With non-proprietary standards, it does take time to reverse enginere/emulate them. Time which can't be spent on innovation. Prove the OSS wrong by providing full access to the standards, and see if they use the rest of the time to innovate.
Bert
Well, you don't need to dump it. Apple is happy if you add a Mac mini, as a result of which you'll learn to love da bomb, eh, the Mac. And you'll find you'll buy software for that, because you'll find it is more of a joy to work with the thingie.
Given the fact that I, as an employer, try to avoid proprietary software and want to customize the software that I use to provide better services to my clients, I disagree with you. More OSS programming by unemployed people will in the end get more people with OSS skills inside companies once they get a job (or start their own company based on OSS).
I think that, while the whole world may benefit from Australia's unemployed programmers, in the end it is Australia that will benefit the most, because it is their businesses who will benefit from the OSS expertise these people will have.
And finally, your conclusion that there would be no positive on someone ele's economy is wrong. If money is saved on software by comapnies, they will spend it on something else. BTW, I'm spending MORE on software because of this customization. I don't mind that, as long as it results in increased revenues due to better services. OSS allows me to provide the services "now", or very soon, instead of having to wait until some proprietary software vendor deems it ok to include a particular feature I need. I still get mad over Word's bugs virtually every day.
Given people's lacking ability to properly predict what is going to happen in the future, I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating (or whatever this english expression goes).
Wait and see. The world has been shaped by people who try new things, not by people who stop things before that.
From the article: "Key words from the master of Greek tragedy
Speaker A: . . . gobbling the whole, sharpening the flashing iron.
Speaker B: And the helmets are shaking their purple-dyed crests, and for the wearers of breast-plates the weavers are striking up the wise shuttle's songs, that wakes up those who are asleep.
Speaker A: And he is gluing together the chariot's rail.
These words were written by the Greek dramatist Sophocles,"
"Ahuttle's songs". Sophocles puts characters on stage with iPods!
Bert Or was Sophocles a marketeer, busy with product placement. It is not easy to understand history properly, especially if it is some 2k years old (hint, hint to another subject).
If the net amount of CO2 released in the atmosphere is 90% less than fossil fuels, it releases only 10%. So, in that respect it is 10 times better than fossil. So, it is 900% better.
As to other points in this thread: Whether carbon is taken up from the soil is of no importance, as long as the plant roots don't reach into an oil well and extract carbon from fossil origin.
Of course other pollutants are important as well, but can we please accept that progress doesn't come with one perfect solution, but that things evolve? Please don't stand in the way of progress by shooting something down for having a disadvantage if the sum of advantages and disadvantages is better than that of the present situation.
Well, for the Symantec Employee it probably wouldn't cost his boss much to convince him that this is good for business and legitimate (provided the virus isn't released in the wild, which is easy to ensure).
It is about the iPod shuffle, which has no - backlight because it has no display. - hard drive but a static memory chip (pay attention: this is what introduced the rumor that music from an iPod shuffle contained static).
The size of the battery could be smaller to accommodate for the power-generating mechanism. Weight and size of the mechanism are less of a problem than in a watch.
I'm an Apple fan (ok, a little less so if Apple does this kind of things), but I think that Apple is to blame to a major extent.
- Apple is very much aware of rumor sites and knows their following crave for Apple-news before it is out. This sure keeps people interested in what's comming up from Apple. I for one visit those sites regulary and keep me in touch. (I don't like sites speculating on pricing, because it is too easy to get excited about a product, which may become a disappointment if the product is indeed as good as rumored, but at a higher price. If they'd not speculated it, it would probably still be considered a good price). - Apple can easily make the Tiger beta's such that they only run on Macs with registered MAC addresses (ethernet addresses, whatever) which are unique for a computer. So, if a beta gets out in the wild nobody can run it. - Apple makes a fool if itself by writing in the writ that they are in such a competitive business and their IP must be protected blah blah blah. Firstly, if they did really care, they had take proper precautions (see previous point). Secondly, Steve said that companies like Microsoft are busy integrating Tiger's Spotlight technology into Office. For that, you need a Tiger beta. So, the competitor who has 95+% marketshare has a copy of that intellectual property. Apple can handle the rest: even the current version of Mac OS X is a great product.
Sure, the guy did something wrong. Apple, oet him pay $2500 Tsunami disaster relief and let it go.
Selection for positive cases is what creates and enforces religion.
If someone escapes narrowly from an accident, it must have been god's hand. Thank god for it. If the person dies, god isn't blamed (his/her time had come, or the person is even blamed for being a bad person).
I read a story about muslims reinforcing their religion by the fact that many mosks had survived the tsunami (neglecting that houses of religion are usually better built than the huts around them; the fact that hindu temples survived nicely also was also neglected. My god is better than yours!).
I've virtually no moral problems with genetic engineering as such. But when it comes to what you do with it, I favour genetic engineering in big mammals over "lower" life. If you modify a cow and it escapes, well, you'll probably get it back before it breeds and spreads its genes uncontrolably (Also, because it is more expensive per piece, you'll be more careful with it). The lower the life form, the faster things may go wrong, and it might happen in very "unexpected" ways. For example, AFAIK taxol and taxol-like compounds are not only produced by the tree, but also by several micro-organisms living on that tree. Now, that suggests inter-species DNA exchange. No harm done here? Fine, guarantees that it is always harmless? Of course not. And that is the achilles heel (and stupidity) of GM crops. The world has only a few staple crops. They come in many varieties. Often a single farmer has several varieties. Now GM crops are introduced as a single variety. That is Russian roulette. If a disease gets hold of that a) it can spread like wildfire, b) a major part of the earth population will suffer from famine (and possibly (civil) war etc.).
Well then, good ol' Doppler made good for causing problems earlier during this mission problems (The signals from Huygens could not be received by Cassini due to Doppler shift, by getting Cassini into a different orbig (I presume more perpendicular to Huygens, this problem was overcome).
Well, I'm proposing this question in an attempt to get evidence about this. If so, it could be abuse of a monopoly, which should warrant governments (EU or elsewhere) to act upon that. One can make a harder case with a member of parliament if it is based on evidence rather than hearsay. After all, politicians don't want to lose face (and neither do I, apart from not wanting to accuse someone of something that is not true).
If I were a PC manufacturer, I would partition the insanely large hard disks we have today and put Windows on one partition and Linux together with lots of free software on the other. That would make an excellent buy for anyone (people can always erase the Linux part if they prefer Windows' polished looks and use the second partition for file storage). Yet, while there are a couple of PC manufacturers that sell a version of their computer with either Linux or Windows, there is none who does sell a single computer with both operating systems? Is there any financial or legal stimulus by Microsoft that prevents PC manufacturers from offering these attractive dual boot computers?
A patent is granted by the government in return for sharing your knowledge with society. To avoid a plethora of silly patents, there are strickt requirements. An invention must be New and involve an Inventive step. And you have to apply for it and pay the cost involved. The reward for sharing your knowledge isn't money (one could quible years over what an invention is worth), but a monopoly: The patent. So, a good patent law entices people to share, but does dolly out patents like madness, otherwise it would be hampering the development of society again. So, there is a balance. Now, we have only one patent law for all inventions. For medicines, 20 years (the maximum duration of the monopoly, provided you pay the annual fees) may be a bit short, especially because it is very time-consuming and expensive to test drugs before you can start earning money. So, there is little time to earn your money back. For software it is the opposite. Many software ideas can be incorporated in an existing product by a programmer in a day or in a couple of weeks. Yet such ideas would be protected by 20 years as well. And while a medicine is on the market and be bought, if an invention is available for platform X only, it is of no use to me.
If software patents were allowed on open source software only, then things would be more interesting. With the consent of the patentee, I could implement it for my platform and pay a licensing fee.
Now I do think protection of Intellectual Property is a good thing, but we're all too often confronted by manufacturers who treat their product which you bought as theirs. It is easy to download an illegal copy of a song, but you may have trouble to get the legal CD on your iPod. You may buy a legal DVD, but if it was from the wrong region, you may end up with expenses to get your computer fixed, as you're allowed to change regions only a limited number of times. You buy a phone, but the manufacturer still wants control over it, and doesn't allow you to do what you want with it. You buy an Aibo, and get into problems with Sony if you want to hack its software. And of course, you buy software, but only the data carrier is yours. That would be fine by me, as long as the manufacturers fixes the bugs (Are you listening Bill?). The problem is, there is no competing word processor software that gives me sufficient compatibility. Legal protection for software? Copyright protection for and patents on software? Maybe, only if its source is available and reasonable licensing is possible and we overcome a couple of other obstacles (finding out what does already exist is a nightmare for software).
Slashdot Mirror
With non-proprietary standards, it does take time to reverse enginere/emulate them. Time which can't be spent on innovation. Prove the OSS wrong by providing full access to the standards, and see if they use the rest of the time to innovate. Bert
I can push a button only once. The second time a window pops up with an error. Bert
Well, you don't need to dump it. Apple is happy if you add a Mac mini, as a result of which you'll learn to love da bomb, eh, the Mac. And you'll find you'll buy software for that, because you'll find it is more of a joy to work with the thingie.
Bert
Given the fact that I, as an employer, try to avoid proprietary software and want to customize the software that I use to provide better services to my clients, I disagree with you. More OSS programming by unemployed people will in the end get more people with OSS skills inside companies once they get a job (or start their own company based on OSS).
I think that, while the whole world may benefit from Australia's unemployed programmers, in the end it is Australia that will benefit the most, because it is their businesses who will benefit from the OSS expertise these people will have.
And finally, your conclusion that there would be no positive on someone ele's economy is wrong. If money is saved on software by comapnies, they will spend it on something else. BTW, I'm spending MORE on software because of this customization. I don't mind that, as long as it results in increased revenues due to better services. OSS allows me to provide the services "now", or very soon, instead of having to wait until some proprietary software vendor deems it ok to include a particular feature I need. I still get mad over Word's bugs virtually every day.
Bert
Given people's lacking ability to properly predict what is going to happen in the future, I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating (or whatever this english expression goes).
Wait and see. The world has been shaped by people who try new things, not by people who stop things before that.
Bert
As we told time and again, it is not a bug, it is a feature. Thanks for sharing this illustrating example.
Bill G.
I don't like the word "only", in if the only goal is to assure interoperability. "prime" would be much better.
Bert
Patent attorney against software patents
From the article:
"Key words from the master of Greek tragedy
Speaker A: . . . gobbling the whole, sharpening the flashing iron.
Speaker B: And the helmets are shaking their purple-dyed crests, and for the wearers of breast-plates the weavers are striking up the wise shuttle's songs, that wakes up those who are asleep.
Speaker A: And he is gluing together the chariot's rail.
These words were written by the Greek dramatist Sophocles,"
"Ahuttle's songs". Sophocles puts characters on stage with iPods!
Bert
Or was Sophocles a marketeer, busy with product placement. It is not easy to understand history properly, especially if it is some 2k years old (hint, hint to another subject).
Interesting, but:
How do they know the date of what they find?
How do they know some part of the page hasn't be supplemented later?
If that date doesn't precede yours, the publication shouldn't be detrimental.
Bert
If the net amount of CO2 released in the atmosphere is 90% less than fossil fuels, it releases only 10%. So, in that respect it is 10 times better than fossil. So, it is 900% better.
As to other points in this thread:
Whether carbon is taken up from the soil is of no importance, as long as the plant roots don't reach into an oil well and extract carbon from fossil origin.
Of course other pollutants are important as well, but can we please accept that progress doesn't come with one perfect solution, but that things evolve? Please don't stand in the way of progress by shooting something down for having a disadvantage if the sum of advantages and disadvantages is better than that of the present situation.
Bert
No, to retaliate they'll probably choose Gentoo. Bert
Well, for the Symantec Employee it probably wouldn't cost his boss much to convince him that this is good for business and legitimate (provided the virus isn't released in the wild, which is easy to ensure).
Bert
Who doesn't run anti-virus software
Oops, didn't pass my nerd exam with a 100 score, and again it shows. Flahs memory it is: http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/specs.html
Bert
It is about the iPod shuffle, which has no
- backlight because it has no display.
- hard drive but a static memory chip (pay attention: this is what introduced the rumor that music from an iPod shuffle contained static).
The size of the battery could be smaller to accommodate for the power-generating mechanism. Weight and size of the mechanism are less of a problem than in a watch.
Motion powered flashlights exist.
I still can't exclude that the idea is feasible.
Bert
To get more accurate results, just let the rovers drive to the same location and have each measure the same rocks.
Bert
(Yes, their tiny wheels can't do that. While scientifically correct, it was supposed to be funny).
So??
Bill G.
I'm an Apple fan (ok, a little less so if Apple does this kind of things), but I think that Apple is to blame to a major extent.
- Apple is very much aware of rumor sites and knows their following crave for Apple-news before it is out. This sure keeps people interested in what's comming up from Apple. I for one visit those sites regulary and keep me in touch. (I don't like sites speculating on pricing, because it is too easy to get excited about a product, which may become a disappointment if the product is indeed as good as rumored, but at a higher price. If they'd not speculated it, it would probably still be considered a good price).
- Apple can easily make the Tiger beta's such that they only run on Macs with registered MAC addresses (ethernet addresses, whatever) which are unique for a computer. So, if a beta gets out in the wild nobody can run it.
- Apple makes a fool if itself by writing in the writ that they are in such a competitive business and their IP must be protected blah blah blah. Firstly, if they did really care, they had take proper precautions (see previous point). Secondly, Steve said that companies like Microsoft are busy integrating Tiger's Spotlight technology into Office. For that, you need a Tiger beta. So, the competitor who has 95+% marketshare has a copy of
that intellectual property. Apple can handle the rest: even the current version of Mac OS X is a great product.
Sure, the guy did something wrong. Apple, oet him pay $2500 Tsunami disaster relief and let it go.
Bert
Selection for positive cases is what creates and enforces religion.
If someone escapes narrowly from an accident, it must have been god's hand. Thank god for it. If the person dies, god isn't blamed (his/her time had come, or the person is even blamed for being a bad person).
I read a story about muslims reinforcing their religion by the fact that many mosks had survived the tsunami (neglecting that houses of religion are usually better built than the huts around them; the fact that hindu temples survived nicely also was also neglected. My god is better than yours!).
Bert
I've virtually no moral problems with genetic engineering as such. But when it comes to what you do with it, I favour genetic engineering in big mammals over "lower" life. If you modify a cow and it escapes, well, you'll probably get it back before it breeds and spreads its genes uncontrolably (Also, because it is more expensive per piece, you'll be more careful with it). The lower the life form, the faster things may go wrong, and it might happen in very "unexpected" ways. For example, AFAIK taxol and taxol-like compounds are not only produced by the tree, but also by several micro-organisms living on that tree. Now, that suggests inter-species DNA exchange. No harm done here? Fine, guarantees that it is always harmless? Of course not. And that is the achilles heel (and stupidity) of GM crops. The world has only a few staple crops. They come in many varieties. Often a single farmer has several varieties. Now GM crops are introduced as a single variety. That is Russian roulette. If a disease gets hold of that a) it can spread like wildfire, b) a major part of the earth population will suffer from famine (and possibly (civil) war etc.).
Bert
No bread? Let them eat cake!
Well then, good ol' Doppler made good for causing problems earlier during this mission problems (The signals from Huygens could not be received by Cassini due to Doppler shift, by getting Cassini into a different orbig (I presume more perpendicular to Huygens, this problem was overcome).
Bert
Well, I'm proposing this question in an attempt to get evidence about this. If so, it could be abuse of a monopoly, which should warrant governments (EU or elsewhere) to act upon that. One can make a harder case with a member of parliament if it is based on evidence rather than hearsay. After all, politicians don't want to lose face (and neither do I, apart from not wanting to accuse someone of something that is not true).
Bert
If I were a PC manufacturer, I would partition the insanely large hard disks we have today and put Windows on one partition and Linux together with lots of free software on the other. That would make an excellent buy for anyone (people can always erase the Linux part if they prefer Windows' polished looks and use the second partition for file storage).
Yet, while there are a couple of PC manufacturers that sell a version of their computer with either Linux or Windows, there is none who does sell a single computer with both operating systems? Is there any financial or legal stimulus by Microsoft that prevents PC manufacturers from offering these attractive dual boot computers?
Bert
I run DC projects, so no cycle is left unused. That was not the case in the old days.
:-)
Bert
Currently running OGR (http://www.distributed.net/ogr/)
Team EvangeLista (Macs Rule!
If you like languages other than Objective-C, you can go the Cocoa way: You can mix it with other languages such as C, C++ and what not.
If you're not too much into programming: The same interface as visible in the Flash demo, can be used to code with AppleScript!
Bert
A patent is granted by the government in return for sharing your knowledge with society. To avoid a plethora of silly patents, there are strickt requirements. An invention must be New and involve an Inventive step. And you have to apply for it and pay the cost involved. The reward for sharing your knowledge isn't money (one could quible years over what an invention is worth), but a monopoly: The patent. So, a good patent law entices people to share, but does dolly out patents like madness, otherwise it would be hampering the development of society again. So, there is a balance. Now, we have only one patent law for all inventions. For medicines, 20 years (the maximum duration of the monopoly, provided you pay the annual fees) may be a bit short, especially because it is very time-consuming and expensive to test drugs before you can start earning money. So, there is little time to earn your money back. For software it is the opposite. Many software ideas can be incorporated in an existing product by a programmer in a day or in a couple of weeks. Yet such ideas would be protected by 20 years as well. And while a medicine is on the market and be bought, if an invention is available for platform X only, it is of no use to me.
If software patents were allowed on open source software only, then things would be more interesting. With the consent of the patentee, I could implement it for my platform and pay a licensing fee.
Now I do think protection of Intellectual Property is a good thing, but we're all too often confronted by manufacturers who treat their product which you bought as theirs. It is easy to download an illegal copy of a song, but you may have trouble to get the legal CD on your iPod. You may buy a legal DVD, but if it was from the wrong region, you may end up with expenses to get your computer fixed, as you're allowed to change regions only a limited number of times. You buy a phone, but the manufacturer still wants control over it, and doesn't allow you to do what you want with it. You buy an Aibo, and get into problems with Sony if you want to hack its software.
And of course, you buy software, but only the data carrier is yours. That would be fine by me, as long as the manufacturers fixes the bugs (Are you listening Bill?). The problem is, there is no competing word processor software that gives me sufficient compatibility. Legal protection for software? Copyright protection for and patents on software? Maybe, only if its source is available and reasonable licensing is possible and we overcome a couple of other obstacles (finding out what does already exist is a nightmare for software).
Bert