoft because it is HUGE US company with even large political weight. However United States no longer controls the world. So I expect several Counties in Asia with large manufacturing and internal markets to adopt the European approach.
1) All data storage formats and application communication protocols need to publicly available at no charge. In other words make make "Open Standards" the law.
Methods how to implement such data storage formats and application communication protocols could be perhaps patented, copyrighted or a trade secret. But NOT the data storage formats and application communication protocols.
This is the only effective solution to the artificial bearers Microsoft has put in place to protect its Monopoly. This is not a Microsoft problem per say. Microsoft is just the best example of this problem.
The Europe as the European Union is able to and should apply this law retroactively in to all Union Countries. This will give competitors to Microsoft sufficient market to be "economically" successful. The European Union can not force other or even suggest other countries outside the Union follow suit. And I strongly doubt that the US will be happy about this, because United States protected Microsoft because it is HUGE US company with even large political weight. However United States no longer controls the world. So I expect several Counties in Asia with large manufacturing and internal markets to adopt the European approach.
1) All data storage formats and application communication protocols need to publicly available at no charge. In other words make make "Open Standards" the law.
Methods how to implement such data storage formats and application communication protocols could be perhaps patented, copyrighted or a trade secret. But NOT the data storage formats and application communication protocols.
This is the only effective solution to the artificial bearers Microsoft has put in place to protect its Monopoly. This is not a Microsoft problem per say. Microsoft is just the best example of this problem.
The Europe as the European Union is able to and should apply this law retroactively in to all Union Countries. This will give competitors to Microsoft sufficient market to be "economically" successful. The European Union can not force other or even suggest other countries outside the Union follow suit. And I strongly doubt that the US will be happy about this, because United States protected Microsoft because it is HUGE US company with even large political weight. However United States no longer controls the world. So I expect several Counties in Asia with large manufacturing and internal markets to adopt the European approach.
Slashdot Mirror
Caffeine is not as strong as ephedrine, but it still works in some what the same way.
:)
If that is not enough a good dose of lack of sleep will make anyone lose weight
It was still winter, spring was just around the corner. The milk was picked up from the farmers as usual, except that it was dumped. The radiation level in milk was too high. And we were warned not to go outside.
This could be real handy when you need to distroy the encryption device without a trace that it ever existed.
A spy gets caught with what looks like a fussy picture of her family stored in the spy's pda. And with no trace of a encryption device, I guess it must be just a bad picture.
troll ON
Then why in hell did to they allow phone and cable companies to own each other.
troll OFF
In Canada the cable company, by the way which is not owned by the phone company, is provides broadband service in competition with the phone company. Because of this competition internet is cheaper in Canada.
Please don't tell me you think there is any real competition in the US cell phone market.
Each company needs to construct its own towers nation wide. This cost allow effectively keeps out competition. In other countries such as Hong Kong were the cell phone service providers rent tower time, service is a lot cheaper. And you will not believe it, customer service does not suck like it does in the US. Until the US market is broken into tower providers and cell phone service providers there will be no effective competition.
Isn't that why internet is reasonally priced in the US. The phone companies are required to lease access to the local teleco switch office. "Creating competition". I guess competition is NOT good for business.
Someone please explain how this decision is good for me as a consumer.
Actually, $1000 in cash is not all that much for a trucker to carry.
Remember most long distance truckers are on the road for a week at a time. This includes tolls, fuel, food, etc. I did a rough calculation a trip from Ontario to New York and back cost about $500 out of pocket. And lots of truckers transport fruit from California.
What part of, "Seriously, a thank you is appreciated. And an extra helping hand will make light work of the improvements needed. If you can't be thankful or helpful, SHUT THE FUCK UP!", you don't understand? If you pay me, then I will SHUT THE FUCK UP. But until then, read it again carefully this time.
Wow, that is exactly what I was thinking when I read this article.
WTF, You are either stupid or too lazy to read docs. And bow damit to the developers who spend long hours working on this code. If you don't like it, become a developer yourself and improve it.
Seriously, a thank you is appreciated. And an extra helping hand will make light work of the improvements needed. If you can't be thankful or helpful, SHUT THE FUCK UP!
I have got zero karma. Kind of like the Ken.
Corporate Tech support is a little different. The basic rule here is to monitor the client's system so that Tech support knows the problem before the client calls. This works great for Tech support, because they either quickly describ the problem to the client, or just sit on the phone an baby sit, giving them a constant status. Corporate clients seem to like baby sitters a lot, because they don't measure the time of the call. They measure the time from when they notice a problem to a solution. But the very nature of humans means if someone if on the other end making you feel good, you lose track of time. So onless the client diligent it does not get reported a problem, long time outage.
As an operations admin, I use these tech support guys to the fullest. My workers for free. After a little "training" they make sure I get notified BEFORE management, giving me time to fix my mistakes. Management doesn't really need to know I made a mistake do they? And my loyal tech support guys, will gladly screw some else.
If we only wait a little longer soon, we will see there is no need for Indemnity from SCO's threat.
So the whole article by ZDNet is pointless.
However there is a real problem on the horizon, and that is software patents. SCO is a dead horse, and a waste of time.
Support the fight against BAD patents.
http://www.ffii.org/
Missiles, aircraft, ships, ground troops all rely on satellites to relay target information and make sure weapons are on target. Not just the military systems rely on satellites, logistic support is also dependent on them.
Take out the satellites, and it makes fight a war 21th century style a lot more difficult.
Actually we all ready have adiquite models. The problem is actaully appling these models. Or creating a silicon equivalent of the model.
I am not sure how this rating system works. But I always get marked as sore 1. If you just take a look at my messages, you can see how neural networks can work. I have not discussed time domain averaging, which is actually closest to the biological neuron. But if you are interested and my rating rises above score 1. I also discribe in detail how time domain averging can be utilized in ANNs
Since my score is 1 there is no fsck point spell checking.
As you so accurately noted the eye does preprocessing in the analog domain. With feed back suppression to correct for light levels, enhance edge contrast.
:)
With a charged based ANN the CCDs of a digital camera are the direct charge inputs into the ANN. This first "level" preprocessing provides edge detection and a simple historieous for motion detection. The edge and motion information is then supplied along with the full picture to the next level of image process, which classifies objects.
With this kind of preprocessing provided at the sensor level the "cpu" based image processing is a greatly simplified task. There is tight feed back between the "cpu" based image processing and the object classification. With extra effort the "cpu" can decide that the current object classification needs to be refined. The objects for extra evaluation are easily select by there "low" confidence levels. These new object classifications can in turned used to improved the training of the ANN object classification. Classifiers are parallel image processors by there very nature. So even though the system often needs to take a "second" look at objects with low confidence levels it is extremely fast.
It just goods to show the best designed system by man work like nature. Nature had it right all along.
You are most definitely correct our brains use the 3rd dimension to good effect. However to get around that limitation that silicon is "2D", it runs 5 to 10 times faster. Assuming your 200MHz figure is correct, "I believe it is much lower, must check". So by feeding past results into current calculations you get 5 to 10 times the effective connections. Which is equivalent to using the 3rd dimension to a depth of 5 to 10. Not to bad when you think about it. Also given that fact the Artificial neurons are much smaller than real neurons, ANN could quickly surpass the capabilities of the human brain.
Even though you could conceivable construct a neural network out of these organic chips. The basic structure of neural networks is well understood. So there is no reason to go to this trouble. It is more compact and efficient to construct ANN completely out of silicon.
Artificial Neural networks comprised of multipliers, adders or averagers, and signmod functions and do an adequate job of simulating biological neural networks. With that said to properly simulate biological neural networks, ANN need to have programmable multiplier weights, signmod functions and "connections". Most ANN you read about do not have programmable connections. As a result the designer has the difficult task if not impossible task of predetermining the what connections should be present before the ANN is fabricated. Its kind of like a child being born to only do certain tasks. We all know a child's brain is not rigidly designed to do only certain tasks, but rather neural connections form and break as required. This allows the child to quickly strengthen their brain to so whatever task they are exposed to, quickly.
The other point often over looked in ANN design is programmable signmod functions. When Signmod functions programmable into linear, low pass, high pass and mid pass functions, the ANN can be designed to imitate a fussy logic processor. These fussy logic rules gives the ANN a good starting point to begin training. The issue is training needs to continue throughout the ANN operation to accommodate for variations of the controlled system an the ANN itself. High density ANN are essential analog devices, whose characteristics will change over time and portions will fail. Accommodating for the fact that portions of the ANN will fail is another reason why the connections must be programmable.
ANN can be designed out of binary systems, but are much simpler when designed as ternary logic systems "base 2". "2^2 or 2^3 or 2^4 etc" In these ternary systems 2's complement operations apply. One of the reasons "base 2" systems are so successful is that every logic gate drives the signal to a low or high value. Such quantization must also exist in a ternary logic system. Ternary logic systems can be designed to work using charge, or standing waves. Standing waves are added and subtracted via constructive and destructive interference. Charge is probably the easier at this time. However in the future quantum effect ANN would most definitely use waves.
Patents on standards create artifical economic barriers. The only legitment use of patents on standards is to re-inforce manopoly power. Good examples of this are Microsoft's XML patents.
The good news is the European Union has reconized that patents in public standards are not valid.
Please see the Rambus patent case.
However removing the 110mpg /180km speed limit is easy.
:)
There is no point driving 140km, because the cops are going to catch you. I you are going to drive fast you need to drive atleast 175km or above. The the only way you are going to get caught is helocopiers and road blocks. Both take time to put in place. And if they never get a fix you your license, "mud / grease covered".
p2p networks have lots of other uses besides music and movie sharing. p2p networks good for sharing any very popular files. A good example where p2p networks might work very well for sharing debian packages.
IMHO some of the reasons why sharing movies online is so popular are
1) movies are released 6 months after they are in the US. So if I want to see a recent movie I must get it "illegally"!!
2) movies are simply too expensive to see in the movie theaters. Last year I saw 2 movies. I simply can not afford the "price" of movies, sorry I am not rich!!
3) renting movies alwasy struck me as dumb idea. I find watching a movie twice to be a rather unpleasent experience.
a) After I watching the movie once, it is worthless.
b) The movies I rent always have scratches.
So IMHO I should be able to buy a movie for around half the price of a movie ticket, because I don't have a big screen at home. And a movie that'a an old release should cost half as much again.
I currently buy most of the movies I watch for a little under $2.00 US per CD. And at that price p2p sharing is not worth the bother.
p2p networks have lots of other uses besides music and movie sharing. p2p networks good for sharing any very popular files. A good example where p2p networks might work very well for sharing debian packages. IMHO some of the reasons why sharing movies online is so popular are 1) movies are released 6 months after they are in the US. So if I want to see a recent movie I must get it "illegally"!! 2) movies are simply too expensive to see in the movie theaters. Last year I saw 2 movies. I simply can not afford the "price" of movies, sorry I am not rich!! 3) renting movies alwasy struck me as dumb idea. I find watching a movie twice to be a rather unpleasent experience. a) After I watching the movie once, it is worthless. b) The movies I rent always have scratches. So IMHO I should be able to buy a movie for around half the price of a movie ticket, because I don't have a big screen at home. And a movie that'a an old release should cost half as much again. I currently buy most of the movies I watch for a little under $2.00 US per CD. And at that price p2p sharing is not worth the bother.
Yes I know about the Russian plasma torch drag reduction.
But I wonder about the technical difficulties of actually creating a "continous" plasma leading edge.
I couple ideas are possible, such as "continously" moving plasma torch to fill in the gaps between the torches.
Or even more radical is a "continously" moving leading edge. The only possible configuration I can think of that can achieve this is a rotating disk.
Something I am curious about is using plasma torches to reduce leading edge drag through water. Now if that could be done at "supersonic" speeds. Hmmm, supersonic underwater. Can anybody direct me to research investigating ionizing water with plasma torches?
For a more details about scramjet igniition please see http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-041 92001-184610/
Scramjet technology began around the 1950's. It has been since the 1970's research in to plasma torches in supersonic flows. The plasma torch servers as an igniter and combustion enhancer. Plasma torches offer a couple of advanrages. The plasma torch servers as an ignition source for the fuel and combustion enhancing radicals produced by the plasma torch.
Scramjets also use the hypersonic shock wave for compression. A high compression "point" is where the forebody and engine fence shock waves cross. One of the problems faced it is how to design the inlets to maximise the compression. To keep things simple many scramjet engines are designed as 2D engines.
Designs my attempt to use air stream swirl to enhance fuel and oxidizing air mixing.
For more details please see http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cache/papers/cs/3623/ft p:zSzzSztechreports.larc.nasa.govzSzpubzSztechrepo rtszSzlarczSz1998zSzaiaazSzNASA-aiaa-98-2506.pdf/r ogers98experimental.pdf
1) All data storage formats and application communication protocols need to publicly available at no charge. In other words make make "Open Standards" the law.
Methods how to implement such data storage formats and application communication protocols could be perhaps patented, copyrighted or a trade secret. But NOT the data storage formats and application communication protocols.
This is the only effective solution to the artificial bearers Microsoft has put in place to protect its Monopoly. This is not a Microsoft problem per say. Microsoft is just the best example of this problem.
The Europe as the European Union is able to and should apply this law retroactively in to all Union Countries. This will give competitors to Microsoft sufficient market to be "economically" successful. The European Union can not force other or even suggest other countries outside the Union follow suit. And I strongly doubt that the US will be happy about this, because United States protected Microsoft because it is HUGE US company with even large political weight. However United States no longer controls the world. So I expect several Counties in Asia with large manufacturing and internal markets to adopt the European approach.
1) All data storage formats and application communication protocols need to publicly available at no charge. In other words make make "Open Standards" the law.
Methods how to implement such data storage formats and application communication protocols could be perhaps patented, copyrighted or a trade secret. But NOT the data storage formats and application communication protocols.
This is the only effective solution to the artificial bearers Microsoft has put in place to protect its Monopoly. This is not a Microsoft problem per say. Microsoft is just the best example of this problem.
The Europe as the European Union is able to and should apply this law retroactively in to all Union Countries. This will give competitors to Microsoft sufficient market to be "economically" successful. The European Union can not force other or even suggest other countries outside the Union follow suit. And I strongly doubt that the US will be happy about this, because United States protected Microsoft because it is HUGE US company with even large political weight. However United States no longer controls the world. So I expect several Counties in Asia with large manufacturing and internal markets to adopt the European approach.
1) All data storage formats and application communication protocols need to publicly available at no charge. In other words make make "Open Standards" the law. Methods how to implement such data storage formats and application communication protocols could be perhaps patented, copyrighted or a trade secret. But NOT the data storage formats and application communication protocols. This is the only effective solution to the artificial bearers Microsoft has put in place to protect its Monopoly. This is not a Microsoft problem per say. Microsoft is just the best example of this problem. The Europe as the European Union is able to and should apply this law retroactively in to all Union Countries. This will give competitors to Microsoft sufficient market to be "economically" successful. The European Union can not force other or even suggest other countries outside the Union follow suit. And I strongly doubt that the US will be happy about this, because United States protected Microsoft because it is HUGE US company with even large political weight. However United States no longer controls the world. So I expect several Counties in Asia with large manufacturing and internal markets to adopt the European approach.