I'm not American, but AFAIR is responsible for deciding which products in medical care are good enough to be sold to people. You can always build your own device and have it put into you. But there is a need for the society to control what is being sold to people as "The Magic Device That Will Cure Your Heart". If you think that health care can work along free market rules *only*, you're totally wrong. The health care market will never be free, for various reasons.
The problem
with them is that you cannot tell a user -- "I have this really fast solution to your problem,
but once in billion billions you will lose $10M".
Of course you can. You tell it to people boarding planes, only that for "$10M" you substitute "your life". When it's about money, it's mighty simpler. They just need to have an insurance policy.
I'd add to it that since that chip does not seem to bring new features in it apart from the higher clock rate, its existence is probably a consequence of some improvement in AMD's chip-making technology. I suspect they simply noticed they can clock some part of their chips 200 MHz faster. What did you expect them to do in that situation?
You know, I'm a PhD student in physics, so I'm also sticking to what I like, not to what would bring me the most money. But the fact that someone likes Open Source enough to program for it, does not mean he will spend boring hours creating detailed documentation (we all know how sparse, incomplete and chaotic is the documentation for many Open Source projects...), polishing the user interface (another neglected issue in Open Source, as pointed even by Eric Raymond) or taking care the changes in the program do not spell disaster for users of previous versions. This stuff is boring and unattractive for CS students. The programmer is more likely to care about those "details" if he is paid to do it by the company which has to take care of its customers or get off the market. And please don't point me out the example of Microsoft. There are lots of other companies churning out quality software. I could also give the example of computer games -- the software genre so popular among geeks that it should attract many Open Source developers. Somehow, the Open Source games are, frankly speaking, lousy as compared to proprietary games. Why? Because making a good game takes much more than just coding skills. It takes artistic skills, it takes the patience to create a good plot in the game, it takes some knowledge to desing a good game. This is why John Carmack drives a Ferrari.
No, my argument does not go bang. I was not arguing that writing Open Source is not attractive. I was arguing that in creating *quality* software, money can be and is a powerful incentive, which some advocates of Open Source totally ignore.
At the same time, I duly acknowledge and express my deep respect to all the people who wrote those wonderful Open Source programs I use in my work and entertainment.
And don't give a damn if it doesn't work for people who do not know the Current Magic Trick To Make It Work (believe me, I compiled some of Open Source programs and tried in vain to make it work properly, while eying in despair screenshots put on the Web by the happy developers)...
who may not give a flying whatever about the product.
Why? because, as I said before, their daily bread depends on the quality and popularity of their product? that's why they don't give a "flying whatever" about it?
Please note, I'm a fan of Linux and Open Source. But I'm not a fanatic.
I know that many people who program computers to run their laboratory hardware do it with DOS. It's easy and efficient. I imagine these guys had a reason to switch to Linux, maybe the efficiency was too low or they needed modern development tools.
Slashdot Mirror
My Seagate drive failed recently. Of course, it proves nothing.
I'm not American, but AFAIR is responsible for deciding which products in medical care are good enough to be sold to people. You can always build your own device and have it put into you. But there is a need for the society to control what is being sold to people as "The Magic Device That Will Cure Your Heart". If you think that health care can work along free market rules *only*, you're totally wrong. The health care market will never be free, for various reasons.
The problem with them is that you cannot tell a user -- "I have this really fast solution to your problem, but once in billion billions you will lose $10M".
Of course you can. You tell it to people boarding planes, only that for "$10M" you substitute "your life". When it's about money, it's mighty simpler. They just need to have an insurance policy.
And the Wick rotation doesn't make sense either... it changes the topology.
David Hilber had to tutor him in differential geometry.
How do you know what are Indian laws in that regard? Or do you just assume America is the best?
No outsourcing = no crime. Is that what you're saying?
The Titanic was built by professionals. When Noah built the Arch he was an amateur ...
... with a wealthy sponsor.
Have you actually *read* the GNU license?
You make it sound like being a communist is a horrible thing.
It's only as horrible as being a nazi. Read about gulags and NKVD.
Hmm... google riding the free software wave? How?
I'd add to it that since that chip does not seem to bring new features in it apart from the higher clock rate, its existence is probably a consequence of some improvement in AMD's chip-making technology. I suspect they simply noticed they can clock some part of their chips 200 MHz faster. What did you expect them to do in that situation?
Want a science-friendly SF? Read novels by Stanislaw Lem.
+1 Insightful ????
Theoretically, this is bad. In practice, NSDAP would win the first democratic elections in West Germany after 1945.
If you think Rodin's art is pornography, then further discussion is pointless.
I have an even better idea: convince them that watching such sites is a waste of time. Why do people confuse bringing up with control?
ACLU would not get anywhere in Europe, it it were to start by defending Nazi marches and protests.
Would you want your children flying a space shuttle that hasn't been properly beta-tested?
No, I wouldn't. That's why we don't send children into space, only consenting adults.
You know, I'm a PhD student in physics, so I'm also sticking to what I like, not to what would bring me the most money. But the fact that someone likes Open Source enough to program for it, does not mean he will spend boring hours creating detailed documentation (we all know how sparse, incomplete and chaotic is the documentation for many Open Source projects...), polishing the user interface (another neglected issue in Open Source, as pointed even by Eric Raymond) or taking care the changes in the program do not spell disaster for users of previous versions. This stuff is boring and unattractive for CS students. The programmer is more likely to care about those "details" if he is paid to do it by the company which has to take care of its customers or get off the market. And please don't point me out the example of Microsoft. There are lots of other companies churning out quality software. I could also give the example of computer games -- the software genre so popular among geeks that it should attract many Open Source developers. Somehow, the Open Source games are, frankly speaking, lousy as compared to proprietary games. Why? Because making a good game takes much more than just coding skills. It takes artistic skills, it takes the patience to create a good plot in the game, it takes some knowledge to desing a good game. This is why John Carmack drives a Ferrari.
No, my argument does not go bang. I was not arguing that writing Open Source is not attractive. I was arguing that in creating *quality* software, money can be and is a powerful incentive, which some advocates of Open Source totally ignore.
At the same time, I duly acknowledge and express my deep respect to all the people who wrote those wonderful Open Source programs I use in my work and entertainment.
who _actually use_ the software.
And don't give a damn if it doesn't work for people who do not know the Current Magic Trick To Make It Work (believe me, I compiled some of Open Source programs and tried in vain to make it work properly, while eying in despair screenshots put on the Web by the happy developers)...
who may not give a flying whatever about the product.
Why? because, as I said before, their daily bread depends on the quality and popularity of their product? that's why they don't give a "flying whatever" about it?
Please note, I'm a fan of Linux and Open Source. But I'm not a fanatic.
On the other hand:
Open source: made by people in their spare time with no monetary incentive to make it work properly.
Closed proprietary software: made by people who's daily bread depends on the quality and popularity of their product.
I'm not anti-open source, I use it a lot, but I just wanted to present the other side of the coin to you.
The slowest (and the oldest) Amigas were A500, not A1000. How accurate was the CPU clock?
How about turning the cache off?
I know that many people who program computers to run their laboratory hardware do it with DOS. It's easy and efficient. I imagine these guys had a reason to switch to Linux, maybe the efficiency was too low or they needed modern development tools.