at $100 thousand per annum would hire 8000 programmers for 10 years or 16000 for 5 years. (OK so they have to bring their own tools, like Gnu) but wow what would 80000 man years work produce.
My whole point really is what we mainly know, where the hell do they waste all the cash to get so little return for it?
I'm thinking they could save 7/8 of the cash by just hiring 1000 programmers for 10 years to refine their own Linux or BSD!
What it means is don't trade your time for the greatre accumulated time of all the other participants try and gouge out some extra for you in your "directed self-interest".
It's market is probably more parents like my brother in law and sister, even my mum, who hear me talking about their latest security risk (they use Windows I don't) and are concerned enough to want to do something about it.
Trouble is what about doctors or researchers etc who might actually want to use viagra in an e-mail without it being spam. Or even the real workers in the company that produce the stuff and might use it to organise sales and distribution without spamming the innocent.
There will almost certainly be too many individual cases for this to work.
No it's a matter of holding sincere beliefs that happen to mean I expect Government related things to be open.
I don't for example expect them to come out and say only drivers of Ford cars can use the M6 motorway. Or that you are only allowed in to the physical Houses of Parliament to watch proceedings if you are wearing glasses with Gucci frames.
That's the principle of where you own if you own a piece of land. Everything above it as far as it goes. So we already have a varied sweeping ownership scheme where by the cone above your land dictates ownership at that moment...
So if you want permanent ownership you just need to own a carefully determined path on the earth's surface.
The point is that they release a Linux version to capture the Office users of developing nations who choose to use Linux as a cheap alternative to Windows. So the growth market of a percentage of the billion Chinese and the billion Indians means say 800 million more users. If they all use Linux then that is 800 million lost OS and Office sales.
By selling them 800 million copies of Light Linux MS Office they at least get some share of the 800 million new users.
They could achieve the same much more effectively be producing their own fully functional.NET environment for the more popular target platforms. Then all their next generation products would potentially be able to run.
You miss my points in your scattergun rant. Your mistaken belief that you are being persecuted for being negative in any way about Linux suggests you need to seek help.
Try reading my previous post again having taken some tranquilisers.
I repeat, if you consider the market place Linux has taken off
Then of course most of those brothers or mums won't be coming along any time to install Windows XP either will they.
They will buy a computer that is already OS installed and if anything needs doing that they aren't easily able to do will result in a call to their brother or son.
I think Linux has taken off. Especially when you balance its advancement with allowance for market dominance by Microsoft, the MS headstart, lack of vendor support for drivers, etc...
Can you really claim that if Linux were substituted for DOS at the very beginning (accepting it might not have been a Monopoly position and therefore unable to attain global dominance) that it wouldn't be ruler?
The nit picking usability at a fine level doesn't matter to the majority of users. They don't tinker even with the little things. They just install software or plug in hardware. (And maybe tinker with their wallpaper or screen saver).
How about comparing it to inertia selling. Company sends you items A without you asking them to. They then attempt to charge you for them. In the UK under certain conditions I think you can accept them as a gift, to block inertia selling.
Monsanto knew it was inevitable that seed would carry to other places. They did not prevent this. Therefore it should be considered a gift (or pollution).
If the gifts I am given contain patented technology I am not a patent infringer provided the gifts meet the law. In this case it would be a gift from Monsanto the patent holder and therefore presumed that patent use was allowed.
I say throw it away. We horde to much crap as it is and who the hell will realistically go back through it?
On the other hand because it is electronically sortable perhaps it will be an indispenisble archive for future historians if we don't delete any of it.
I appreciate and agree with the issues you raise. But there is a point where it appears you shouldn't defend some things.
For example I would like to hear arguments why we should not ban murder. Yes even there there are perhaps grey areas such as assisted suicide of the suffering but it is overwhelmingly a hard area of "you cannot commit unlawful killing of another person".
We don't worry about that we just move on (except niche people who deal with the rare cases of fine points and oddities like provocation and battered spouses). It's a little like various elements of mathematics, someone proves it and we eventually just accept it for the purpose. People still question it from time to time such as Newtons work. But we know that on the whole it suits the purpose and get on with accepting it.
Who does such a ban hurt? Probably no one. In practice it might because as we know various instances of web filter applications have been found that ban things like Bible sites, government sites etc. Totally unexpected results, there might be some such collateral damage here. It still doesn't alter that in life some things just get (and some things should) just get accepted because if you spend all your time fighting over some ultimately pointless item you miss the bigger picture and the more important details.
You also limit the progress you make. Fewer resources on chasing those people more to go after the others. Etc.
But again, other than a few accidental casualties, who does the ban hurt except those who want to obtain child porn? Only people in secondary or more tiers of knock on effect. Adding another perspective, if anyone accessing (and proven to have done) those servers was automatically executed without hesitation I suspect many people would think it a good thing the blocking to prevent accidental deaths.
It's also not simply an issue of "in the eye of the beholder". It is a matter of abuse or encouragement to abuse. Abuse something most would agree is wrong. What does the blocking do, it closes the door on the casual browser who might be tempted. Probably doing them a favour as it will help stop them ruining their life in perhaps an hour of boredom going one click to far. So it isn't the case of just blocking it due to its illegality but the surrounding issues.
Is it wise to ban all naked child photo's. I don't see where it is unwise, but I accept it might be. Some times though life has to be governed by practicality and if it is part of the practical solution of the time and the best we can do. That's the real world. On an extreme example if we found people with a fatal and highly contagious but incurable disease what would we do. Well it would be unfair to ban them from cities but pragmatically we would isolate them. Until we have a better solution.
In summary it is just plain stupid to not accept that this is fine. We don't want to allow the reverse argument that libraries should be keeping a stock of child porn for those who want to drop by and take the catalogue home.
Finally I'll have to go and think about the illegal being by definition bad. It's a split argument really. Of course it is bad by definition or it wouldn't be so defined. Should it be so defined is a different question. Bad is such a small word though, one for which the definition is inadequately precise to use in this discussion.
On the one hand it appears worrying because we call it censorship. On the other, we don't grumble about shops with glass that isn't easily breakable in order to prevent theft.
Where is the line between making criminal activity difficult and, well "and what?"
They aren't forced to buy but they don't really have a choice do they!
It's just another abuse of their monopoly really. "We know our customers are captive therefore we can recoup all legal costs from them eventually".
It just shows forcing publishing of the APIs without license was the only solution not one that requires cash from them as it is obvious (OK some hindsight) that it will be recouped from the customer eventually.
I think that it is legal to record a conversation if you want without telling the other person on the call. (UK)
Makes me wonder if a similar state could be argued for spyware (checking legislation required of course). If neither party where there are two or more knows things are being monitored or where you are the only party it seems logical to argue it is an illegal act.
Slashdot Mirror
My whole point really is what we mainly know, where the hell do they waste all the cash to get so little return for it?
I'm thinking they could save 7/8 of the cash by just hiring 1000 programmers for 10 years to refine their own Linux or BSD!
The point? He misses it!
It's market is probably more parents like my brother in law and sister, even my mum, who hear me talking about their latest security risk (they use Windows I don't) and are concerned enough to want to do something about it.
A simple prinicple I think gets overlooked all too often especially be those pulling multi-million euro salaries.
There will almost certainly be too many individual cases for this to work.
I don't for example expect them to come out and say only drivers of Ford cars can use the M6 motorway. Or that you are only allowed in to the physical Houses of Parliament to watch proceedings if you are wearing glasses with Gucci frames.
I hope it gets adopted for streaming coverage of the Houses of Parliament. It irritates me that as a voter I can't easily watch.
Unless of course you are south of the equator then it becomes a waste to be pointing the things South.
So if you want permanent ownership you just need to own a carefully determined path on the earth's surface.
neutrino
By selling them 800 million copies of Light Linux MS Office they at least get some share of the 800 million new users.
They could achieve the same much more effectively be producing their own fully functional .NET environment for the more popular target platforms. Then all their next generation products would potentially be able to run.
"To boldly ignore what's gone before"!
Try reading my previous post again having taken some tranquilisers.
I repeat, if you consider the market place Linux has taken off
They will buy a computer that is already OS installed and if anything needs doing that they aren't easily able to do will result in a call to their brother or son.
Apples and oranges as the expression goes.
Can you really claim that if Linux were substituted for DOS at the very beginning (accepting it might not have been a Monopoly position and therefore unable to attain global dominance) that it wouldn't be ruler?
The nit picking usability at a fine level doesn't matter to the majority of users. They don't tinker even with the little things. They just install software or plug in hardware. (And maybe tinker with their wallpaper or screen saver).
What better way to terminate projects than send a multi-billion dollar legal team after them.
You must read "Jennifer Goverment - Maxy Barry" if you haven't already:-)
Monsanto knew it was inevitable that seed would carry to other places. They did not prevent this. Therefore it should be considered a gift (or pollution).
If the gifts I am given contain patented technology I am not a patent infringer provided the gifts meet the law. In this case it would be a gift from Monsanto the patent holder and therefore presumed that patent use was allowed.
On the other hand because it is electronically sortable perhaps it will be an indispenisble archive for future historians if we don't delete any of it.
For example I would like to hear arguments why we should not ban murder. Yes even there there are perhaps grey areas such as assisted suicide of the suffering but it is overwhelmingly a hard area of "you cannot commit unlawful killing of another person".
We don't worry about that we just move on (except niche people who deal with the rare cases of fine points and oddities like provocation and battered spouses). It's a little like various elements of mathematics, someone proves it and we eventually just accept it for the purpose. People still question it from time to time such as Newtons work. But we know that on the whole it suits the purpose and get on with accepting it.
Who does such a ban hurt? Probably no one. In practice it might because as we know various instances of web filter applications have been found that ban things like Bible sites, government sites etc. Totally unexpected results, there might be some such collateral damage here. It still doesn't alter that in life some things just get (and some things should) just get accepted because if you spend all your time fighting over some ultimately pointless item you miss the bigger picture and the more important details.
You also limit the progress you make. Fewer resources on chasing those people more to go after the others. Etc.
But again, other than a few accidental casualties, who does the ban hurt except those who want to obtain child porn? Only people in secondary or more tiers of knock on effect. Adding another perspective, if anyone accessing (and proven to have done) those servers was automatically executed without hesitation I suspect many people would think it a good thing the blocking to prevent accidental deaths.
It's also not simply an issue of "in the eye of the beholder". It is a matter of abuse or encouragement to abuse. Abuse something most would agree is wrong. What does the blocking do, it closes the door on the casual browser who might be tempted. Probably doing them a favour as it will help stop them ruining their life in perhaps an hour of boredom going one click to far. So it isn't the case of just blocking it due to its illegality but the surrounding issues.
Is it wise to ban all naked child photo's. I don't see where it is unwise, but I accept it might be. Some times though life has to be governed by practicality and if it is part of the practical solution of the time and the best we can do. That's the real world. On an extreme example if we found people with a fatal and highly contagious but incurable disease what would we do. Well it would be unfair to ban them from cities but pragmatically we would isolate them. Until we have a better solution.
In summary it is just plain stupid to not accept that this is fine. We don't want to allow the reverse argument that libraries should be keeping a stock of child porn for those who want to drop by and take the catalogue home.
Finally I'll have to go and think about the illegal being by definition bad. It's a split argument really. Of course it is bad by definition or it wouldn't be so defined. Should it be so defined is a different question. Bad is such a small word though, one for which the definition is inadequately precise to use in this discussion.
Where is the line between making criminal activity difficult and, well "and what?"
It's just another abuse of their monopoly really. "We know our customers are captive therefore we can recoup all legal costs from them eventually".
It just shows forcing publishing of the APIs without license was the only solution not one that requires cash from them as it is obvious (OK some hindsight) that it will be recouped from the customer eventually.
On that basis it seems a stupid suit.
Makes me wonder if a similar state could be argued for spyware (checking legislation required of course). If neither party where there are two or more knows things are being monitored or where you are the only party it seems logical to argue it is an illegal act.