The OpenSUSE list indeed is open and probably does get what some might perceive as unwanted messages, as well as messages which would be better received and heard if placed somewhere else.
And that is the point, as I understood, elysiuan was making. A point from the view of Ubuntu, or more precisely from the view of Mark's intentions. Not from the view of the OpenSuse list, which is open.
I.e. Mark's objectives would have been better served by a post to his blog.
I do agree.
A message to their list, despite it being open, may seem to many as a "developer hunt" or "raid". To likened to some corporations practice: "stealing" their competition's employees. It may just seem unfair. Therefore not really serving Ubuntu's interests, or even the FLOSS comunity's interests.
A post to Mark's blog would have made a good enough point, IMO, letting choice play it's role, well in the spirit of FLOSS.
A US$ 200,00 used laptop won't give you an OLPC laptop. (Much less a used desktop PC.) It will give you something else. Which one is better will vary immensely as one perceives one's own needs.
I for one value the OLPC's display (e.g. High-resolution, reflective monochrome mode) and wireless capabilities. From the OLPC Wiki's main page:
We have reached an important milestone: the dual-mode display works in prototype! We have been counting on Mary Lou Jepsen's new approach to LCD displays to help us achieve our price and power consumption targets and enable our expected models of indoor and outdoor use, while also rapidly achieving mass production. We now have a display that can readily be mass produced in standard LCD factories, with no process changes. Our display has higher resolution than 95% of the laptop displays on the market today; approximately 1/7th the power consumption; 1/3rd the price; sunlight readability; and room-light readability with the backlight off.
I find such developments quite exciting and promising. Notwithstanding, the OLPC laptop certainly is plenty technologically innovative in it's other features, such as power management. By the way, it includes a "10 to 25 V, -23 to -10 V, 2-pin DC-input".
It's size ("tiny") can well be considered a coveted feature, instead of a demeaning factor.
Last but not least, the OLPC project does not aim to "solve third world problems". Some would think this is pretty obvious. From the OLPC Wiki's main page:
The mission of this non-profit association is to develop a low-cost laptop--the "$100 Laptop"--a technology that could revolutionize how we educate the world's children. Our goal is to provide children around the world with new opportunities to explore, experiment, and express themselves.
Why do children in developing nations need laptops? Laptops are both a window and a tool: a window into the world and a tool with which to think. They are a wonderful way for all children to learn learning through independent interaction and exploration.
And not all developing country children's problems are about "teachers who won't get shot, kids who won't go hungry, parents who won't die from AIDS, and/or textbooks that won't be burned for fuel". (And I live in a developing country.)
These certainly are grave problems which should demand extremely serious attention and immediate adequate action by all countries (developed, developing etc). But these problems go beyond the OLPC project's specific aims and capabilities. (Although they may be indericetlly targeted.) As other slashdotters have allready posted, the project is doing what it can do best to improve the life of many children, which is both exciting and extremely laudable. That's why I and many others not only support the project, but (A) hope others (governments, organizations, common people) will too, and (B) are willing to subsidize the project by sponsoring one or two laptops in exchange for having the opportunity of owning one.
By the way, I am very curious about the new and innovative ways that I'm sure the millions of children would put their laptops to use, meaning that I'm also looking forward to learn new ways in which such technology can serve us.
Memory leaks can cause Firefox not to release memory that it is no longer using, especially with older versions. There has been a lot of effort to reduce the leaks in recent versions, and Mozilla developers have have created tools to detect them. [4][5] To minimize leaks, you should upgrade to the most recent version. The most common memory leaks appear to be fixed in Firefox 2.[6]
On music selection, you're right. It's not an iTunes Store.
Being a DRM-free music store probably keeps the major labels away, and others that are afraid of selling MP3s.
Actually I don't know if emusic is fair in their deals with artists. But if you want to browse the emusic collection: http://www.emusic.com/browse/all.html.
I first decided to subscribe because I did find some artists that interested me. Since then (10 months already) it has been a quite nice way to discover some music I would never have listened to.
I know a lot of Slashdotters hate iTunes for "DRM", "not HD(TV) quality", "too expensive", or whatever other B.S. excuse they can come up with, but...
Q: No, but you've asked them not to raise their prices, when some of them wanted to.
A: Our core initial strategy on the store was that if you want to stop piracy, the way to stop it is by competing with it, by offering a better product at a fair price. In essence, we would make a deal with people. If they would pay a fair price, we would give them a better product and they would stop being pirates
...THIS is why I support iTunes. [...]
And THIS is why I support emusic, that is DRM-free.
Abstract:
According to a computer-implemented approach for renting items to customers, customers specify what items to rent using item selection criteria separate from deciding when to receive the specified items. According to the approach, customers provide item selection criteria to a provider provides the items indicated by the item selection criteria to customer over a delivery channel. The provider may be either centralized or distributed depending upon the requirements of a particular application. A "Max Out" approach allows up to a specified number of items to be rented simultaneously to customers. A "Max Turns" approach allows up to a specified number of item exchanges to occur during a specified period of time. The "Max Out" and "Max Turns" approaches may be used together or separately with a variety of subscription methodologies.
If 'enough' random searches are done then I expect they would be effective. Clearly, it is unresonable to search everybody so it's a trade-off between cost, time and hastle. The exact number of searches you conduct will depend precisely on how you way up these trade-offs. It will also depend on how much training your provide to the people conducting the searches.
If it is a matter of weighing costs and results, it can be efficient, but not effective, necessarily. Efficient being: doing the most possible with the less possible, in a way that acceptable results can be obtained with chances or error that are acceptable too.
Effectiveness would be having the exact desired result. That could only be possible by screening everybody, regardless of perceived profiles and effectiveness (for these imply random errors).
Therefore random screening can only be (statistically) efficient, because, for a sample selected for screening there will always be a chance of error (presumably controlled). The fact is, one can never know when that 5% or 1% error or the "outliers" (data or results not accounted for in a statistical model) will show up.
A conundrum it is. Certainty is always evasive (being temporary. Actually it never is permanent)... if one relies only on rational and human means.
On such matters I would recommend reading a text by Alasdair MacIntyre, actually a chapter of his book "After Virtue". The chpater's title is "The Character of Generalisations in Social Science and their Lack of Predictive Power". Very well written and extremely well thought out.
Presumably the demand comes from those who would prefer to use Linux if only it had MS Office.
If that is the case, then Microsoft won't make a Linux Office. Beacause if they did, then Windows would be dropped.
On the other hand, the point may be that some will drop Windows allready, but, if given the chance, would rather run Office, for it is much more directly related to their actual work, i.e. their documents, spreadsheets etc, than the OS it runs on.
If Microsoft thinks people are going to ditch Windows anyway, making a Linux Office can pay off for they would retain some Suite Share that way. Otherwise they'll try to maintain their Windows lock, by not offering a Linux Office, as they have done until now.
One other thing they may be considering is that making a Linux Office can be some sort of concession that Linux has gained real ground in th OS market.
Well, that's their problem. I allready use Linux and OpenOffice.org;-)
I am not saying that this year, or the next, or the other is the year of Linux on the desktop. But it could be. Who knows?
There were companies who thought that the Internet was hype. And missed the plane. Having to scramble to catch up then, and still having a tough time with innovative competition -- by still clanging, some would argue and I would agree, to old ways of doing business and developing software.
The same goes when new business models arise. Some may be the future, some aren't and some can no longer walk. Who knows? On the other hand, there were (are) the bubbles. The real hype. I agree with you about that.
But my point was that there can be a market for GPUs with free drivers. They have an added value. One that makes them different from all other offers. (A (bad?) analogy would be music without restrictions, having more value than DRMed music). And the value isn't only for those who use Linux, but for those with demanding or specific graphics needs (in all OSes) unattend by the closed source drivers.
The point is that maybe the same rationale that goes behind open standards, open formats, free software etc may make the same sense for hardware, regarding stability and having control of the hardware you buy. There might as well be a demand for that. And new and innovative solutions, models, new uses to old and current products etc might arise. Who knows?
It might take some time to build solid free drivers and a surrounding community. But being drivers one of the main causes of instability, many can benefit. Or even in ways we cannot forsee. And maybee it wouldn't take son long.
It may be a small market now, the demand might not be that huge. But it may just be untapped. Maybe with a working product, the demand will arise. Build it and they will come:-)
My point also is that at some stages companies can decide to invest on a new product or practice, that could make them pioneers, with the possible benefits of being the only one to offer a given product or service. (There are risks, of course.)
I don't know all the issues of such a decision to AMD/ATI, but given what I know, I think there can be commercial virtue in openness, which can also build trust (that has commercial value too).
Of course I might well be wrong. But who can't?;-)
[...] but Linux desktops are only 1-2 percent of the desktop market...
Today.
But a year from now, who knows? Two years from now? Foresight from AMD/ATI could win it market share in a growing (and maybe promising) market?
What would be the costs (money, IP etc) of developing a free driver, against leveraging the untapped demand for the added value of a GPU with a free driver?
So would they (the vast majority) upgrade to the next version of Office (with ribbons(?), etc), which isn't exactly the same as Office, the current version (or whatever version they use)?
Maybe security as well as other factors (open formats support) may weigh in when users consider phasing out an inadequately supported product.
Microsoft seems to ben in a comfortable position. That has been so for some years. But there are risks in being presumptuous and ignoring the world around oneself (competitors, governments, current users etc) and their needs and trends (e.g. open formats). Competition has got them moving in some arenas (virtualization, clustering, browser). Maybe its time for them to get moving regarding Office security too.
I for one already use Linux and OpenOffice.org. Because it is free and beacause I don't need to, can't and wouldn't pay for neither MS Office or Windows.
In a paper published in the scientific journal Psychiatric Genetics, researchers from Japan's Yamagata University School of Medicine say the enzyme is "significantly associated with higher scores of novelty-seeking".
I note that the reporter may have gotten it wrong (or just was sensationalist):
Essentially, that means people with the genetic predisposition to replace an existing gadget with the updated version simply cannot help themselves.
Saying the enzyme is "significantly associated with higher scores of novelty-seeking" essentially means that there might be some connection, an unknow one (for if it were known that would be the news), between the presence of the enzyme and a behaviour named "novelty-seeking", that is measured somehow.
I for one am highly sceptic of such discoveries that trails down some behaviour or feeling to a gene or enzyme. Maybe the enzyme isn't the consequence of a behaviour or feeling? (Adrenaline is a consequence as well as a cause, depending on the point of view and the matter discussed.)
Having read a little about socialization and about the works of Matthew Lipman and Reuven Feuerstein, I am much more inclined to assuming that any given behaviour has been learned. And I suspect that any anthropologist would agree with me. If not, I would welcome any enlightment.
Everyone here needs understand: everything Microsoft does is about making more money. That's their responsibility to their stockholders.
What about Microsoft's responsibility toward their users? What about their responsibility towards society?
They must obey fair competition practices, at the least. And their users should expect and demand responsibility toward their needs, including decent and fair implmentation of specifications instead of obfuscatinglly stating that they implmented PNG support, or, who knows, ODF support, but haven't in a way that it can be used as expected and needed by anyone who actually wants to use it, at least as easily and strightforwardly as comparable features in MS Office.
Side note: I would expect to be able to save, open and edit ODF documents seamlessly. As well to be able to specify ODF as the default format for MS Office, as I can do with RTF.
They do have the responsibility to act honestly. And we should all demand it, instead of assuming and acting as if their only responsibility was toward their shareholders, to profit by whatever means. (As if shareholders don't care what kind of company they invest in, as long as it profits. Some don't, but others do hold ethics, fairness and honesty as a factor in their investment choices.)
They have no reason whatsoever to expend above and beyond the baseline compatibility requirements.
Therefore I say they do have a reason. And their users, shareholders and society in general should demand honesty and fairness instead of obfuscating and misleading statements and actions, i.e. implementations.
But if just a photocopied pair of eyes can treble honesty [...].
Even if there is a causal nexus between the presence of a picture of eyes and a behaviour change, it certainly dose not necessarily imply more honesty. Honesty would be to pay when not being watched. To pay only because one is being watched is hypocrisy.
Therefore, vigilance alone can might as well lead to hypocrisy, being directed and affecting those who would not comply voluntarily to a given set of arbitrary rules. Voluntary compliance can stem from education, propaganda, convincement, seduction etc. (Notwithstanding if these means are related or not to any sort of truthfulness. I.e. Voluntary compliance can also stem from a purposefully deceitful or unintended misguided education, propaganda, convincement, seduction.)
"On another hand" the point that behaviour complies to arbitrary standards deserves some thought that such social standards are not esasily defined as absolutes, being value related and consequently a highly subjective matter.
Yes, patents expire so that, in exchange for the monopoly that was granted, the people can obtain some benefit.
But do they expire soon enough? Is the duration of the monopoly proportional to the benefits obtained by the people when it finally expires? In matters of health, should there be limits to the extent of such patent monopolies? Should the duration of the monopoly be the same, whatever the technogocial or scientific field in which a patent is granted?
One point is that a patent system should work as an incentive to research and development: a monopoly in exchange of publicizing the steps necessary to reproduce the invention (wether a product or a process), and later end of the state enforced private monopoly.
But what happens in technological and scientific areas in which there is plenty of competition? What is the use of offering a monopoly as an incentive? Isn't competition incentive enough? So, if there is enough demand for anti-aging treatments (those who want it and are willing to pay a steep price for it), what good does a state granted and enforced monopoly bring to the public?
If some company can grant me immorality (even at a steep price) in exchange for something I have zero ability to use, good for them.
<IMNSHO>
And it it should be good for you too. Why not? After all, it was you who sent them your dirt. Dirt that they wouldn't have if it weren't for you.
On the other hand, it isn't exactlly your dirt. And patent systems aren't (or rather shouldn't be) an incentive for a gold rush. It shouldn't incentive discoveries, but inventiveness. It shouldn't be possible to obtain a monopoly on what is out there to be discovered. Patent systems should act as incentives when there is no or little demand, when research is costly, and when there are desincentives to pursue a given research path (e.g. when the results of the research could be easily copied. If it couldn't be easily copied or researched by competitors, whoever reaserched it would keep it a secret, for secrets don't expire).
The whole "stealing from the natives" biopiracy argument really pisses me off. Those people have nothing not because we take their dirt, but because they lack the technology to do anything with their dirt, and exotic plants, and creepy insects, and the like. And when we leave them alone, what happens? Gee, they cut down the plants, kill the insects, and then complain that we exploited them when they discover that rainforests form the single most efficient organic recycling system known to man (ie, the dirt sucks and you can't grow anything in it for more than a few years).
<IMNSHO>
The point I was making wasn't exactly about "stealing from natives". Unless you consider myself and yourself natives (which in a certain way we are).
But, since you wrote of natives, I allow myself to digress. Who said they have nothing? And who said they lack techonological skills? The concept of biopiracy also applies to traditional communities as people who have specialised knowledge about plants, animals, insects, their substances, their benefits, and how to use them. Biopriacy regarding traditional communities isn't only about obtaining (sometimes illegally) specimens (as my initial post may have mislededly implied), but knowledge too. E.g. knowledge regarding agricultural techniques.
E.g.: A teacher of mine once told a story about an aboriginal tribe in Brazil that knew how to induce a liver disease in macaws so that all their feathers turned yellow. Such technology has all but disappeared. And this is just one example.
Therfore, biopiracy also relates to the knowledge of "those people", that may be perceived as "having nothing" and lacking technological skills. And, while they might cut down plants and kill insects, I doubt they (aborigines) exhaust their natural resources, for they have lived sus
The first thing I thought of was: They want to recieve samples from all over the world (aiming for biodiversity), in order to build a huge DNA library (as is their stated goal) and, presumably, file patent applications and be granted patents (I did not find any IP policy on the sites I briefly browsed). Then, who would benefit from it all???
The donations they are inviting (free labor), that aim at obtaining biodiversity, look like a biopiracy effort, wherein the idea of appropriation and "exploitation" with lack of due compensantion is the main point - through patenting including.
May I add, I think compensation isn't due only to the source of biological samples, and not only through economic compensation. There should be compensation regarding the (public) access and use of such DNA and the ensuing developments based on it's discovery, for there's quite a part of discovery rather than invention in such sort of research. (Shouln't DNA be considered public domain?).
One of the problems is that the patent systems don't account for differences among scientific and techonological fields, treating all alike. Therefore such simplisitc and generalized approach built into the patent systems benefit some while others suffer.
>> My stance consists entirely of generalizations (if the rule only works for me then it's not much of a rule).
>>And, who the FUCK are you to tell me what limits should be placed on my survival!?!??!?
I am no one, and I'm not trying to tell what some or everyone must or should do. I'm merely voicing my opinion, that can be totally disregarded. It's just my opinion voiced as a suggestion.
Voicing my opinion I have only one purpose: that it maybe helpfull, interesting or insightfull for someone. Meanwhile, in the midst of the discussion, I hope to learn (as I have) from others who voice their own opinion and views.
For me, that's the main value in/. A forum where we can find news and interesting, informative, insightfull and funny opinions from others, exchange views, learn from them, and, maybe, become better people. (But this is only my opinion too.)
These were my intentions when I wrote that my stance wasn't a generalization. Meaning that it might make sense to me and others (which by some answers seems to be the case), but NOT to everyone.
>> The pharmaceutical industry is amoral; they move according to what's profitable. Curing diseases which have few victims, or which can be cured with simple remedies, are not profitable. Therefore you will learn about these cures only on the Internet.
As for profitabillity, I think that it shouldn't be above all else. That, for me, is immoral. In the case of the pharmaceutical industry, sometimes profit is placed above the lives of people. For me, that is immoral.
Maybe someone will concur. Others won't. It's ok. I only hope to have contributed to the discussion in a constructive way.
But what I was actually trying to say is that I don't believe in the all-mighty humankind, that can do whatever it wants (smoke, drug itself, implant a third arm, a new brain, etc, recklessly). Such course of (presumptuous) action can easily lead to disaster and unhappiness (Plastic surgery makes people happy? For how long? Shouldn't happiness come from other "places").
I take the world as it is (with ongoing health and environmental concerns, poverty, wars etc) as an indication that such course doesn't always lead to better lives, since there are few indications that, for example, health will improve for those who can't afford it. (Re the pharmaceutical industry's interests another poster mentioned. Some diseases aren't researched for a cure beacause they only afflict people in poor countries.)
Therefore, a seamless integration with a more natural life-style can seem not only sensible and appropriate but viable.
Please note that this stance isn't a generalization. It may seem so, but only to make a point. Interventionist Medicine can be extremely usefull and necessary (within certain limits. Which ones? Well that's a whole different, difficult and important question.).
Just for a clearer background on who is writing this: My mother has hypertension issues and suffered of angina pectoris a couple of years ago. Her father (my grandfather) died at age 26, of a heart attack. I myself have hypertension (altough lessend) issues and have to look out.
What about...
* Quitting smoking (Yes, for some it can be extremely hard.);
* Eating a healthy diet (Diminishing the fast food ingestion is a good start.);
* Controlling your blood sugar (If you have diabetes. And if you don't too, beacause you can acquire diabetes.);
* Exercising (A stroll in the park once in a while can be a nice start, and some would say quite enough.);
* Controlling weight;
* Controlling your blood pressure (if have hypertension is an issue).
http://familydoctor.org/291.xml#4
* Drinking more water (and less alcohol?).
Curing heart diseases is undoutedly important and necessary, but understanding why and how we have heart diseases could lead to less such diseases in the first place.
The problem - and not only with heart related diseases - is that there are quite a lot of life-style related causes, isn't it so?
And changing behaviours (what you eat, how you exercise, how you relate to your fellow human beings etc) is presently more "difficult" (for cultural reasons) than discovering cell manipulation techniques, that is, than intervening (than making a "patch").
That is the tradition bestowed upon us at least since Francis Bacon: the world, including nature and the human body, are objects which we can manage, alter, change to suit our "needs", to extract profit etc, because we can.
Instead of adopting a humbler attitude towards life, the universe and everything, trying to live seamlessly with our environment and with each others, we learned to alter the world so that it would adapat to our whims. The eventual errors, mistakes and disasters that follow such courses of action are tackled with further and deeper interventions.
Is it possible to change centuries of an intervention tradition, to try to understand and adapt to the environment and others, instead of adapting others and the environment to us?
Nevertheless, Micrsofot is bringing attention to the speed (non)issue.
Will we be surprised, when/if Microsoft implments ODF in MS Office, that read and write will be slower with ODF when compared to Open XML (using MS Office)?
Maybe their FUD is also preparing the "grounds" for future comparisons, that, by the way, will also disconsider that speed is function of the implementation, the application, the OS, etc?
That's a letter from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, not from Microsoft.
Bill Gates does have commendable initiatives regarding development, altough these are not necessarily advanced by Microsoft.
Bill, as in Microsoft speaking, ridiculed the $100 laptop project.
>> I think their viewpoint is that this project's priorities are out of whack.
If the laptop were to ship with a Windows version taylored for it, would Bill think the project's priorities were "out of whack"?
I think that Bill's (as in Microsoft's) viewpoint is that the project will make an inroad in the Windows monopoly, in economys that have enormous growth potential, both as IT service providers and hardware and software consumers.
As Microsoft, Bill's viewpoint is that of an (monopolistic) enterprise, not of a Foundation.
Slashdot Mirror
I sure do agree.
The whole viral labling is just an intentional logical fallacy:
FLOSS is spreading fast.
Viruses spread fast (do they? common sense may think they do).
Viruses are bad.
Therefore FLOSS is bad.
It's just propaganda. Plain old FUD.
The OpenSUSE list indeed is open and probably does get what some might perceive as unwanted messages, as well as messages which would be better received and heard if placed somewhere else.
And that is the point, as I understood, elysiuan was making. A point from the view of Ubuntu, or more precisely from the view of Mark's intentions. Not from the view of the OpenSuse list, which is open.
I.e. Mark's objectives would have been better served by a post to his blog.
I do agree.
A message to their list, despite it being open, may seem to many as a "developer hunt" or "raid". To likened to some corporations practice: "stealing" their competition's employees. It may just seem unfair. Therefore not really serving Ubuntu's interests, or even the FLOSS comunity's interests.
A post to Mark's blog would have made a good enough point, IMO, letting choice play it's role, well in the spirit of FLOSS.
A US$ 200,00 used laptop won't give you an OLPC laptop. (Much less a used desktop PC.) It will give you something else. Which one is better will vary immensely as one perceives one's own needs.
I for one value the OLPC's display (e.g. High-resolution, reflective monochrome mode) and wireless capabilities. From the OLPC Wiki's main page:
I find such developments quite exciting and promising. Notwithstanding, the OLPC laptop certainly is plenty technologically innovative in it's other features, such as power management. By the way, it includes a "10 to 25 V, -23 to -10 V, 2-pin DC-input".
It's size ("tiny") can well be considered a coveted feature, instead of a demeaning factor.
Last but not least, the OLPC project does not aim to "solve third world problems". Some would think this is pretty obvious. From the OLPC Wiki's main page:
And not all developing country children's problems are about "teachers who won't get shot, kids who won't go hungry, parents who won't die from AIDS, and/or textbooks that won't be burned for fuel". (And I live in a developing country.)
These certainly are grave problems which should demand extremely serious attention and immediate adequate action by all countries (developed, developing etc). But these problems go beyond the OLPC project's specific aims and capabilities. (Although they may be indericetlly targeted.) As other slashdotters have allready posted, the project is doing what it can do best to improve the life of many children, which is both exciting and extremely laudable. That's why I and many others not only support the project, but (A) hope others (governments, organizations, common people) will too, and (B) are willing to subsidize the project by sponsoring one or two laptops in exchange for having the opportunity of owning one.
By the way, I am very curious about the new and innovative ways that I'm sure the millions of children would put their laptops to use, meaning that I'm also looking forward to learn new ways in which such technology can serve us.
Maybe this MozillaZine Knowledge Base article about memory problems in Firefox holds the answer:
On music selection, you're right. It's not an iTunes Store.
Being a DRM-free music store probably keeps the major labels away, and others that are afraid of selling MP3s.
Actually I don't know if emusic is fair in their deals with artists. But if you want to browse the emusic collection: http://www.emusic.com/browse/all.html.
I first decided to subscribe because I did find some artists that interested me. Since then (10 months already) it has been a quite nice way to discover some music I would never have listened to.
And THIS is why I support emusic, that is DRM-free.
Maybe developing a new password input device is easier done, than changing people's habits.
In the US? At the most since March 9, 1993, if you consider the date that business method patent was issued.
In the US it seems that if something complies with the minimum prerequisites, almost anything made by man can be patented.
And here is a Netflix patent:
Patent number: 6584450
Abstract: According to a computer-implemented approach for renting items to customers, customers specify what items to rent using item selection criteria separate from deciding when to receive the specified items. According to the approach, customers provide item selection criteria to a provider provides the items indicated by the item selection criteria to customer over a delivery channel. The provider may be either centralized or distributed depending upon the requirements of a particular application. A "Max Out" approach allows up to a specified number of items to be rented simultaneously to customers. A "Max Turns" approach allows up to a specified number of item exchanges to occur during a specified period of time. The "Max Out" and "Max Turns" approaches may be used together or separately with a variety of subscription methodologies.
If it is a matter of weighing costs and results, it can be efficient, but not effective, necessarily. Efficient being: doing the most possible with the less possible, in a way that acceptable results can be obtained with chances or error that are acceptable too.
Effectiveness would be having the exact desired result. That could only be possible by screening everybody, regardless of perceived profiles and effectiveness (for these imply random errors).
Therefore random screening can only be (statistically) efficient, because, for a sample selected for screening there will always be a chance of error (presumably controlled). The fact is, one can never know when that 5% or 1% error or the "outliers" (data or results not accounted for in a statistical model) will show up.
A conundrum it is. Certainty is always evasive (being temporary. Actually it never is permanent)... if one relies only on rational and human means.
On such matters I would recommend reading a text by Alasdair MacIntyre, actually a chapter of his book "After Virtue". The chpater's title is "The Character of Generalisations in Social Science and their Lack of Predictive Power". Very well written and extremely well thought out.
My study found it 67% flamebait, 14% informative and 19% funny. ...
:-P
Actually my study found that it's a troll, so I didn't bother reading the whole mess
If that is the case, then Microsoft won't make a Linux Office. Beacause if they did, then Windows would be dropped.
On the other hand, the point may be that some will drop Windows allready, but, if given the chance, would rather run Office, for it is much more directly related to their actual work, i.e. their documents, spreadsheets etc, than the OS it runs on.
If Microsoft thinks people are going to ditch Windows anyway, making a Linux Office can pay off for they would retain some Suite Share that way. Otherwise they'll try to maintain their Windows lock, by not offering a Linux Office, as they have done until now.
One other thing they may be considering is that making a Linux Office can be some sort of concession that Linux has gained real ground in th OS market.
Well, that's their problem. I allready use Linux and OpenOffice.org ;-)
I am not saying that this year, or the next, or the other is the year of Linux on the desktop. But it could be. Who knows?
There were companies who thought that the Internet was hype. And missed the plane. Having to scramble to catch up then, and still having a tough time with innovative competition -- by still clanging, some would argue and I would agree, to old ways of doing business and developing software.
The same goes when new business models arise. Some may be the future, some aren't and some can no longer walk. Who knows? On the other hand, there were (are) the bubbles. The real hype. I agree with you about that.
But my point was that there can be a market for GPUs with free drivers. They have an added value. One that makes them different from all other offers. (A (bad?) analogy would be music without restrictions, having more value than DRMed music). And the value isn't only for those who use Linux, but for those with demanding or specific graphics needs (in all OSes) unattend by the closed source drivers.
The point is that maybe the same rationale that goes behind open standards, open formats, free software etc may make the same sense for hardware, regarding stability and having control of the hardware you buy. There might as well be a demand for that. And new and innovative solutions, models, new uses to old and current products etc might arise. Who knows?
It might take some time to build solid free drivers and a surrounding community. But being drivers one of the main causes of instability, many can benefit. Or even in ways we cannot forsee. And maybee it wouldn't take son long.
It may be a small market now, the demand might not be that huge. But it may just be untapped. Maybe with a working product, the demand will arise. Build it and they will come :-)
My point also is that at some stages companies can decide to invest on a new product or practice, that could make them pioneers, with the possible benefits of being the only one to offer a given product or service. (There are risks, of course.)
I don't know all the issues of such a decision to AMD/ATI, but given what I know, I think there can be commercial virtue in openness, which can also build trust (that has commercial value too).
Of course I might well be wrong. But who can't? ;-)
Today.
But a year from now, who knows? Two years from now? Foresight from AMD/ATI could win it market share in a growing (and maybe promising) market?
What would be the costs (money, IP etc) of developing a free driver, against leveraging the untapped demand for the added value of a GPU with a free driver?
So would they (the vast majority) upgrade to the next version of Office (with ribbons(?), etc), which isn't exactly the same as Office, the current version (or whatever version they use)?
Maybe security as well as other factors (open formats support) may weigh in when users consider phasing out an inadequately supported product.
Microsoft seems to ben in a comfortable position. That has been so for some years. But there are risks in being presumptuous and ignoring the world around oneself (competitors, governments, current users etc) and their needs and trends (e.g. open formats). Competition has got them moving in some arenas (virtualization, clustering, browser). Maybe its time for them to get moving regarding Office security too.
I for one already use Linux and OpenOffice.org. Because it is free and beacause I don't need to, can't and wouldn't pay for neither MS Office or Windows.
Having read the news article, but not the paper:
I note that the reporter may have gotten it wrong (or just was sensationalist):
Saying the enzyme is "significantly associated with higher scores of novelty-seeking" essentially means that there might be some connection, an unknow one (for if it were known that would be the news), between the presence of the enzyme and a behaviour named "novelty-seeking", that is measured somehow.
I for one am highly sceptic of such discoveries that trails down some behaviour or feeling to a gene or enzyme. Maybe the enzyme isn't the consequence of a behaviour or feeling? (Adrenaline is a consequence as well as a cause, depending on the point of view and the matter discussed.)
Having read a little about socialization and about the works of Matthew Lipman and Reuven Feuerstein, I am much more inclined to assuming that any given behaviour has been learned. And I suspect that any anthropologist would agree with me. If not, I would welcome any enlightment.
What about Microsoft's responsibility toward their users? What about their responsibility towards society?
They must obey fair competition practices, at the least. And their users should expect and demand responsibility toward their needs, including decent and fair implmentation of specifications instead of obfuscatinglly stating that they implmented PNG support, or, who knows, ODF support, but haven't in a way that it can be used as expected and needed by anyone who actually wants to use it, at least as easily and strightforwardly as comparable features in MS Office.
Side note: I would expect to be able to save, open and edit ODF documents seamlessly. As well to be able to specify ODF as the default format for MS Office, as I can do with RTF.
They do have the responsibility to act honestly. And we should all demand it, instead of assuming and acting as if their only responsibility was toward their shareholders, to profit by whatever means. (As if shareholders don't care what kind of company they invest in, as long as it profits. Some don't, but others do hold ethics, fairness and honesty as a factor in their investment choices.)
Therefore I say they do have a reason. And their users, shareholders and society in general should demand honesty and fairness instead of obfuscating and misleading statements and actions, i.e. implementations.
From the article:
Even if there is a causal nexus between the presence of a picture of eyes and a behaviour change, it certainly dose not necessarily imply more honesty. Honesty would be to pay when not being watched. To pay only because one is being watched is hypocrisy.
Therefore, vigilance alone can might as well lead to hypocrisy, being directed and affecting those who would not comply voluntarily to a given set of arbitrary rules. Voluntary compliance can stem from education, propaganda, convincement, seduction etc. (Notwithstanding if these means are related or not to any sort of truthfulness. I.e. Voluntary compliance can also stem from a purposefully deceitful or unintended misguided education, propaganda, convincement, seduction.)
"On another hand" the point that behaviour complies to arbitrary standards deserves some thought that such social standards are not esasily defined as absolutes, being value related and consequently a highly subjective matter.
<IMNSHO>
Yes, patents expire so that, in exchange for the monopoly that was granted, the people can obtain some benefit.
But do they expire soon enough? Is the duration of the monopoly proportional to the benefits obtained by the people when it finally expires? In matters of health, should there be limits to the extent of such patent monopolies? Should the duration of the monopoly be the same, whatever the technogocial or scientific field in which a patent is granted?
One point is that a patent system should work as an incentive to research and development: a monopoly in exchange of publicizing the steps necessary to reproduce the invention (wether a product or a process), and later end of the state enforced private monopoly.
But what happens in technological and scientific areas in which there is plenty of competition? What is the use of offering a monopoly as an incentive? Isn't competition incentive enough? So, if there is enough demand for anti-aging treatments (those who want it and are willing to pay a steep price for it), what good does a state granted and enforced monopoly bring to the public?
<IMNSHO>
And it it should be good for you too. Why not? After all, it was you who sent them your dirt. Dirt that they wouldn't have if it weren't for you.
On the other hand, it isn't exactlly your dirt. And patent systems aren't (or rather shouldn't be) an incentive for a gold rush. It shouldn't incentive discoveries, but inventiveness. It shouldn't be possible to obtain a monopoly on what is out there to be discovered. Patent systems should act as incentives when there is no or little demand, when research is costly, and when there are desincentives to pursue a given research path (e.g. when the results of the research could be easily copied. If it couldn't be easily copied or researched by competitors, whoever reaserched it would keep it a secret, for secrets don't expire).
<IMNSHO>
The point I was making wasn't exactly about "stealing from natives". Unless you consider myself and yourself natives (which in a certain way we are).
But, since you wrote of natives, I allow myself to digress. Who said they have nothing? And who said they lack techonological skills? The concept of biopiracy also applies to traditional communities as people who have specialised knowledge about plants, animals, insects, their substances, their benefits, and how to use them. Biopriacy regarding traditional communities isn't only about obtaining (sometimes illegally) specimens (as my initial post may have mislededly implied), but knowledge too. E.g. knowledge regarding agricultural techniques.
E.g.: A teacher of mine once told a story about an aboriginal tribe in Brazil that knew how to induce a liver disease in macaws so that all their feathers turned yellow. Such technology has all but disappeared. And this is just one example.
Therfore, biopiracy also relates to the knowledge of "those people", that may be perceived as "having nothing" and lacking technological skills. And, while they might cut down plants and kill insects, I doubt they (aborigines) exhaust their natural resources, for they have lived sus
The first thing I thought of was: They want to recieve samples from all over the world (aiming for biodiversity), in order to build a huge DNA library (as is their stated goal) and, presumably, file patent applications and be granted patents (I did not find any IP policy on the sites I briefly browsed). Then, who would benefit from it all???
The donations they are inviting (free labor), that aim at obtaining biodiversity, look like a biopiracy effort, wherein the idea of appropriation and "exploitation" with lack of due compensantion is the main point - through patenting including.
May I add, I think compensation isn't due only to the source of biological samples, and not only through economic compensation. There should be compensation regarding the (public) access and use of such DNA and the ensuing developments based on it's discovery, for there's quite a part of discovery rather than invention in such sort of research. (Shouln't DNA be considered public domain?).
One of the problems is that the patent systems don't account for differences among scientific and techonological fields, treating all alike. Therefore such simplisitc and generalized approach built into the patent systems benefit some while others suffer.
>> My stance consists entirely of generalizations (if the rule only works for me then it's not much of a rule).
>>And, who the FUCK are you to tell me what limits should be placed on my survival!?!??!?
I am no one, and I'm not trying to tell what some or everyone must or should do. I'm merely voicing my opinion, that can be totally disregarded. It's just my opinion voiced as a suggestion.
Voicing my opinion I have only one purpose: that it maybe helpfull, interesting or insightfull for someone. Meanwhile, in the midst of the discussion, I hope to learn (as I have) from others who voice their own opinion and views.
For me, that's the main value in /. A forum where we can find news and interesting, informative, insightfull and funny opinions from others, exchange views, learn from them, and, maybe, become better people. (But this is only my opinion too.)
These were my intentions when I wrote that my stance wasn't a generalization. Meaning that it might make sense to me and others (which by some answers seems to be the case), but NOT to everyone.
>> The pharmaceutical industry is amoral; they move according to what's profitable. Curing diseases which have few victims, or which can be cured with simple remedies, are not profitable. Therefore you will learn about these cures only on the Internet.
As for profitabillity, I think that it shouldn't be above all else. That, for me, is immoral. In the case of the pharmaceutical industry, sometimes profit is placed above the lives of people. For me, that is immoral.
Maybe someone will concur. Others won't. It's ok. I only hope to have contributed to the discussion in a constructive way.
Farewell.
Maybe I cound've written it better...
But what I was actually trying to say is that I don't believe in the all-mighty humankind, that can do whatever it wants (smoke, drug itself, implant a third arm, a new brain, etc, recklessly). Such course of (presumptuous) action can easily lead to disaster and unhappiness (Plastic surgery makes people happy? For how long? Shouldn't happiness come from other "places").
I take the world as it is (with ongoing health and environmental concerns, poverty, wars etc) as an indication that such course doesn't always lead to better lives, since there are few indications that, for example, health will improve for those who can't afford it. (Re the pharmaceutical industry's interests another poster mentioned. Some diseases aren't researched for a cure beacause they only afflict people in poor countries.)
Therefore, a seamless integration with a more natural life-style can seem not only sensible and appropriate but viable.
Please note that this stance isn't a generalization. It may seem so, but only to make a point. Interventionist Medicine can be extremely usefull and necessary (within certain limits. Which ones? Well that's a whole different, difficult and important question.).
Just for a clearer background on who is writing this: My mother has hypertension issues and suffered of angina pectoris a couple of years ago. Her father (my grandfather) died at age 26, of a heart attack. I myself have hypertension (altough lessend) issues and have to look out.
What about... * Quitting smoking (Yes, for some it can be extremely hard.); * Eating a healthy diet (Diminishing the fast food ingestion is a good start.); * Controlling your blood sugar (If you have diabetes. And if you don't too, beacause you can acquire diabetes.); * Exercising (A stroll in the park once in a while can be a nice start, and some would say quite enough.); * Controlling weight; * Controlling your blood pressure (if have hypertension is an issue). http://familydoctor.org/291.xml#4 * Drinking more water (and less alcohol?).
preventing heart atacks.
Curing heart diseases is undoutedly important and necessary, but understanding why and how we have heart diseases could lead to less such diseases in the first place.
The problem - and not only with heart related diseases - is that there are quite a lot of life-style related causes, isn't it so?
And changing behaviours (what you eat, how you exercise, how you relate to your fellow human beings etc) is presently more "difficult" (for cultural reasons) than discovering cell manipulation techniques, that is, than intervening (than making a "patch").
That is the tradition bestowed upon us at least since Francis Bacon: the world, including nature and the human body, are objects which we can manage, alter, change to suit our "needs", to extract profit etc, because we can.
Instead of adopting a humbler attitude towards life, the universe and everything, trying to live seamlessly with our environment and with each others, we learned to alter the world so that it would adapat to our whims. The eventual errors, mistakes and disasters that follow such courses of action are tackled with further and deeper interventions.
Is it possible to change centuries of an intervention tradition, to try to understand and adapt to the environment and others, instead of adapting others and the environment to us?
Am I making any sense?
Nevertheless, Micrsofot is bringing attention to the speed (non)issue.
Will we be surprised, when/if Microsoft implments ODF in MS Office, that read and write will be slower with ODF when compared to Open XML (using MS Office)?
Maybe their FUD is also preparing the "grounds" for future comparisons, that, by the way, will also disconsider that speed is function of the implementation, the application, the OS, etc?
That's a letter from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, not from Microsoft.
Bill Gates does have commendable initiatives regarding development, altough these are not necessarily advanced by Microsoft.
Bill, as in Microsoft speaking, ridiculed the $100 laptop project.
>> I think their viewpoint is that this project's priorities are out of whack.
If the laptop were to ship with a Windows version taylored for it, would Bill think the project's priorities were "out of whack"?
I think that Bill's (as in Microsoft's) viewpoint is that the project will make an inroad in the Windows monopoly, in economys that have enormous growth potential, both as IT service providers and hardware and software consumers.
As Microsoft, Bill's viewpoint is that of an (monopolistic) enterprise, not of a Foundation.