The reason photo editing is difficult to use, is because photo editing is difficult to do.
The fundamental problem with photo software is that computers don't have a clue about what they are doing so they can't help you. You may just wan't to make the subject stand out from the background, but the computer can't tell the difference between a cat and an orange so you have to describe exactly where the subject is. Magic wand tools are a help, but there not that good because even when you've defined the outline of an object accurately the computer doesn't have a clue what it is so you still have to describe exactly what you want to do with it.
In this respect photo editors are tools, not aids and must require training.
Compare this to a PIM tool where the defining a data object is as easy as typing text into a text box. The computer knows what you mean when you gesture to remove an ex-girlfriend from an address book because you have told it what an entry is and how to delete it. We're many years from being able to say "remove my ex-girlfriend from all of my old photos" and have it work as effectively.
One of the best rules of thumb in computer science is if its hard from computers its easy for humans, and vice versa. Nothing emphasises this more than dealing with images and objects.
I thought that the breathalizer was designed to provide a strong indication that somebody had been drinking, the officer can arrest under the suspsision of being DUI, which is then confirmed by an 'open source' blood test which can then be used in court.
There are all sorts of reasons why somebody could fail a breathalizer, not least of which is mouth wash - which is why only the results of a blood test are admissible as evidence of DUI.
You've just been mugged, your face looks like hamburger, you need to call 112 and your phone kicks you in the balls by telling you it doesn't like your face anymore.
Biometrics are ok, but you need to use more than one - facial recognition on its own won't be any good.
Mac OS X laptops have had this technology for years. You want to switch it off, close the screen, switch it on, open the screen. It takes a second or two for the memory to be cached, wireless network connections and DVD spin-up take a little longer.
In answer to how fast does Mac OS X boot from cold, my crappy G4 laptop (2 years old) takes 38 secs, my G5 is less than that (obviously - faster harddrive, more ram, faster, better CPU) but I'm sitting at my works dual xeons (2.6GHz, 2GB RAM) running Win2K which takes over 3 minutes to recycle.
The only news here is that the new Intel Mac laptops are going to have instant on too - but I don't think they'd have sold if they didn't.
I can buy a DVD boxset for ~£35. For that I get 22 episodes, a pretty box and a few extras. Apple have the possibility to sell, on a per episode basis, those same 22 episodes for £1.89 (thats what their charging Brits) with no extras, and no box and the studios are worried about DVD sales?
Thats £1.89 per episode, per TV at almost 100% pure profit. Assuming that it costs Apple £0.20 per episode in bandwidth and other overheads, thats more money than if they sold just one box set - and thats before you start concidering that you can lend a DVD boxset to friends and family far more easily than you can send them HUGE.mov files. As a case in point, I'm halfway through my parents copy of the 4th series the West Wing and I have lost around 20 CDs to friends, but I haven't lent anyone my any of my iTMS music. I don't share DRM content, because its a PITA, not because I can't, or believe I shouldn't. I'll leave the question of whether not sharing art is a good thing to another rant.
Why, in the name of Jobs, do TV execs give a rats ass about DVD sales...? thats a genuine question.
Per episode TV, that is paid for by the customer, removing the need for lawyers and syndication deals, makes so much sense it hurts. If anyone can provide hard data that, per episode, shows make more than £1.50 per TV it is displayed on, I'd like to see it.
There is no question that it will change the face of TV, but for the better. Will TV with ads disappear? No. I own hundreds of DVDs, and I still endup watching films I have bought when I flick on to them. Why? Sometimes I like it when somebody else drives what I watch. If nothing else, I'll probably test drive new shows on ad funded TV, as the risk is lower, but I'll probably start buying it as soon as I decide I like it - because I don't like ads, or being forced to be in the same place every week for 22 weeks. Sure I could use a VCR, but I've never liked the quality. I could perhaps use a PVR, but the chances of such a device being legal, and my content lasting long enough for me to get round and watch it are slim.
I don't think this point can be emphasised enough. It takes HOURS to rip DVD to H.264 - HOURS. Its not like a CD where you can rip it before the first song is finished, it takes a fast computer, a signigificant fraction of a day at 100% CPU usage to get what Apple are providing for $2. Thats good value. My only critism is that for $2 an hour I'd expect HD quality not TV. I've got a 20" widescreen iMac that can play back 1024i movies in realtime and there is no content. None. I would gladly hand over $2 an epidsode for Lost / Firefly / House / Smallville (don't think too little of me) if I could watch them in fullscreen with low artifacts and pixalisation $2 and bandwidth is worth it.
The next thing that needs to happen... Sony PSP gets into bed with iTMS. Apple must understand that they're different markets. People don't compare iPods and PSPs. They buy iPods if they want to listen to music in the gym/car they buy a PSP if they want to play games on the train / playground. There is function overlap, but not enough that they could be concidered the same thing - they are not. What isn't fair is that if someone with a PSP can't use it to play video they bought for their PC/Mac/iPod. Its not good for consumers (its also why I don't understand why anyone would ever buy a UMD).
I tried to RTFA, but I got depressed. There is no mystery as to how or why Microsoft became so ubiquitous - it represented the best balance of usability / functionality / cost to businesses and home users in the time before the internet. By the time the internet had hit, there was so much human momentum behind it that the microsoft of today was inevitable. We shouldn't blame Microsoft for becoming Microsoft, we should blame human nature. We wanted a single platform and we wanted it for as little money as possible.
The problem we're facing today is that there are two many people pushing single platform solutions. You can't blame them for that, you stand a better chance of repeat purchases if your software doesn't play well with others and the cost of migration is greater than the cost of an upgrade, but in the long run its not good for anyone, because it creates Micorsofts.
We need to educate people in the benefits of hetrogentity - don't buy software that only works for a single platform. Don't buy computers that will only work with similar computers. Don't buy into product that only has a single line of support - and never buy a product that has no support (I include offshore telephone support in that) and top of the list must be: don't buy software that generates files that can only be read by a single application.
Anytime you buy/use a product that adopts and enhances a standard protocol and doesn't tell the rest of the world how they are doing it, you buy into the next Microsoft.
This is because HBO is one of the first networks to start distributing their shows via iTMS after the release of the iPod video in October. Where else do you think they got the smarts for corrupting bittorent?*
My mom must be the ultimate slashdotter. She never reads the stories, she doesn't read the comments, in fact she doesn't even read the front page! She's so l33t that she never even reads or uses the URL!!!
I can download movies... I have the technology. I don't because its not worth it. For £7.99 a month I get 4 DVDs posted through my door and I can choose the movies online. Its takes a couple of days for the movie to arrive, but thats comparable to bittorrent on a 1MB downpipe. Once the DVD arrives I know the quality will be good and there are usually a few extras.
Looking at my DVD collection only about 20% have been watched more than once, the rest I would have been better off renting.
I would gladly hand over $10-15 for 8 downloads a month and then pony up an extra $2 for the right to burn a downloaded copy to DVD.
We've been bouncing this around for years now and no single proprietary-software company has put together an iTunes equivalent for movies and yet it shows all the signs of being a cash cow. Its time for FOSS to stand up and create that software and use it to generate an income for FOSS projects.
FOSS DRM might be bit of misnoma, and charging for a product isn't something FOSS is very good at, but think of all the good it could do! It could revive BSD, it could bring HURD to life, it could mean that Wine actually catches up with MS - it could charge the war chest in the fight against DRM, patents and copyright.
Excellent. The BBC is making moves to let me, a Licence Fee Payer, get at the content I've been forced to pay for in a way that is more useful to me. Well done.
But can you imagine the arguments that are going on inside the BBC at the moment?
The licence fee is pretty reasonable at the moment (well I think it is) and a large part of that is due to additional funds that are created when the BBC sells DVDs of archive and popular shows. The nice thing about DVD sales is that licence fee payers benefit, because the BBC gets a cut, but also the underpaid BBC talent gets a chance to make some money. The other source fo revenue is global syndication. I simply don't see how this won't cut into DVD sales.
I hope the BBC has the foresight to see that this really shouldn't be a problem. People are used to paying a subscription for TV, let non-uk citizens pay their $17.50 a month and let the money roll in. Sure there will be illegal copies of the shows rolling around bittorrent sites, but thats happening already.
What the BBC really need to do is get into bed with Apple on this. Just open up the archives, explain that it needs to be sold as a subscription ($15 a month has a nice ring to it), all you can eat service and let Apple do the rest.
Why will people use GoogleOffice? I'd say its because they understand web browsers, they trust google, but most of all because they can't afford MS Office. Why not use OpenOffice? Why not use Thunderbird for gMail. People don't because they are afraid of installing software because they might break their computer, or because it doesn't work first time out of the box. I believe given the choice between installing an office suite or going to a website that does almost the same thing, the web site will win out.
Its the same reason people use Internet Explorer, Windows Messenger and Outlook Express: it is the path of least resistance.
If computers were packaged with Thunderbird, Firefox and OpenOffice there is no question in my mind that the use of these apps would sore. Look at Macs. I know a fair few Mac users and they all use Mail, Safari and Pages. Why? Because they came preinstalled, and it was easier to learn these apps than convince me to install the MS equivalent for them.
Buying and installing software is the domain of geeks. Left to their own devices, Joe Sixpack wouldn't install, upgrade or buy any software if there was a simpler alternative. Web services let someone else do all that for you, which is great, except that HTTP and HTML both suck for this use. If GoogleOffice is successful, maybe it could be the driver for a web application protocol and language that is purpose built for this type of situation.
I thought this was to be the digital age of openness. That we would be free to use whatever software we liked, because programs can exchange information freely thanks to technologies like XML/XSLT and applications will run on any system because the source is open and modern languages are designed with portability in mind.
Why oh why would we put ourselves in the position where single company rules the world again? Its for this reason that I think this guy is full of it. Yes, Google want to gain ground on Microsoft... who doesn't? If Google really wanted to improve the world they would be in tight negotiations with Apple, Linux, *BSD and Sun so that they can do the above - share data and applications between hetrogenous systems. Its not impossible, its greate for the consumer, and its greate for these companies.
How many CEOs could really say that being beholden to a single company is good for share holders? But at the same time CEOs like Microsoft, because they make it easy to buy software - no one ever got fired for buying Microsoft.
The vision is already coming true. There is a reason why Java did so well in the enterprise market - freedom to choose container providers, operating system and hardware vendor whilst only doing minimal porting for each choice. The next step is for the same CEOs that made that descision to start looking for the similar technologies on the desktop. Its not going to be Java. Its not going to be C/C++. It could be Mono/.Net, but I doubt it. The fact is that whilst Google / Apple / Linux / Sun / Linux and *BSD don't have a lingua franca Microsoft arn't going anywhere.
Somebody / thing paid lots of money to research and develop the tube map. Its clearly something that people find so useful that its priceless (like water not diamonds). They need compensation for their works, but how much?
Is there a copyright equivalent to compulsery purchase orders? In the UK, if something big is happening, and your house is in the middle of where they want to put it, you can be issued with a compulsery purchase order. An independant commision examines the value of your property and your land and offers the market value or greater. Couldn't a similar case be made for something like the tube map, and then it could be placed in the public domain.
In this case it could be that when the copyright infringement gets to courts its within the judges power to say... hey, you were in the wrong, you did violate copyright I hereby slap your wrists, however, the works you were copying has great value to the public, and it is being used as a cash cow, I declare this works and any derivatives there of public domain. The defendant walks away with sore wrists and a smile, the prosecution walk away with a cheque.
Maybe this would discourage big corporations from taking such cases to court, in fear that their works could be stripped from them. It probably wouldn't effect music and video as they could never be concidered essential to the public good, but Microsoft would have a tought time demonstrating that with 95% of the market, and therefor the economy, their works shouldn't be in the public domain.
In the old days public domain meant that anyone could make money off a works - and that must have been a kicker for content creators. Now public domain means that no one can make any money out of it, as people are free to download and copy for free (who would pay for a free service?). I thinks thats an easier pill to swallow, but then my income doesn't depend on royalites from my lifes work.
Why not let the Americans keep control of ipv4 and let the UN lead the way with ipv6?
A few developing countrys like Japan, UK, Germany, South Korea, France, Australia, Russia and China are, apparently outside of the US of A and probably have the skills and the money to make this happen.
All they'd need is a few local mandates to force the regional ISPs to supply IPv6 addresses in addition to IPv4 and setup a DNS or 6 in in each country, under the control of that country and you have yourself a UN solution. The US could kick in it heals and refuse to co-operate, but when the US consumers see Europeans have all the advantages that IPv6 brings (what are they again?) they'll probably start complaining.
Because its a different technology? Radio and TV are natural broadcast mediums. It costs the same to distribute to one are the same as to distribute to many. The internet is peer-to-peer and bi-directional (if not asymetric). The costs are directly proportional to the number of viewers.
If you don't peer distribute the cost of distribution goes up as more servers and bandwidth are required. This means more advertising or subscription to pay for the costs. This could work too, but the start up costs are high, so the risks are greater. Greater risk is almost always followed by greater cost to the consumer - more advertising, stricter licencing.
What are you actually complaining about anyway? I pay £20 a month for a 1mb:128k connection, thats about £0.02 per hour. It would take me around 1 hour to download a 40 minute program, and another 9 to upload the equivalent content. Total cost £0.20 in bandwidth. Now in a couple of months that figure is going to 1/2, as my service is upgraded to 4Mb:256k for free. Now the value quoted is a sunk cost. I will pay that £0.02p an hour weather I'm downloading content or not. Yes it is a cost, but if anything a technology like, Bittorrent allows to to get more value for money rather than less.
I guess your objection will become more valid, when in addition to using your bandwidth, they also introduce more advertising and a subscription fee - without providing additional servers and bandwidth. Thats almost inevitable I guess.
The problem is TV is free so we're not willing to pay for it, or we're somehow convinced ourselves that we're owed the content...
Ad breaks in the content will pay for the service we want.
Advertisments in the client software will pay for the service we want.
As long as they don't stop us from leaving our chairs and going to the toilet whilst the ads are on, or use popups and botherware whilst we're doing using other apps I don't see what the problem is.
It won't take long for some TV execs to realise that iTunes is winning because its better than the illegal service (I put money on it being the guys at the BBC). If they stop you from fast forwarding ads, demand that you click through to get content, or put more ads in than UK tv, people will go back to pirating content. In return they'll get accurate demographics and viewing figures for the first time in history and an instant international audience. Sweet deal huh?
This is a really interesting move by the GPL board. Its clear that the target is Google. Under GPL3 they would have a tough time not releasing GoogleOS and GoogleFS and all the other enhancements that they are working on that are still in beta.
The problem is that the only reason we know about either GoogleOS or GoogleFS is because it didn't cost them anything. If they knew they would have to release their IP if they decalred it as an enhancement, wouldn't they just claim that they were using Slackware through out, and no you can't see our server logs. Whats stopping them from turning round and saying, in light of the GPL3 we will now be moving to OpenBSD - ne nah ne ne nah.
How do you define a modification? If you create your own start up script for Apache, or create a custom configuration... is that a modification? Will it be defined as any modification that requires a recompilation of code? (Kernal configuration is going to be fun). How will already understaffed GPL projects be able to 1: enforce a code submission 2: handle the increased noise, as every man and a dog submits their patches?
How is this ever going to be enforcable? Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife - great idea, totally unenforcable in a court of law, in a libre society (it sure as hell is free as in beer - have you seen gas prices?;))- but then IANAL.
There is a big difference between writing a sensible, modular enhancement that you think will benefit all, and hacking together a patch that makes a project work better in your situation.
This is not a licence enhancement so much as a declaration of faith. How serious are you about FOSS?
Since when has the office software business been a free market? Its ruled by a convicted monopolist, who has been proven to use anti-competitive actions to protect the assests and investments of its stock holders.
How can a civil servant be expected to put out a tender for office software, when there is no market, just one, megalithic monster? (and a couple of OSS alternatives)
iPod 3G - Scratched to hell Nokia Phone - Scratched to hell, but ugly so scratches don't notice Key Fob - Scratched to hell Gameboy - Scratched to hell
My leather wallet is scratched. My keys have scratches.
If you put something in you pocket it will scratch. Now break? Thats a different story. If the screen on my phone, iPod or Gameboy had broken through what I would concider fair use - putting it in my pocket, I'd be kicking up a fuss.
Apple are doing the right thing by replacing the parts that have broken. If you don't want something to scratch, don't put it in your pocket, or let it touch anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason photo editing is difficult to use, is because photo editing is difficult to do.
The fundamental problem with photo software is that computers don't have a clue about what they are doing so they can't help you. You may just wan't to make the subject stand out from the background, but the computer can't tell the difference between a cat and an orange so you have to describe exactly where the subject is. Magic wand tools are a help, but there not that good because even when you've defined the outline of an object accurately the computer doesn't have a clue what it is so you still have to describe exactly what you want to do with it.
In this respect photo editors are tools, not aids and must require training.
Compare this to a PIM tool where the defining a data object is as easy as typing text into a text box. The computer knows what you mean when you gesture to remove an ex-girlfriend from an address book because you have told it what an entry is and how to delete it. We're many years from being able to say "remove my ex-girlfriend from all of my old photos" and have it work as effectively.
One of the best rules of thumb in computer science is if its hard from computers its easy for humans, and vice versa. Nothing emphasises this more than dealing with images and objects.
I thought that the breathalizer was designed to provide a strong indication that somebody had been drinking, the officer can arrest under the suspsision of being DUI, which is then confirmed by an 'open source' blood test which can then be used in court.
There are all sorts of reasons why somebody could fail a breathalizer, not least of which is mouth wash - which is why only the results of a blood test are admissible as evidence of DUI.
Natural gas is free! You make crap loads of it ;) You just need to retro fit basement with a sewage management system.
Rotting food, animal waste, human waste can all be used to generate CH3 and the byproducts are clean water and fertilizer.
You've just been mugged, your face looks like hamburger, you need to call 112 and your phone kicks you in the balls by telling you it doesn't like your face anymore.
Biometrics are ok, but you need to use more than one - facial recognition on its own won't be any good.
Mac OS X laptops have had this technology for years. You want to switch it off, close the screen, switch it on, open the screen. It takes a second or two for the memory to be cached, wireless network connections and DVD spin-up take a little longer.
In answer to how fast does Mac OS X boot from cold, my crappy G4 laptop (2 years old) takes 38 secs, my G5 is less than that (obviously - faster harddrive, more ram, faster, better CPU) but I'm sitting at my works dual xeons (2.6GHz, 2GB RAM) running Win2K which takes over 3 minutes to recycle.
The only news here is that the new Intel Mac laptops are going to have instant on too - but I don't think they'd have sold if they didn't.
Will we run out of oil before or after we run out of IPv4 addresses?
The only good news to come out of the answer of that question is that nobody is going to die when we run out IPv4 addresses.
(I'm just full of joy tonight!... I need more beer)
Maybe I'm missing something on the money front...
.mov files. As a case in point, I'm halfway through my parents copy of the 4th series the West Wing and I have lost around 20 CDs to friends, but I haven't lent anyone my any of my iTMS music. I don't share DRM content, because its a PITA, not because I can't, or believe I shouldn't. I'll leave the question of whether not sharing art is a good thing to another rant.
Please excuse the £, I'm British.
I can buy a DVD boxset for ~£35. For that I get 22 episodes, a pretty box and a few extras. Apple have the possibility to sell, on a per episode basis, those same 22 episodes for £1.89 (thats what their charging Brits) with no extras, and no box and the studios are worried about DVD sales?
Thats £1.89 per episode, per TV at almost 100% pure profit. Assuming that it costs Apple £0.20 per episode in bandwidth and other overheads, thats more money than if they sold just one box set - and thats before you start concidering that you can lend a DVD boxset to friends and family far more easily than you can send them HUGE
Why, in the name of Jobs, do TV execs give a rats ass about DVD sales...? thats a genuine question.
Per episode TV, that is paid for by the customer, removing the need for lawyers and syndication deals, makes so much sense it hurts. If anyone can provide hard data that, per episode, shows make more than £1.50 per TV it is displayed on, I'd like to see it.
There is no question that it will change the face of TV, but for the better. Will TV with ads disappear? No. I own hundreds of DVDs, and I still endup watching films I have bought when I flick on to them. Why? Sometimes I like it when somebody else drives what I watch. If nothing else, I'll probably test drive new shows on ad funded TV, as the risk is lower, but I'll probably start buying it as soon as I decide I like it - because I don't like ads, or being forced to be in the same place every week for 22 weeks. Sure I could use a VCR, but I've never liked the quality. I could perhaps use a PVR, but the chances of such a device being legal, and my content lasting long enough for me to get round and watch it are slim.
I don't think this point can be emphasised enough. It takes HOURS to rip DVD to H.264 - HOURS. Its not like a CD where you can rip it before the first song is finished, it takes a fast computer, a signigificant fraction of a day at 100% CPU usage to get what Apple are providing for $2. Thats good value. My only critism is that for $2 an hour I'd expect HD quality not TV. I've got a 20" widescreen iMac that can play back 1024i movies in realtime and there is no content. None. I would gladly hand over $2 an epidsode for Lost / Firefly / House / Smallville (don't think too little of me) if I could watch them in fullscreen with low artifacts and pixalisation $2 and bandwidth is worth it.
The next thing that needs to happen... Sony PSP gets into bed with iTMS. Apple must understand that they're different markets. People don't compare iPods and PSPs. They buy iPods if they want to listen to music in the gym/car they buy a PSP if they want to play games on the train / playground. There is function overlap, but not enough that they could be concidered the same thing - they are not. What isn't fair is that if someone with a PSP can't use it to play video they bought for their PC/Mac/iPod. Its not good for consumers (its also why I don't understand why anyone would ever buy a UMD).
I tried to RTFA, but I got depressed. There is no mystery as to how or why Microsoft became so ubiquitous - it represented the best balance of usability / functionality / cost to businesses and home users in the time before the internet. By the time the internet had hit, there was so much human momentum behind it that the microsoft of today was inevitable. We shouldn't blame Microsoft for becoming Microsoft, we should blame human nature. We wanted a single platform and we wanted it for as little money as possible.
The problem we're facing today is that there are two many people pushing single platform solutions. You can't blame them for that, you stand a better chance of repeat purchases if your software doesn't play well with others and the cost of migration is greater than the cost of an upgrade, but in the long run its not good for anyone, because it creates Micorsofts.
We need to educate people in the benefits of hetrogentity - don't buy software that only works for a single platform. Don't buy computers that will only work with similar computers. Don't buy into product that only has a single line of support - and never buy a product that has no support (I include offshore telephone support in that) and top of the list must be: don't buy software that generates files that can only be read by a single application.
Anytime you buy/use a product that adopts and enhances a standard protocol and doesn't tell the rest of the world how they are doing it, you buy into the next Microsoft.
This is because HBO is one of the first networks to start distributing their shows via iTMS after the release of the iPod video in October. Where else do you think they got the smarts for corrupting bittorent?*
*This is totally made up
My mom must be the ultimate slashdotter. She never reads the stories, she doesn't read the comments, in fact she doesn't even read the front page! She's so l33t that she never even reads or uses the URL!!!
I want to own music.
I want to rent movies.
I can download movies... I have the technology. I don't because its not worth it. For £7.99 a month I get 4 DVDs posted through my door and I can choose the movies online. Its takes a couple of days for the movie to arrive, but thats comparable to bittorrent on a 1MB downpipe. Once the DVD arrives I know the quality will be good and there are usually a few extras.
Looking at my DVD collection only about 20% have been watched more than once, the rest I would have been better off renting.
I would gladly hand over $10-15 for 8 downloads a month and then pony up an extra $2 for the right to burn a downloaded copy to DVD.
We've been bouncing this around for years now and no single proprietary-software company has put together an iTunes equivalent for movies and yet it shows all the signs of being a cash cow. Its time for FOSS to stand up and create that software and use it to generate an income for FOSS projects.
FOSS DRM might be bit of misnoma, and charging for a product isn't something FOSS is very good at, but think of all the good it could do! It could revive BSD, it could bring HURD to life, it could mean that Wine actually catches up with MS - it could charge the war chest in the fight against DRM, patents and copyright.
Excellent. The BBC is making moves to let me, a Licence Fee Payer, get at the content I've been forced to pay for in a way that is more useful to me. Well done.
But can you imagine the arguments that are going on inside the BBC at the moment?
The licence fee is pretty reasonable at the moment (well I think it is) and a large part of that is due to additional funds that are created when the BBC sells DVDs of archive and popular shows. The nice thing about DVD sales is that licence fee payers benefit, because the BBC gets a cut, but also the underpaid BBC talent gets a chance to make some money. The other source fo revenue is global syndication. I simply don't see how this won't cut into DVD sales.
I hope the BBC has the foresight to see that this really shouldn't be a problem. People are used to paying a subscription for TV, let non-uk citizens pay their $17.50 a month and let the money roll in. Sure there will be illegal copies of the shows rolling around bittorrent sites, but thats happening already.
What the BBC really need to do is get into bed with Apple on this. Just open up the archives, explain that it needs to be sold as a subscription ($15 a month has a nice ring to it), all you can eat service and let Apple do the rest.
Which makes your USB drive about as useful as HFS+ formatted iPod.
(BTW - I use HFS on my iPod as almost all the computers I use are macs... but thats kind of my point)
Oh yeah... I'm not the target audience.
Why will people use GoogleOffice? I'd say its because they understand web browsers, they trust google, but most of all because they can't afford MS Office. Why not use OpenOffice? Why not use Thunderbird for gMail. People don't because they are afraid of installing software because they might break their computer, or because it doesn't work first time out of the box. I believe given the choice between installing an office suite or going to a website that does almost the same thing, the web site will win out.
Its the same reason people use Internet Explorer, Windows Messenger and Outlook Express: it is the path of least resistance.
If computers were packaged with Thunderbird, Firefox and OpenOffice there is no question in my mind that the use of these apps would sore. Look at Macs. I know a fair few Mac users and they all use Mail, Safari and Pages. Why? Because they came preinstalled, and it was easier to learn these apps than convince me to install the MS equivalent for them.
Buying and installing software is the domain of geeks. Left to their own devices, Joe Sixpack wouldn't install, upgrade or buy any software if there was a simpler alternative. Web services let someone else do all that for you, which is great, except that HTTP and HTML both suck for this use. If GoogleOffice is successful, maybe it could be the driver for a web application protocol and language that is purpose built for this type of situation.
I thought this was to be the digital age of openness. That we would be free to use whatever software we liked, because programs can exchange information freely thanks to technologies like XML/XSLT and applications will run on any system because the source is open and modern languages are designed with portability in mind. Why oh why would we put ourselves in the position where single company rules the world again? Its for this reason that I think this guy is full of it. Yes, Google want to gain ground on Microsoft... who doesn't? If Google really wanted to improve the world they would be in tight negotiations with Apple, Linux, *BSD and Sun so that they can do the above - share data and applications between hetrogenous systems. Its not impossible, its greate for the consumer, and its greate for these companies. How many CEOs could really say that being beholden to a single company is good for share holders? But at the same time CEOs like Microsoft, because they make it easy to buy software - no one ever got fired for buying Microsoft. The vision is already coming true. There is a reason why Java did so well in the enterprise market - freedom to choose container providers, operating system and hardware vendor whilst only doing minimal porting for each choice. The next step is for the same CEOs that made that descision to start looking for the similar technologies on the desktop. Its not going to be Java. Its not going to be C/C++. It could be Mono/.Net, but I doubt it. The fact is that whilst Google / Apple / Linux / Sun / Linux and *BSD don't have a lingua franca Microsoft arn't going anywhere.
Somebody / thing paid lots of money to research and develop the tube map. Its clearly something that people find so useful that its priceless (like water not diamonds). They need compensation for their works, but how much?
Is there a copyright equivalent to compulsery purchase orders? In the UK, if something big is happening, and your house is in the middle of where they want to put it, you can be issued with a compulsery purchase order. An independant commision examines the value of your property and your land and offers the market value or greater. Couldn't a similar case be made for something like the tube map, and then it could be placed in the public domain.
In this case it could be that when the copyright infringement gets to courts its within the judges power to say... hey, you were in the wrong, you did violate copyright I hereby slap your wrists, however, the works you were copying has great value to the public, and it is being used as a cash cow, I declare this works and any derivatives there of public domain. The defendant walks away with sore wrists and a smile, the prosecution walk away with a cheque.
Maybe this would discourage big corporations from taking such cases to court, in fear that their works could be stripped from them. It probably wouldn't effect music and video as they could never be concidered essential to the public good, but Microsoft would have a tought time demonstrating that with 95% of the market, and therefor the economy, their works shouldn't be in the public domain.
In the old days public domain meant that anyone could make money off a works - and that must have been a kicker for content creators. Now public domain means that no one can make any money out of it, as people are free to download and copy for free (who would pay for a free service?). I thinks thats an easier pill to swallow, but then my income doesn't depend on royalites from my lifes work.
Why not let the Americans keep control of ipv4 and let the UN lead the way with ipv6?
A few developing countrys like Japan, UK, Germany, South Korea, France, Australia, Russia and China are, apparently outside of the US of A and probably have the skills and the money to make this happen.
All they'd need is a few local mandates to force the regional ISPs to supply IPv6 addresses in addition to IPv4 and setup a DNS or 6 in in each country, under the control of that country and you have yourself a UN solution. The US could kick in it heals and refuse to co-operate, but when the US consumers see Europeans have all the advantages that IPv6 brings (what are they again?) they'll probably start complaining.
Because its a different technology? Radio and TV are natural broadcast mediums. It costs the same to distribute to one are the same as to distribute to many. The internet is peer-to-peer and bi-directional (if not asymetric). The costs are directly proportional to the number of viewers.
If you don't peer distribute the cost of distribution goes up as more servers and bandwidth are required. This means more advertising or subscription to pay for the costs. This could work too, but the start up costs are high, so the risks are greater. Greater risk is almost always followed by greater cost to the consumer - more advertising, stricter licencing.
What are you actually complaining about anyway? I pay £20 a month for a 1mb:128k connection, thats about £0.02 per hour. It would take me around 1 hour to download a 40 minute program, and another 9 to upload the equivalent content. Total cost £0.20 in bandwidth. Now in a couple of months that figure is going to 1/2, as my service is upgraded to 4Mb:256k for free. Now the value quoted is a sunk cost. I will pay that £0.02p an hour weather I'm downloading content or not. Yes it is a cost, but if anything a technology like, Bittorrent allows to to get more value for money rather than less.
I guess your objection will become more valid, when in addition to using your bandwidth, they also introduce more advertising and a subscription fee - without providing additional servers and bandwidth. Thats almost inevitable I guess.
You use a scrambler over POTS?
What do the feds do then?
The problem is TV is free so we're not willing to pay for it, or we're somehow convinced ourselves that we're owed the content...
Ad breaks in the content will pay for the service we want.
Advertisments in the client software will pay for the service we want.
As long as they don't stop us from leaving our chairs and going to the toilet whilst the ads are on, or use popups and botherware whilst we're doing using other apps I don't see what the problem is.
It won't take long for some TV execs to realise that iTunes is winning because its better than the illegal service (I put money on it being the guys at the BBC). If they stop you from fast forwarding ads, demand that you click through to get content, or put more ads in than UK tv, people will go back to pirating content. In return they'll get accurate demographics and viewing figures for the first time in history and an instant international audience. Sweet deal huh?
Your getting a cut. Its called content.
This is a really interesting move by the GPL board. Its clear that the target is Google. Under GPL3 they would have a tough time not releasing GoogleOS and GoogleFS and all the other enhancements that they are working on that are still in beta.
;))- but then IANAL.
The problem is that the only reason we know about either GoogleOS or GoogleFS is because it didn't cost them anything. If they knew they would have to release their IP if they decalred it as an enhancement, wouldn't they just claim that they were using Slackware through out, and no you can't see our server logs. Whats stopping them from turning round and saying, in light of the GPL3 we will now be moving to OpenBSD - ne nah ne ne nah.
How do you define a modification? If you create your own start up script for Apache, or create a custom configuration... is that a modification? Will it be defined as any modification that requires a recompilation of code? (Kernal configuration is going to be fun). How will already understaffed GPL projects be able to 1: enforce a code submission 2: handle the increased noise, as every man and a dog submits their patches?
How is this ever going to be enforcable? Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife - great idea, totally unenforcable in a court of law, in a libre society (it sure as hell is free as in beer - have you seen gas prices?
There is a big difference between writing a sensible, modular enhancement that you think will benefit all, and hacking together a patch that makes a project work better in your situation.
This is not a licence enhancement so much as a declaration of faith. How serious are you about FOSS?
Since when has the office software business been a free market? Its ruled by a convicted monopolist, who has been proven to use anti-competitive actions to protect the assests and investments of its stock holders. How can a civil servant be expected to put out a tender for office software, when there is no market, just one, megalithic monster? (and a couple of OSS alternatives)
iPod 3G - Scratched to hell
Nokia Phone - Scratched to hell, but ugly so scratches don't notice
Key Fob - Scratched to hell
Gameboy - Scratched to hell
My leather wallet is scratched. My keys have scratches.
If you put something in you pocket it will scratch. Now break? Thats a different story. If the screen on my phone, iPod or Gameboy had broken through what I would concider fair use - putting it in my pocket, I'd be kicking up a fuss.
Apple are doing the right thing by replacing the parts that have broken. If you don't want something to scratch, don't put it in your pocket, or let it touch anything else.