Pray tell, how would the artists make money from creating art. Would there be a fixed amount for each art item created? For each song? Who would pay that amount?
...and yet IBM produced the common architecture for the PC and have done quite well from it. I'm not a huge fan of capitalism but the problem with companies today is really a lack of capitalism. They are so rich that they can effectively stifle or stop most market competition without actually producing a better product.
Well, for a time. IBM eventually left the PC business altogether. Most PC manufacturers are struggling to turn a profit because PCs are essentially commodities now. Soon, we will have a small number of large PC builders, effectively an oligopoly, precisely because it has become too competitive, and things like economies of scale begin to win out. In fact, without regulation, this tends to be the outcome of laissez faire capitalism.
And one thing people tend to forget that sometimes the cheaper product _is_ the better product. I mean, if you earn 60K, what's the better product for you, 200 thousand dollar Mercedes or 10 thousand dollar Hyundai?
Because in the new scenario, there is a real incentive for politicians to campaign for safe states' votes.
With the current situation, there is no incentive for anyone to campaign there. All policy is designed to swing the swing states. So this popular vote compact will change that. There will be incentive for Republicans to campaign in California, even though they might be 20 points behind because they will gain votes which will tilt the overall balance in the popular vote.
Well, maybe, but the point of grounding all other planes is that the air force can shoot down anything else in the sky, except the ones they operate, which includes Air Force 1.
If the BSD guys had used a non GPL compatible license, they wouldn't be sued for infringement either (as long as they hadn't used any of the code from libreadline).
Works that are derived from libedit (if they exist) do not have to be made available under a GPL compatible license. Therefore the fact that libedit is under a GPL compatible license is not relevant to this.
It doesn't hurt to encourage (read 'force') manufacturers to provide information to customers at negligible cost to themselves. I mean, they do already try to misinform us enough anyway. Does anyone remember consumer electronics manufacturers selling mini hifis on peak music power output (PMPO).
I don't see why forcing them to provide useful information is a bad thing.
Even with a flat tax rate, those who earn more pay more taxes. If I earned $10,000,000 a year, and paid tax at say, 30%, and so did everyone, I would certainly be paying more than someone who earned $50,000. But I would almost certainly not be using $3,000,000 worth of services provided by government.
So what's a fair tax? One could argue that the only fair tax is the one where everyone pays exactly the same amount, say, $8,450 per person, which, in the USA, would mean about 2.8 trillion dollars in revenues.
But I am sure most people have no problem with the wealthy paying more tax in absolute terms, which is what matters.
It is in the interests of the wealthy anyway to have a functional society, even if it means they pay more for it in relative terms. They have most to lose. It's economics 101. Not that it will happen in America, but a look at Russia in the early 20th century will show you what happens when the gap between rich and poor grows too large.
Eh. Monoracial family. White mother, black father. relatives from Kansas and Kenya. I'll take it you meant multi-racial.
About the race baiting, to their credit, both McCain and Obama shied away from discussing race. It still came up, a lot, but by and large it didn't influence the outcome of the election. Obama needed to carry very large percentage of the white vote. If he had split the country along racial lines, he would have lost, handily.
That is a valid way to determine relevance. The more confident you are that customers searching certain keywords are looking for and want to buy your product, the more you are willing to pay for it.
Diversification is not dilution. The market does not reward you for undiversified risk. As you essentially said, it is rolling the dice.
Unless you are an insider, or it's your company, or you really know something about a company, putting all your eggs in one basket is making a punt, and you have a pretty much 50-50 chance of winning or losing.
Diversification removes a lot of the risk. It is good strategy.
No, patents are for ideas, not implementations. The only qualifications must be that the patent is new, inventive and useful or industrially applicable.
If you could only patent an implementation, then we would be limiting patents to people or corporations with deep pockets. In such a scenario, software patents would actually be 'less bad' because at least all one would need is a computer, i.e., low barrier to entry.
Of course, nowadays, many patents are owned by IBM et al, so my argument is somewhat undermined, but in theory, I can still dream of something, and wake up tomorrow and patent it.
Getting his idea on the market could also mean selling his idea. The whole point is it grants him a monopoly. So he can either bring it to market himself, or sell it to someone who (or some company that) can.
The one end of the bargain he has to keep is to publish the patent so that after we (society) afford him our protection for him to exploit his idea for financial gain, he allows us to use it free of charge after the 20 years is up.
Slightly different for me. I was accessing the internet from a decidedly 3rd world country, and I used Yahoo. Yahoo, being a portal and all, took quite a while to load. So I saw the "powered by Gogle" thing and searched for Google. Never ooked back since. Also helped that it was pretty handy at returning resulst, and didn't bother me with the "hand optimised" results Yahoo liked throwing at me.
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
I [i][b]know[/b][/i] Google [i][b]acquired[/b][/i] Doubleclick, but that doesn't make Google Doubleclick anymore than Apple having acquired Soundjam (makers of the application that became iTunes) makes Safari a browser made by Soundjam.
You know very well what you are hoping to imply by saying that Doubleclick created this browser.
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
Please, you are so petty you are calling this a browser by Doubleclick. How much better are you than those who call Microsoft "Micro$oft".
There are some things that chrome does better than other browsers. Better than Firefox, which incidentally, I am typing from from (because I am running Linux, for which Chrome is not yet available). One of these it jailing the tabs. Firefox does not do that.
Who says style can't live with substance. It's not some dichotomy. You can have your cake and eat it too like that. Why shouldn't Google (the maker of the browser, and not Doubleclick, as you may have been misinformed) try and make their browser distinctive? Why shouldn't they challenge convention? It's called progress. Something humans have been doing for millions of years.
And my post addressed your points fair enough. Your only recourse seems to be to employ absurd non sequiturs (like style vs substance). And why bring Apple and Obama into this?
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
Whoa, you seem to be getting quite worked up about a browser release.
It's an option, one which some people will find very suitable. To address our points.
The custom skin is them trying to be different and appealing. It is not going to be to everyone's taste. But it's open source, so you can change it (or someone else can).
Again, open source, so you can introduce the ad blocker (or again, someone else can).
Politics in the web browser. Now this is laughable. One of the reasons they did this was to make Javascript faster. And it is a first release. Some features can come later. right now, they would probably prefer people actually test the javascript implentation. You do realise this is a first beta right?
Memory use. Well, I have 2GB of memory. I was beginning to wonder if anyone would actually ever use it. seriously, it's not that much more than other browsers.
The license issue has been rectified. You need to move on.
And the fanboy comment. Well, Pot. Kettle. Black. Anyone?
This is not quite true. Seek times are reduced when you have more data in the same 12cm space. Although the CLV nature of the drive offsets that somewhat.
Spoken like someone without the slightest idea of what Africa is about. Economic development comes first, then birth rates fall. That has always been the order.
Re:GPLv2 and GPLv3 have the same spirit
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
I was somehow modded down for my very factual post.
I don't think it is possible to do the sort of DRM that Bluray employs in hardware. it is done is software. it is designed to be updated, and new keys are supposed to be released to continue to play new media in case some keys get compromised. It is in software. And you cannot do it with GPLv3 and expect it to be secure. I am not making an argument for or against DRM. I happen to fall somewhere between the two extremes, and I think DRM is useful, but that it is very easy to make it too burdensome.
But this does not change the fact that Stallman does not want GPLv3 software to be used in DRM applications. He has worded the GPLv3 to make that impossible.
Re:GPLv2 and GPLv3 have the same spirit
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 0, Troll
That's what Stallman would have you believe. The dirty (not so) secret is that Stallman hates DRM, almost as much, if not more, than he hates proprietary software.
Tivo released all the improvements they made to the software they used. What they did was prevent users being able to modify software on the Tivo, and pass it off as a Tivo. GPLv3 tries to make it so that a user can modify a system, and be able to pass it off as the original. It makes DRM impossible. This is not something "unintended". I daresay, RMS designed the GPLv3 to do this. To make it impossible to use GPLv3 software in DRM applications.
Slashdot Mirror
Pray tell, how would the artists make money from creating art. Would there be a fixed amount for each art item created? For each song? Who would pay that amount?
Well, for a time. IBM eventually left the PC business altogether. Most PC manufacturers are struggling to turn a profit because PCs are essentially commodities now. Soon, we will have a small number of large PC builders, effectively an oligopoly, precisely because it has become too competitive, and things like economies of scale begin to win out. In fact, without regulation, this tends to be the outcome of laissez faire capitalism.
And one thing people tend to forget that sometimes the cheaper product _is_ the better product. I mean, if you earn 60K, what's the better product for you, 200 thousand dollar Mercedes or 10 thousand dollar Hyundai?
Because in the new scenario, there is a real incentive for politicians to campaign for safe states' votes.
With the current situation, there is no incentive for anyone to campaign there. All policy is designed to swing the swing states. So this popular vote compact will change that. There will be incentive for Republicans to campaign in California, even though they might be 20 points behind because they will gain votes which will tilt the overall balance in the popular vote.
Well, maybe, but the point of grounding all other planes is that the air force can shoot down anything else in the sky, except the ones they operate, which includes Air Force 1.
If the BSD guys had used a non GPL compatible license, they wouldn't be sued for infringement either (as long as they hadn't used any of the code from libreadline).
Works that are derived from libedit (if they exist) do not have to be made available under a GPL compatible license. Therefore the fact that libedit is under a GPL compatible license is not relevant to this.
And, if I may add, where do you think we will be getting the hydrogen? (Hint, it doesn't exist naturally in it's pure state).
Do you have an idea how much water vapour is released over the oceans.
Strange. I could say the same thing about Wikipedia.
It doesn't hurt to encourage (read 'force') manufacturers to provide information to customers at negligible cost to themselves. I mean, they do already try to misinform us enough anyway. Does anyone remember consumer electronics manufacturers selling mini hifis on peak music power output (PMPO).
I don't see why forcing them to provide useful information is a bad thing.
Even with a flat tax rate, those who earn more pay more taxes. If I earned $10,000,000 a year, and paid tax at say, 30%, and so did everyone, I would certainly be paying more than someone who earned $50,000. But I would almost certainly not be using $3,000,000 worth of services provided by government.
So what's a fair tax? One could argue that the only fair tax is the one where everyone pays exactly the same amount, say, $8,450 per person, which, in the USA, would mean about 2.8 trillion dollars in revenues.
But I am sure most people have no problem with the wealthy paying more tax in absolute terms, which is what matters.
It is in the interests of the wealthy anyway to have a functional society, even if it means they pay more for it in relative terms. They have most to lose. It's economics 101. Not that it will happen in America, but a look at Russia in the early 20th century will show you what happens when the gap between rich and poor grows too large.
Eh. Monoracial family. White mother, black father. relatives from Kansas and Kenya. I'll take it you meant multi-racial.
About the race baiting, to their credit, both McCain and Obama shied away from discussing race. It still came up, a lot, but by and large it didn't influence the outcome of the election. Obama needed to carry very large percentage of the white vote. If he had split the country along racial lines, he would have lost, handily.
That is a valid way to determine relevance. The more confident you are that customers searching certain keywords are looking for and want to buy your product, the more you are willing to pay for it.
No no, we are Google's customers. We might not pay Google in cold hard cash, but we provide the eyeballs that the advertisers lust after.
It's like saying audiences are not the customers of free-to-air TV. Without use free-to-air TV and Google have no product worth buying.
At the end of the day, people eyeballing Google and partner sites pay Google, but maybe not direcctly. But make no mistake, we are their customers.
Diversification is not dilution. The market does not reward you for undiversified risk. As you essentially said, it is rolling the dice.
Unless you are an insider, or it's your company, or you really know something about a company, putting all your eggs in one basket is making a punt, and you have a pretty much 50-50 chance of winning or losing.
Diversification removes a lot of the risk. It is good strategy.
No, patents are for ideas, not implementations. The only qualifications must be that the patent is new, inventive and useful or industrially applicable.
If you could only patent an implementation, then we would be limiting patents to people or corporations with deep pockets. In such a scenario, software patents would actually be 'less bad' because at least all one would need is a computer, i.e., low barrier to entry.
Of course, nowadays, many patents are owned by IBM et al, so my argument is somewhat undermined, but in theory, I can still dream of something, and wake up tomorrow and patent it.
Getting his idea on the market could also mean selling his idea. The whole point is it grants him a monopoly. So he can either bring it to market himself, or sell it to someone who (or some company that) can.
The one end of the bargain he has to keep is to publish the patent so that after we (society) afford him our protection for him to exploit his idea for financial gain, he allows us to use it free of charge after the 20 years is up.
A business that relies on donations is not a business, but a charity.
Slightly different for me. I was accessing the internet from a decidedly 3rd world country, and I used Yahoo. Yahoo, being a portal and all, took quite a while to load. So I saw the "powered by Gogle" thing and searched for Google. Never ooked back since. Also helped that it was pretty handy at returning resulst, and didn't bother me with the "hand optimised" results Yahoo liked throwing at me.
I [i][b]know[/b][/i] Google [i][b]acquired[/b][/i] Doubleclick, but that doesn't make Google Doubleclick anymore than Apple having acquired Soundjam (makers of the application that became iTunes) makes Safari a browser made by Soundjam.
You know very well what you are hoping to imply by saying that Doubleclick created this browser.
Please, you are so petty you are calling this a browser by Doubleclick. How much better are you than those who call Microsoft "Micro$oft".
There are some things that chrome does better than other browsers. Better than Firefox, which incidentally, I am typing from from (because I am running Linux, for which Chrome is not yet available). One of these it jailing the tabs. Firefox does not do that.
Who says style can't live with substance. It's not some dichotomy. You can have your cake and eat it too like that. Why shouldn't Google (the maker of the browser, and not Doubleclick, as you may have been misinformed) try and make their browser distinctive? Why shouldn't they challenge convention? It's called progress. Something humans have been doing for millions of years.
And my post addressed your points fair enough. Your only recourse seems to be to employ absurd non sequiturs (like style vs substance). And why bring Apple and Obama into this?
Whoa, you seem to be getting quite worked up about a browser release.
It's an option, one which some people will find very suitable. To address our points.
The custom skin is them trying to be different and appealing. It is not going to be to everyone's taste. But it's open source, so you can change it (or someone else can).
Again, open source, so you can introduce the ad blocker (or again, someone else can).
Politics in the web browser. Now this is laughable. One of the reasons they did this was to make Javascript faster. And it is a first release. Some features can come later. right now, they would probably prefer people actually test the javascript implentation. You do realise this is a first beta right?
Memory use. Well, I have 2GB of memory. I was beginning to wonder if anyone would actually ever use it. seriously, it's not that much more than other browsers.
The license issue has been rectified. You need to move on.
And the fanboy comment. Well, Pot. Kettle. Black. Anyone?
This is not quite true. Seek times are reduced when you have more data in the same 12cm space. Although the CLV nature of the drive offsets that somewhat.
Spoken like someone without the slightest idea of what Africa is about. Economic development comes first, then birth rates fall. That has always been the order.
I was somehow modded down for my very factual post.
I don't think it is possible to do the sort of DRM that Bluray employs in hardware. it is done is software. it is designed to be updated, and new keys are supposed to be released to continue to play new media in case some keys get compromised. It is in software. And you cannot do it with GPLv3 and expect it to be secure. I am not making an argument for or against DRM. I happen to fall somewhere between the two extremes, and I think DRM is useful, but that it is very easy to make it too burdensome.
But this does not change the fact that Stallman does not want GPLv3 software to be used in DRM applications. He has worded the GPLv3 to make that impossible.
That's what Stallman would have you believe. The dirty (not so) secret is that Stallman hates DRM, almost as much, if not more, than he hates proprietary software.
Tivo released all the improvements they made to the software they used. What they did was prevent users being able to modify software on the Tivo, and pass it off as a Tivo. GPLv3 tries to make it so that a user can modify a system, and be able to pass it off as the original. It makes DRM impossible. This is not something "unintended". I daresay, RMS designed the GPLv3 to do this. To make it impossible to use GPLv3 software in DRM applications.