Amounts to religion from the response point of view, because what they believe becomes a part of their reality and self image, and when you question the belief, they take it as a personal attack because it's easier to attack the person attacking the idea than to look again at their beliefs and change their self image and world view to coincide with the new data. What you describe is dogmatism, not religion.
It's all well-and-good to "question a belief" in science. However, for it to be a proper scientific response, it must propose a scientifically-valid alternative.
Most scientists are open to alternative hypothesis. However, those alternatives will have to 1) explain the evidence as well as evolution, and 2) make testable predictions about things which are not known, and that evolution can't predict.
That is, you'll have to present a better alternative.
The reason scientists (and those interested in science) get so het up over "intelligent design" is that ID is not a better hypothesis. It's not even an hypothesis, as it makes no predictions.
Your definition of "religion" is a bit suspect, and your characterization of scientists' reactions as dogmatic is absurd. Just because they don't like your pet non-scientific explanation hardly makes them dogmatic. It just means the idea is not scientific, and so doesn't even belong in the same conversation as evolution.
Now, to which new data do you refer? I'm not aware of any new data that either invalidates the theory of evolution through natural selection, nor makes intelligent design a scientific hypothesis.
Calculate the probability of all aggregate mutations required for all proposed "irreducibly complex" structures, given the population size and timeframe?
Irreducible complexity is a red herring. Every single proposed irreducibly complex structure that has been presented has been given plausible explanations that don't involve simultaneous adaptations. (NOT mutations. Not every adaptation is a mutation.) "Irreducible complexity" is just a fancy way of begging the question.
That's not what I've observed. Whenever anyone changes lanes, the person in front of whom the driver has merged has to slow a little to maintain a safe following distance.
I fucking hate those folks who merge at the last possible minute, especially when they have to force their way in due to congestion. If you don't have the intelligence to get in your lane a little early, you don't have the intelligence to drive a fucking dangerous vehicle. You're just contributing to the problem, idiot! It's just casual selfishness that saves very little real time, and just adds to the problem.
With increased game capabilities, you get increased storage requirements. The Blu-Ray is important in that a standard DVD will no longer hold all the game data for many modern games. So, to squeeze things down to fit onto a DVD, game makers are *already* sacrificing texture quality, number/complexity of levels, and amount of cinematics.
A high-density storage format is a necessity for large high-def games. This is why the PS3 will win over the 360 in the long run (but the Wii will still kick both their asses, because Nintendo is more concerned with gameplay than purty pictures).
...you could not come close to it's functionality with that original patent's design... Uhm... what functionality is that, exactly? It seems it has one function: to separate fools from their money in the service of richer fools. In that way, it seems to work identically to the 1960's version, only with a cooler name.
And: it sounds like it was named by an eight-year-old.
Visual Studio is a pig, but the benefits of it far outweigh the cost of upgrading your old broke-ass computer every few years.
Benefits? Oh, I don't think so.
In MNSHO, VS is a piece of shit. It's OK for beginning programmers, or for people who churn out lame-assed GUI-centric MS-Windows software, but for big or complex projects, it fucking blows. It's only OK if you want to code like Microsoft has decided you should code.
They have a *lot* of leverage to use for bribes. "Say, you want all the top-40 crap exclusively on MS-Windows Live? That's easy. Just make sure all equipment must have DRM built-in."
It's already happening. That's why Microsoft is so willing to add end-to-end DRM to MS-Windows.
I know you are just making a joke, but the joke's on us. Gates already has more influence via Microsoft than all the government regulation in the computer industry combined.
The ENTIRE THING was preventable by not invading a sovereign nation and killing a messload of innocent civilians in the name of... what exactly was it again? I seem to have forgotten.
*sigh*
I hate it when people trivialize the reason the US went into Iraq.
It's a *very* complex, very powerful function of time. However, it can be simply summarized thusly:
Begin: Terrorists are hiding out in Iraq, and Iraq had something to do with 9/11
Month 1: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Month 2: Liberate Iraq from the tyranny of a dictator
Month 3: Bring democracy to the Middle East in order to stabilize it
Month 4: Them WMDs are still out there, and they're not going to destroy themselves, you know
Month 5: Iraq is going to flourish now they have democracy
Month 6: Mission accomplished!
Month 7: That dictator had help hiding the WMDs, but we'll find them once we're in complete control
Month 8: Iraqis are fighting back! They're terrorists! See? We told you they were there!...
Month 42: Iran is building WMDs!
Know what I hate? It was so patently obvious Iraq had no WMDs, and no capability of developing anything more dangerous than mixing bleach with ammonia.
It's over 6 years since 9/11, and we're no closer to catching bin Laden than we were at the beginning. Didn't somebody famous vow he would bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice? Now, I know that vows don't mean a lot to everyone, but they *should* matter to the leader of the world's most powerful nation. But, then again, he vowed to uphold and protect the Constitution, as well.
Oh, well. Fuck it. I am trying to let go of my hate, so I may find peace.
Somebody on this planet should have peace, anyway.
Signing statements will probably not hold up, if it ever came to a legal battle. There's nothing nowhere nohow that grants the President the ability to create legislation. His sole legislative power is the veto.
With a bit of luck, our congress or court system will grow a pair (and maybe a spine) and take on that stupid fucker and his signing statements.
If an inventor wants to monetize his invention, he should either develop it himself or license it to a company to develop.
I think that's the *best* way to revamp our "intellectual property" laws. Change it so that patents and copyrights may only be held by the individuals who created the work or invented the patentable idea. Corporations should be barred from owning the copyrights or patents. The only IP a corporation may own is its trademarks.
Patents would be good for the standard 20 years, or to the death of the patent holders, whichever comes first. Copyrights would be good for the life of the authors. I mean, why the hell not? Sure, that might be 80 years, but what the hell. It's not like we *need* it.
Non-transferable, individually-granted patents and copyrights are really the only way to move back to a fair IP structure. Granted, it makes the assumption that copyrights and patents actually encourage progress rather than hinder it (which is an article of faith-- they has not been shown to help at all).
A couple breaking the promise of marriage, or a parent breaking a promise to their son or daughter is really no different...
Marriage is a tad different, in that the things that are promised ("vowed," which is a word we don't hear often enough without irony) are impossible to promise. You may say you will love, cherish, and respect another until the day you die, but you are not promising something you can, in good faith, honestly *know* you can deliver.
People change. Feelings change. Circumstances change. To promise to love someone forever is not a realistic promise. You can promise to *try*. But you can't promise you *will.* At least, not with any real certainty.
In business (and in promises to kids or spouses about realistic promises), you are promising to deliver something that is within your ability. If you promised something you *can't* deliver, you are a liar. If you renege, you are a cheat (in the case of business).
I do wish there were a code of honor these days, but there isn't. Instead, misinformation, lies, and manipulation are the norm in politics and business. So, why shouldn't it be the norm in our day-to-day lives, as well?
Oh, well. If you do your best to be honorable, I will also do my best to be honorable. If we can get a few hundred thousand to also be honorable, we might be able to change things for the better.
The majority of the acts of terrorism in the US were by home-grown nutjobs, not some Middle Eastern imports. 9/11 notwithstanding, the chances of a terrorist attack in the US is exceptionally small. Hell, we get one about once a decade. And that's it. (Except for the 90s, which had the first WTC event, OK City, and the Unabomber. What a great decade!)
There are more people killed by gun-toting relatives in the US than by Islamofascists. Before 9/11, there were more people killed in the US by Christiofascists than by Islamofascists. I think the concern about terrorist attacks is so overblown, it's reached the state of self-parody.
(No, I don't support gun control. I'd just like to point out that you're *at least* 30 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than by a terrorist attack in the US, and over 120 times more likely to die in a car accident. That assumes one 9/11-sized event every ten years.)
A "logical fallacy" is one which is false. That is, and *instance* of the slippery-slope argument might be fallacious, but the slippery-slope technique in general is not fallacious.
What I infer from what you say is that the slippery-slope argument is not fallacious, but insufficient. And on that, I agree. Simply invoking the slippery-slope is not good enough. You'll have to back it up.
In this case of the Real ID, we've already seen the "slippery-slope" happening. It's not only logical that it will slide down that slope, but inevitable. The question is not "if," it's "when." With the DHS grasping for more power, that time seems now.
Paul wants the Federal Department of Education gone, because they make a mess of education.
Our education system is a mess, but I'm not sure it's the DE's fault. Partly it's the fault of parents who don't take an interest or actively participate in their own child's education. Partly it's a funding system that penalizes poor neighborhoods. Partly it's the politicization of education, and not just by the DE.
What is Congressman Paul's suggestion for fixing our education system?
As for his campaign's answers: they were generally vague and not very informative. The answer to question 4 was essentially a restatement of the (very leading) question. I actually know *less* about his positions than I did going in, because I assumed he *had* positions.
I do like his support of the Constitution. I don't like his ideas of privatizing national infrastructure. I do like his ideas on the limited effectiveness of the President. I don't like his ideas on patents. ("Patents have a role to play in encouraging innovation." This is a baseless assertion with no supporting evidence, an axiom of ignorance.) I don't know what I think of his ideas on space exploration, since his campaign didn't answer that question well, though I *really* like the idea of reducing military spending to a level consistent with national defense, and not world offense.
So, while his goal of supporting the constitution is admirable, there are practical questions that are left unanswered.
Let's do away with taxes. And, we can do away with all the things taxes pay for: the education system that trains Microsoft's employees, the roads that allow the employees to get to work, the police that help protect Microsoft from the roving bands of rabid cats, the standing militia that protects Washington from invasion by Canada. (Those bastards covet Washington, and are just *waiting* to invade.)
Corporations benefit from -- nay, depend on! -- public infrastructure. Public infrastructure costs money. It's been proven time and again that private interests cannot provide neutral, equitable infrastructure at a reasonable price. Taxes are necessary.
Now, taxing both corporations and individuals seems a bit of double-dipping, I agree. Tax the corporations, and let the individuals keep their wages. Politicians would end up with a lot more votes that way (though a lot less money through corporate sponsorship and whatnot).
The patents involve Xenix. Look it up sometime, it may seem oddly familiar.
That's funny-- the patent lifetime is 20 years in the US. Since Microsoft sold it's derivative of AT&T's Unix to SCO[1] in 1987, it seems unlikely that the patents involve Xenix in any way.
Microsoft didn't really do any real research on Xenix. It was a pretty straight-forward 16-bit port of the AT&T source code, with lots of BSD code thrown in for flavor. This was a big deal mostly because they were getting Unix code to run on standard microprocessors. Once that was done, they licensed Xenix to SCO and a bunch of other companies, who ported it to their own platforms. Most of this was done in the early 80s. Back then, Microsoft wasn't applying for too many patents. And, since this was a port of existing code, there was little opportunity for "worthy" patents. If there were, they would've been granted over twenty years ago, and so would have expired by now.
Anyway, not to put too fine a point on it: it's extremely unlikely these patent threats involve Microsoft's port of AT&T's UNIX.
[1] SCO as in, "Santa Cruz Operation," not as in "We used to be Caldera, but wanted to confuse people into thinking we're Santa Cruz Operation."
...why on earth does a music store have to be an application instead of a website?
The rest of your post is hard to answer (other than, "Apple likes to control everything because Jobs is a control enthusiast and that's the way to wring as much money as possible"). This, however, is pretty easy.
The reason is: because iTunes is really an application to fill your iPod with music. Most PMPs come with a program to help manage your media. The iPod has iTunes. The iTunes store is there because... well, once you have a vice grip on a market, you milk it for all it's worth. (I hope you like your mixed metaphors shaken, not stirred.) And if you could purchase music from the iTunes store and put it on a Creative Sansa, for instance, there'd be more Creative Sansas sold, and a couple of fewer iPods, because some people don't like Apple or their products, but sure complain when Apple won't sell them an unbundled iPhone.
If the iTunes store were a website (which would be *way* too convenient for customers, and *way* too hard for Apple to control), you'd have to make it so the iPod was just a USB storage device or somesuch, to which you could simply copy your songs and pictures and movies. This doesn't play well with the people who actually *own* the music: the evil one-eyed persian-cat-petting bastards who own and run the world-conquering record companies.
So, until Chuck Norris decides to use his karate chop of justice to break Apple's DRM-chokehold, we are doomed to a world of iPhone-flashing yuppies and children with white earphones.
Microsoft was never about giving the customer what they wanted. Microsoft has been about making sure the customer only had access to Microsoft products. That meant they had to have products in the first place, sure; but Microsoft has manipulated the market so they were the only ones available. (This is heavily documented in their anti-trust trials).
They started doing this once IBM gave them an exclusive contract to provide MS-DOS for the original IBM PC. By the time Compaq and co. had their clones ready, MS-DOS was the only game in town. Later, when DR-DOS came around, it started making *serious* inroads. Microsoft then made per-processor deals with the OEMs, making sure a copy of MS-DOS was sold with every processor, whether it *shipped* with the processor or not. This made it economically difficult for the OEMs to sell DR-DOS instead of MS-DOS. (DR-DOS was *far* superior to MS-DOS.)
It's these bundling deals that kept Microsoft at the head of the market all those years. Once they got a significant lead, it became impossible for any other competitor to create a competing product.
Microsoft was helped by some incredibly stupid decisions by other companies, true. (SEE Novell, and their handling of Word Perfect and Novell Office, for instance.) However, it' Microsoft's ability to warp the market to their own ends that has kept them on top, *not* giving the customer what they wanted. (They were so successful at market manipulation, the customer often never knew there *was* an option.)
When there's only one trail, the customer can't walk. That's what monopoly abuse is all about. We don't call it "lock-in" just to amuse ourselves.
Anything by the "Beagle Bros" for just plain hacking fun
Ah! That took me back so fast, my brain is whiplashed. Painful.
I loved the Beagle Bros. They had some of the *coolest* hacks. I learned more about the Apple system from them than from anywhere else. Between Beagle Bros and the Sweet-16 mini-assembler (no more hand assembling! yes!), the Apple ][ was the *greatest* platform for budding programmers.
When people claim Microsoft started the computer revolution, I laugh gently, pat them on the head, and say, "Ah, you're so *cute*." The Apple ][ started it, followed by all the others: Commodore, Atari, Tandy, etc. *Those* were the days.
Not that I'd go back. I do like where we're at today (though we should've been here 10 years ago).
In my experience, VMs are used more for management simplicity, rather than their security, stability, or simplicity (the whole point of microkernels). Most people who use VMs do so to either a) make better use of hardware by running multiple operating system instances, or b) create a disk-based image of a running system for backup and restore (and other management) purposes.
It's all about the ease of management, rather than the things a microkernel cares about.
He mentions them because they meet his design goal: they are highly-reliable operating systems used in mission-critical applications. (Here, "mission" might be, "Bombing the fuck out of people.") He is building his case that it's easier to design a bullet-proof OS using a microkernel, as opposed to a monolithic kernel.
And he's right. If your goal is reliability and security, a microkernel is a better design. Both goals rely on limiting the amount of time (and the amount of code) spent in kernel space. "Process isolation" is the mantra.
NeXTStep was a hybrid kernel. It was *almost* a microkernel (based on Mach). And, it was *highly* usable. It had the most usable UI in the industry, and still does in its current reincarnation as OS-X.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all well-and-good to "question a belief" in science. However, for it to be a proper scientific response, it must propose a scientifically-valid alternative.
Most scientists are open to alternative hypothesis. However, those alternatives will have to 1) explain the evidence as well as evolution, and 2) make testable predictions about things which are not known, and that evolution can't predict.
That is, you'll have to present a better alternative.
The reason scientists (and those interested in science) get so het up over "intelligent design" is that ID is not a better hypothesis. It's not even an hypothesis, as it makes no predictions.
Your definition of "religion" is a bit suspect, and your characterization of scientists' reactions as dogmatic is absurd. Just because they don't like your pet non-scientific explanation hardly makes them dogmatic. It just means the idea is not scientific, and so doesn't even belong in the same conversation as evolution.
Now, to which new data do you refer? I'm not aware of any new data that either invalidates the theory of evolution through natural selection, nor makes intelligent design a scientific hypothesis.
That explains a lot.
Calculate the probability of all aggregate mutations required for all proposed "irreducibly complex" structures, given the population size and timeframe?
Irreducible complexity is a red herring. Every single proposed irreducibly complex structure that has been presented has been given plausible explanations that don't involve simultaneous adaptations. (NOT mutations. Not every adaptation is a mutation.) "Irreducible complexity" is just a fancy way of begging the question.
That's not what I've observed. Whenever anyone changes lanes, the person in front of whom the driver has merged has to slow a little to maintain a safe following distance.
I fucking hate those folks who merge at the last possible minute, especially when they have to force their way in due to congestion. If you don't have the intelligence to get in your lane a little early, you don't have the intelligence to drive a fucking dangerous vehicle. You're just contributing to the problem, idiot! It's just casual selfishness that saves very little real time, and just adds to the problem.
Anyway, I guess I'm just saying, "Me, too."
They were *killed* by the bullet. They were *murdered* by the one pulling the trigger.
Seems simple enough.
With increased game capabilities, you get increased storage requirements. The Blu-Ray is important in that a standard DVD will no longer hold all the game data for many modern games. So, to squeeze things down to fit onto a DVD, game makers are *already* sacrificing texture quality, number/complexity of levels, and amount of cinematics.
A high-density storage format is a necessity for large high-def games. This is why the PS3 will win over the 360 in the long run (but the Wii will still kick both their asses, because Nintendo is more concerned with gameplay than purty pictures).
...you could not come close to it's functionality with that original patent's design... Uhm... what functionality is that, exactly? It seems it has one function: to separate fools from their money in the service of richer fools. In that way, it seems to work identically to the 1960's version, only with a cooler name.And: it sounds like it was named by an eight-year-old.
Benefits? Oh, I don't think so.
In MNSHO, VS is a piece of shit. It's OK for beginning programmers, or for people who churn out lame-assed GUI-centric MS-Windows software, but for big or complex projects, it fucking blows. It's only OK if you want to code like Microsoft has decided you should code.
Otherwise, it's a straitjacket.
1. Do you have any evidence for this?
2. Well, then. It's not science, is it?
You're kidding, right?
They have a *lot* of leverage to use for bribes. "Say, you want all the top-40 crap exclusively on MS-Windows Live? That's easy. Just make sure all equipment must have DRM built-in."
It's already happening. That's why Microsoft is so willing to add end-to-end DRM to MS-Windows.
I know you are just making a joke, but the joke's on us. Gates already has more influence via Microsoft than all the government regulation in the computer industry combined.
The ENTIRE THING was preventable by not invading a sovereign nation and killing a messload of innocent civilians in the name of... what exactly was it again? I seem to have forgotten.
...
*sigh*
I hate it when people trivialize the reason the US went into Iraq.
It's a *very* complex, very powerful function of time. However, it can be simply summarized thusly:
Begin: Terrorists are hiding out in Iraq, and Iraq had something to do with 9/11
Month 1: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Month 2: Liberate Iraq from the tyranny of a dictator
Month 3: Bring democracy to the Middle East in order to stabilize it
Month 4: Them WMDs are still out there, and they're not going to destroy themselves, you know
Month 5: Iraq is going to flourish now they have democracy
Month 6: Mission accomplished!
Month 7: That dictator had help hiding the WMDs, but we'll find them once we're in complete control
Month 8: Iraqis are fighting back! They're terrorists! See? We told you they were there!
Month 42: Iran is building WMDs!
Know what I hate? It was so patently obvious Iraq had no WMDs, and no capability of developing anything more dangerous than mixing bleach with ammonia.
It's over 6 years since 9/11, and we're no closer to catching bin Laden than we were at the beginning. Didn't somebody famous vow he would bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice? Now, I know that vows don't mean a lot to everyone, but they *should* matter to the leader of the world's most powerful nation. But, then again, he vowed to uphold and protect the Constitution, as well.
Oh, well. Fuck it. I am trying to let go of my hate, so I may find peace.
Somebody on this planet should have peace, anyway.
Signing statements will probably not hold up, if it ever came to a legal battle. There's nothing nowhere nohow that grants the President the ability to create legislation. His sole legislative power is the veto.
With a bit of luck, our congress or court system will grow a pair (and maybe a spine) and take on that stupid fucker and his signing statements.
If an inventor wants to monetize his invention, he should either develop it himself or license it to a company to develop.
I think that's the *best* way to revamp our "intellectual property" laws. Change it so that patents and copyrights may only be held by the individuals who created the work or invented the patentable idea. Corporations should be barred from owning the copyrights or patents. The only IP a corporation may own is its trademarks.
Patents would be good for the standard 20 years, or to the death of the patent holders, whichever comes first. Copyrights would be good for the life of the authors. I mean, why the hell not? Sure, that might be 80 years, but what the hell. It's not like we *need* it.
Non-transferable, individually-granted patents and copyrights are really the only way to move back to a fair IP structure. Granted, it makes the assumption that copyrights and patents actually encourage progress rather than hinder it (which is an article of faith-- they has not been shown to help at all).
A couple breaking the promise of marriage, or a parent breaking a promise to their son or daughter is really no different...
Marriage is a tad different, in that the things that are promised ("vowed," which is a word we don't hear often enough without irony) are impossible to promise. You may say you will love, cherish, and respect another until the day you die, but you are not promising something you can, in good faith, honestly *know* you can deliver.
People change. Feelings change. Circumstances change. To promise to love someone forever is not a realistic promise. You can promise to *try*. But you can't promise you *will.* At least, not with any real certainty.
In business (and in promises to kids or spouses about realistic promises), you are promising to deliver something that is within your ability. If you promised something you *can't* deliver, you are a liar. If you renege, you are a cheat (in the case of business).
I do wish there were a code of honor these days, but there isn't. Instead, misinformation, lies, and manipulation are the norm in politics and business. So, why shouldn't it be the norm in our day-to-day lives, as well?
Oh, well. If you do your best to be honorable, I will also do my best to be honorable. If we can get a few hundred thousand to also be honorable, we might be able to change things for the better.
I wouldn't count on it, though.
The majority of the acts of terrorism in the US were by home-grown nutjobs, not some Middle Eastern imports. 9/11 notwithstanding, the chances of a terrorist attack in the US is exceptionally small. Hell, we get one about once a decade. And that's it. (Except for the 90s, which had the first WTC event, OK City, and the Unabomber. What a great decade!)
There are more people killed by gun-toting relatives in the US than by Islamofascists. Before 9/11, there were more people killed in the US by Christiofascists than by Islamofascists. I think the concern about terrorist attacks is so overblown, it's reached the state of self-parody.
(No, I don't support gun control. I'd just like to point out that you're *at least* 30 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than by a terrorist attack in the US, and over 120 times more likely to die in a car accident. That assumes one 9/11-sized event every ten years.)
A "logical fallacy" is one which is false. That is, and *instance* of the slippery-slope argument might be fallacious, but the slippery-slope technique in general is not fallacious.
What I infer from what you say is that the slippery-slope argument is not fallacious, but insufficient. And on that, I agree. Simply invoking the slippery-slope is not good enough. You'll have to back it up.
In this case of the Real ID, we've already seen the "slippery-slope" happening. It's not only logical that it will slide down that slope, but inevitable. The question is not "if," it's "when." With the DHS grasping for more power, that time seems now.
Paul wants the Federal Department of Education gone, because they make a mess of education.
Our education system is a mess, but I'm not sure it's the DE's fault. Partly it's the fault of parents who don't take an interest or actively participate in their own child's education. Partly it's a funding system that penalizes poor neighborhoods. Partly it's the politicization of education, and not just by the DE.
What is Congressman Paul's suggestion for fixing our education system?
As for his campaign's answers: they were generally vague and not very informative. The answer to question 4 was essentially a restatement of the (very leading) question. I actually know *less* about his positions than I did going in, because I assumed he *had* positions.
I do like his support of the Constitution. I don't like his ideas of privatizing national infrastructure. I do like his ideas on the limited effectiveness of the President. I don't like his ideas on patents. ("Patents have a role to play in encouraging innovation." This is a baseless assertion with no supporting evidence, an axiom of ignorance.) I don't know what I think of his ideas on space exploration, since his campaign didn't answer that question well, though I *really* like the idea of reducing military spending to a level consistent with national defense, and not world offense.
So, while his goal of supporting the constitution is admirable, there are practical questions that are left unanswered.
Let's do away with taxes. And, we can do away with all the things taxes pay for: the education system that trains Microsoft's employees, the roads that allow the employees to get to work, the police that help protect Microsoft from the roving bands of rabid cats, the standing militia that protects Washington from invasion by Canada. (Those bastards covet Washington, and are just *waiting* to invade.)
Corporations benefit from -- nay, depend on! -- public infrastructure. Public infrastructure costs money. It's been proven time and again that private interests cannot provide neutral, equitable infrastructure at a reasonable price. Taxes are necessary.
Now, taxing both corporations and individuals seems a bit of double-dipping, I agree. Tax the corporations, and let the individuals keep their wages. Politicians would end up with a lot more votes that way (though a lot less money through corporate sponsorship and whatnot).
The patents involve Xenix. Look it up sometime, it may seem oddly familiar.
That's funny-- the patent lifetime is 20 years in the US. Since Microsoft sold it's derivative of AT&T's Unix to SCO[1] in 1987, it seems unlikely that the patents involve Xenix in any way.
Microsoft didn't really do any real research on Xenix. It was a pretty straight-forward 16-bit port of the AT&T source code, with lots of BSD code thrown in for flavor. This was a big deal mostly because they were getting Unix code to run on standard microprocessors. Once that was done, they licensed Xenix to SCO and a bunch of other companies, who ported it to their own platforms. Most of this was done in the early 80s. Back then, Microsoft wasn't applying for too many patents. And, since this was a port of existing code, there was little opportunity for "worthy" patents. If there were, they would've been granted over twenty years ago, and so would have expired by now.
Anyway, not to put too fine a point on it: it's extremely unlikely these patent threats involve Microsoft's port of AT&T's UNIX.
[1] SCO as in, "Santa Cruz Operation," not as in "We used to be Caldera, but wanted to confuse people into thinking we're Santa Cruz Operation."
...why on earth does a music store have to be an application instead of a website?
The rest of your post is hard to answer (other than, "Apple likes to control everything because Jobs is a control enthusiast and that's the way to wring as much money as possible"). This, however, is pretty easy.
The reason is: because iTunes is really an application to fill your iPod with music. Most PMPs come with a program to help manage your media. The iPod has iTunes. The iTunes store is there because... well, once you have a vice grip on a market, you milk it for all it's worth. (I hope you like your mixed metaphors shaken, not stirred.) And if you could purchase music from the iTunes store and put it on a Creative Sansa, for instance, there'd be more Creative Sansas sold, and a couple of fewer iPods, because some people don't like Apple or their products, but sure complain when Apple won't sell them an unbundled iPhone.
If the iTunes store were a website (which would be *way* too convenient for customers, and *way* too hard for Apple to control), you'd have to make it so the iPod was just a USB storage device or somesuch, to which you could simply copy your songs and pictures and movies. This doesn't play well with the people who actually *own* the music: the evil one-eyed persian-cat-petting bastards who own and run the world-conquering record companies.
So, until Chuck Norris decides to use his karate chop of justice to break Apple's DRM-chokehold, we are doomed to a world of iPhone-flashing yuppies and children with white earphones.
Microsoft was never about giving the customer what they wanted. Microsoft has been about making sure the customer only had access to Microsoft products. That meant they had to have products in the first place, sure; but Microsoft has manipulated the market so they were the only ones available. (This is heavily documented in their anti-trust trials).
They started doing this once IBM gave them an exclusive contract to provide MS-DOS for the original IBM PC. By the time Compaq and co. had their clones ready, MS-DOS was the only game in town. Later, when DR-DOS came around, it started making *serious* inroads. Microsoft then made per-processor deals with the OEMs, making sure a copy of MS-DOS was sold with every processor, whether it *shipped* with the processor or not. This made it economically difficult for the OEMs to sell DR-DOS instead of MS-DOS. (DR-DOS was *far* superior to MS-DOS.)
It's these bundling deals that kept Microsoft at the head of the market all those years. Once they got a significant lead, it became impossible for any other competitor to create a competing product.
Microsoft was helped by some incredibly stupid decisions by other companies, true. (SEE Novell, and their handling of Word Perfect and Novell Office, for instance.) However, it' Microsoft's ability to warp the market to their own ends that has kept them on top, *not* giving the customer what they wanted. (They were so successful at market manipulation, the customer often never knew there *was* an option.)
When there's only one trail, the customer can't walk. That's what monopoly abuse is all about. We don't call it "lock-in" just to amuse ourselves.
Anything by the "Beagle Bros" for just plain hacking fun
Ah! That took me back so fast, my brain is whiplashed. Painful.
I loved the Beagle Bros. They had some of the *coolest* hacks. I learned more about the Apple system from them than from anywhere else. Between Beagle Bros and the Sweet-16 mini-assembler (no more hand assembling! yes!), the Apple ][ was the *greatest* platform for budding programmers.
When people claim Microsoft started the computer revolution, I laugh gently, pat them on the head, and say, "Ah, you're so *cute*." The Apple ][ started it, followed by all the others: Commodore, Atari, Tandy, etc. *Those* were the days.
Not that I'd go back. I do like where we're at today (though we should've been here 10 years ago).
Space Invaders.
Star Wars.
Aztec.
In my experience, VMs are used more for management simplicity, rather than their security, stability, or simplicity (the whole point of microkernels). Most people who use VMs do so to either a) make better use of hardware by running multiple operating system instances, or b) create a disk-based image of a running system for backup and restore (and other management) purposes.
It's all about the ease of management, rather than the things a microkernel cares about.
He mentions them because they meet his design goal: they are highly-reliable operating systems used in mission-critical applications. (Here, "mission" might be, "Bombing the fuck out of people.") He is building his case that it's easier to design a bullet-proof OS using a microkernel, as opposed to a monolithic kernel.
And he's right. If your goal is reliability and security, a microkernel is a better design. Both goals rely on limiting the amount of time (and the amount of code) spent in kernel space. "Process isolation" is the mantra.
NeXTStep was a hybrid kernel. It was *almost* a microkernel (based on Mach). And, it was *highly* usable. It had the most usable UI in the industry, and still does in its current reincarnation as OS-X.
I think microkernels still have legs.