I think GIMP has a lot of potential - especially given the functionality they do have. But they have in the past been so uptight about changing the UI, and the UI was the one big thing keeping me from using it. Hopefully they will come up with some more intuitive to the non-GIMP-geek, non-Developer person.
The one thing I really do hope they adopt with the MDI within an SDI (e.g. like Eclipse and and Visual Studios to name a couple examples). It just makes it so much easier to operate when the toolbars dock to the program window and you don't have to pop all over to different windows to do stuff.
So, I'll wait and see what they come up with...perhaps they'll even see this on Slashdot and incorportate Slashdot's comments (not likely...but possible...)..and then I'll check into using it again.
Good way to sell more copies of Vista when the problem is that people are holding on to their old OS. Turn off the old one, they gota buy something.
Good way to get a class action law suite filed against you for breaking the Doctrine of First Sale from those you disabled who had legal licenses to the software.
I'm sure there are even more obscure reasons people will give. They won't switch without being forced into it no matter how long a time frame they have. They just don't see any benefit to it.
There are also a number of negative reasons for going to DTV/HDTV, some listed in other posts. The most notable for me, which I am surprised has not been noted here, is fair use reasons. MPAA & major sports leagues (e.g. NBA, NFL, NASCAR, etc.) are all waiting for DTV to come in because it can support the broadcast flag easily, which the analog TV format cannot; thus once DTV comes in, it will only be a matter of time before they will be pushing for and getting it, after which you can say bye-bye to using your VCR to record a lot of stuff.
Then of course there is the whole HDMI/HCMI/HDCP debacle, which will limit what can and cannot go out of that converter box. DTV/HDTV is prime for that too.
So, until you're really willing to get rid of all your fair-use rights with relation to what comes in from your TV provider (OTA or otherwise), then you really need to ask the question - do you really want it? Are you willing to give up your ability to record stuff (on existing equipment) to get it?
Myself - the answer is no. I'll go to other mediums - DVDs on the computer with a nice projector and speaker setup - and just forget about the OTA or cable/etc. It's not worth it.
the cost of replacing a TV is beyond many people's means. I don't know what the cheapest TV with an ATSC tuner costs, but I suspect it's at least a day's wage for some people.
There really is a lot of truth in that.
Oh, and don't forget about the nuclear-ness of this. Right now, if U.S. were destroyed by a nuke, you'd still be able to use any TV or radio to get information around. Once DTV/HDTV goes into effect, that won't be the case - in fact, you'll need something with a computer process, which might not survive the EMP of the nukes, to decode the signal; thus you've now effectively killed all public broadcast comms in the U.S. It would bring on a new kind of comms attack - EMP - that would kill the U.S. public comms structure.
Which leads to my question to prompt discussion: just how the hell do you become a software engineer without being a programmer first, unless you're independently wealthy enough to work in Open Source for 5-10 years?
Except for one problem - some organizations HR departments don't count non-paid work (e.g. non-paid Internships, volunteer open source, etc.) as experience. I encountered this for my current position. If counting all my experience, I qualify for a position requiring 5 to 10 years experience; if only counting what I got paid to do, then it drops to the 0 to 5 year experience range. It also makes a big difference in pay for said company and what I am allowed/not-allowed to do in terms of job functions. Fortunately for me I came in through a consulting company that, while they didn't count it experience wise, looked at it and saw that I was serious about becoming a Software Engineer/Programmer - as that was most of what I was doing when I wasn't working and had accumulated a lot of non-paid experience.
Still, my biggest recommendation to up-coming computer scientists (e.g. students, etc.) is to get involved in an open source project and show they are serious about the field.
But the RIAA is not interested in teaching people the difference between wrong and right, they are interested in using the legal system to extract far more money than they deserve from them.
Of course. Because if they taught people it would take 10 to 20 years before seeing results, and they don't want to wait that long. They want their money now. This is the "Now" generation after all.;-)
You can't have any such thing as an SLA without being able to somehow control the service...
An 'SLA' is simply a Service Line Agreement, which when it comes to the Internet and Internet traffic, to properly provide means that the SLP (Service Line Provider) must not do anything to control traffic on that line - they're right under an SLA is to make sure the traffic gets to where it is suppose to go.
While the road analogies are bad, they are the closest. But think of it this way - you contract an 'SLA' to get somewhere (say the airport) with a Taxi Service. The Taxi Service must get you to your destination and do it in a timely manner. The contract does not allow them to say "well, that destination is in our premium price so you have to pay me more to get there", nor does an SLA with you give the Taxi Service any ability to say to the airport "well, our customer with whom we have this SLA contract wants to come to you, and you are in our premium price area, so you must pay us this additional amount or we won't bring our customer there in time to meet their flight, thus costing you more money than we're asking for". The Taxi service has an obligation to get the traffic there.
Now, that does not preclude the Airport from saying to the Taxi Service - you frequently bring customers to us, so we built this new road for our own transportation, and if you sign this other SLA with us, then we'll give you access to it so you can get to us faster and get back to servicing other customers, and btw, the route is just as long so you don't lose any mileage money.
Essentially (to wrap this up), you are the customer. The Taxi Service is the providers of the Internet - with whom you have a contract with your ISP to provide you access to anyone you desire to contact on the Internet. The Airport is whatever site you want to contact (e.g. Google, Microsoft, Slashdot, SourceForge, FSF, DoJ, etc.), and they also have an SLA with the Internet - with their provider, which is even more expansive than the one you have (they can do more than you can, and they also pay a lot higher price for it). For any of those Internet providers to fulfill their contractual obligations with either you (their customer) or the site you wish to visit (also their customer), they must provide a neutral means of getting there.
And, that "new road" the Airport built would simply be another SLA from their SLP, or perhaps another SLP. (Any business that relies on Internet for its business - e.g. Amazon, Google, etc. - would be a fool to only have one SLP. So multiple SLAs with multiple SLPs would be required.) But that is that business's decision - not the SLP's decision.
Going back to my example - if the Taxi Service said to you "we can't take you there because they won't pay this fee for us delivering you there" even though you had an SLA with them, then they would be in breach of contract and liable to you in court. (IANAL, but that should be pretty obvious.)
So you say - well, just go to another Taxi Service. What if all the Taxi Services did that? Or what if you didn't have the money to call or otherwise access another Taxi Service? What if the Airport was unable to pay? What if the fees were too expensive for the Airport (e.g. paying them would put the airport out of business, but the Taxi Service(s) based the fees on what it got from others that could pay and wouldn't change them)? What if the Taxi Service was the only way to get anywhere?
See the implications? Net Neutrality is certainly something that is required for the Internet to operate. If the Service Providers need to put in more lines to fulfill their contracts, well that is their problem. They are getting paid by two parties to provide, and if they don't provide then they are liable. (Again, IANAL but that should be pretty obvious.) If the Taxi Service couldn't provide because all their drivers were tied up, then they'd have to hire m
You won't understand what the assumptions are until you read what the heretics are saying. Mainstream astrophysicists have unilaterally decided that their burden is nothing more than to prove the mainstream theories. Stating their assumptions would tend to reveal that their theories are based upon a lot more assumptions than people realize, which would tend to cast doubt on the very papers that are being published. This is why we absolutely need heretics in science.
I'm not simply talking about astrophyics, but I think that would be the case with most of the various sciences.
There are so many assumptions being made to get to the point of creating such simulations that it's easy to forget that each assumption has its own history, and the entire simulation's legitimacy depends on the survival of each of these individual assumptions.
Very well stated. This is perhaps the best statement that explains and is the reason behind why I dislike some of the various sciences, and want them to state their assumptions up front in their papers, etc.
I dont think the suggestion is to move ALL crop farming indoors, but only the varieties that are most suitable for it.
True, though...
pretty much only small shrubs and grass type plants can be considered for farming indoors, it would not be very practical to farm a cherry tree, or a banana tree indoors. Yes there will be an environmental impact of moving farming indoors, but then, farming outdoors also has an environmental impact.
If a company actively trimmed trees, etc. then one could grow pretty much anything inside we wanted. As such, I could very easily see buildings with 30 foot ceilings between floors that were dedicated to nothing but growing stuff.
Its just picking between the two types of environmental damage.
True. But which is more damaging? By removing it entirely (or even substantially) then the damage is done. Whats more, it would be argued that much more that since the damage is done to just complete the job. Before you know it what we currently know as wildlife will only exist in indoor/outdoor zoos - perhaps in the same way the crops would be.
We already have the technology to do this. It's just a matter of will. Not saying that we should - as I think the environmental damage would be too great if we did. But some future generation just might try.
On the other hand, unless we destroy the environment too much to start with...the cost of doing so would probably be too economically prohibitive by any society to fully thrive in that manner - for an existing planetary biosphere such as we have on earth...
However, it might be an interesting challenge for developing such technologies at a reasonable cost for planets without the existing biosphere (e.g. the Moon, Mars, etc.). The great thing there is that you wouldn't have an environmental impact in the manner of destroying the ecosystem/animal-life.
Barring a collapse of civilization (did someone mention Huns at the door?) humankind will continue to engineer itself forward. Something "complicated" like an Indoor Farm may seem like an overkill, but it does have a lot of advantages over farmland. Not the least of which is control. We've already been engineering our crops and the soil. (Even the "organic" variety still use modern farming techniques.) Thus the next logical step is to engineer the farmland itself to better meet our needs.
Interesting concept, but you also have to think of the environmental impact. Deer and other animals do eat portions of crops or use the crops for cover. So by moving it all inside, you may save yourself the insect and animal problems, but then you leave the insect and animals to starve - thus, you have a huge environmental impact on that alone that could result in either putting a lot of animals on the endangered species list, or greatly reducing their numbers too far. (Might help to solve road-kill problems though...)
Then, of course, you have to think of the cross-pollination by some insects (e.g. bees, etc.).
Reducing the distance between the farms and the consumers could have a lot of direct benefits. One of which is being able to control and recycle the farm wastes means that open lands are cleaner and better smelling. Future city engineers may even look at ways of pumping filtered CO2 from the city's air into the crops, while pumping the resultant oxygen back to the city.
Interesting concept. You'd also have to filter out other chemicals (e.g. NO) otherwise you could pollute the crops. Interesting though...of course, you have to fix the aforementioned issues first.
Indeed, the better thing to have done would have been to split the damn company up.
We split up Standard Oil. How many oil companies do we have now, and how much do they cooperate rather than compete with each other?
We split up AT&T. How many telephone companies do we have now, and how much do they cooperate rather than compete with each other?
Well...Microsoft has kind of prepared itself for that has internally split itself up into three major groups, kind of along the lines of what the DoJ was once calling for (Platform, Applications, Hardware). Perhaps, they're just setting themselves up for such cooperation once they are split up.
So, what should the RIAA do? They should stop fixing prices and let the market sort itself out.
Problem: The RIAA has never allowed itself to work outside of a price fixed market. Even before they grouped together, the various companies didn't allow a non-price fixed market.
At points they undercut their markets like the Mafia - break legs, etc. - and then moved more towards monetary. They've always corned out people they didn't want, and promoted those they did. Didn't like their game? Ok - but you won't get a record out, and you won't make any money. Don't like their prices? Ok - but we're not changing them.
The only difference is that the Internet has allowed the black-market of music[1] that has always been there to thrive large enough to actually start affecting them and force them into this position. They don't like it (of course), but there isn't anything they can do to stop it. Providers will just move to where the RIAA can't touch them, and then they'll have to go after their own customers - eventually undercutting themselves so badly they'll put themselves out of business.
The SCO Group has already shown us what happens when you sue your own customers. RIAA started the practice, but SCO shows the outcome. It's just a matter of time before the RIAA follows suit - either because they did it to themselves or a court orders their breakup, due to their monopolistic & anti-trust behaviors.
[1]Though to note, this "black-market of music" also has quite a big foundation in fair-use. Some parts of it are truly black-market, others aren't. For example - it's easier to get a high-quality MP3/AAC/MP4/OGG/etc of an track to a CD I already own using such a black-market; I could just generate the MP3/AAC/MP4/OGG/etc myself since I have the media (e.g CD, etc.) and equipment necessary, but either don't want to take the time, or find that someone else can do the same thing a little better. At the same time, I'm not necessarily going to pay for it. (Sure, I'll buy it if I don't already own in; but if I do already own it, then I'm not going to pay again. Anyone basing their business on such a model needs to re-evaluate their business because it is a very short term model that will eventually lead to high customer attrition rates.) Incidentally, as long as I don't use the MP3/AAC/MP4/OGG/etc and the CD at the same time, I am completely within my Fair Use rights.
...is also one of several profs from the same college that put together one of the most widely used C++ programming books, which was also followed up by him and a couple others with a Java version. (Don't know how popular the Java version is though.)
He is also behind his colleges primary super computer, Ohm, which was put together back in 2003/2004 (1 Ghz/1GB RAM by 16 systems); and apparently he might have a new grant to upgrade it.
So it seems they don't do it much at present, if at all, due to economic reasons - they don't want to spend the extra money to get the insurance coverage; of course, they could always just go out over water too....but that'd be risky as well.
I personally would like to thank the internet for saving the trees. Think of all the stupid faxes the office secretary used to forward every day. There is scientific proof the net is saving the planet.
But at the cost of how many trees a day? Sure, we may save the paper, but how many more do we eat for energy (to feed the datacenters, etc.), buildings (commercial & residential), roads (to get to those new buildings), etc as a result of the network infrastructure & maintenance that is now required?
Last I checked, we weren't building things purely vertical.
They are mainly accusing him of ripping out the BSD license from a couple.h files since they didn't have the dual-license notice in them. If they aren't dual-licensed under both, you can relicense as GPLv2, but you have to include the BSD notice under its own terms.
DISCLAIMER: IANAL
Actually, so far as I am aware, header files cannot be copyrighted (at least in the U.S.), so the licensing of them, and thus the complaint, is moot (at least in the U.S.).
This is one point I remember from the SCO v. IBM litigation. SCO was accusing IBM of having included the ELF header files in Linux; however, it as pointed out on Groklaw that header files are not copyrightable, so it was not a valid accusation; or something along those lines.
Companies have to think about cash-flow a lot more than individuals do. Regular small payments out are much easier on a budget than erratic large payments. Also, in general, it is better for a company to keep money in the bank and borrow against it than it is to spend it. If a company has $10,000 in the bank and needs to buy an $8,000 piece of equipment, they can borrow the 8k and then when they need to spend another $5,000 for another piece of equipment they can borrow an additional $5k all the while keeping their $10k in the bank. If they had spent the $8k up front they would only have $2k in the bank and might not be able to find a lender for the $5k. That Cash on Hand number is very important.
Not always - don't get me wrong, Cash Flow is important, but you also have to consider your debt-cash ratio, your p/e ratio, and numerous other things. It is not good for a company to have more debt than they have the ability to cover by their assets and cash. Leasing, etc. makes it easy for that debt-cash ratio to go very badly the wrong way, thus if a company is liquidated then there is not enough assets to cover the debt and people lose out. Solid assets (in which cash is included) are a good thing - not enough of them and (a) you won't be able to get those loans, and (b) you risk your investors dissolving the company to get what they can before they can't get any return for their investment - ROI.
Also remember - you need to be able to pay your bills. If you can't cover the monthly cost of the loan without dipping into that cash reserve, then you better use the cash reserve up front (so you get an asset in return) instead of a loan (a liability against you).
Now, if you are just starting out - then yes, you need to build up that cash reserve. However, you also have to remember that that debt comes with a price - interest. So, say you have $10k in the bank and need to spend $8k. If you borrow the $8k, then you will be spending $8k + interest (2% at _best_, likely closer to 5%, though if the company doesn't have much of a record or has a bad record, it could be 20% or higher). So, then you may end up spending $13k on what would have otherwise cost you $8k.
So, yes - keep some cash in reserve (good thing), but also don't be afraid to spend it.
FYI - how do you think Microsoft got to where they are today? Billy Gates ran the company on zero debt. If they didn't have the cash for it, they didn't buy it or have it. So, yes - keeping that kind of policy can pay off big time because then you don't lose money (to interest payments) in the process; and when things start paying off, you don't lose money to your debt collectors - it's all yours to keep. (Probably the only real debt that Microsoft has is their stock. But that is probably pretty secure and backed by enough money now to make it pretty solid.)
I doubt Google is similar, and probably has a good deal of debt. Most do not run a company financially like Billy Gates did with Microsoft.
2) This is an accounting style advantage. Say, you have the option to pay $300 for a software suite up front, or $5/month for as long as you use it. Most of us would go with the $300. Except, what if the $5 gives you free upgrades forever? Now, what if it was $1.50/month? Here we start getting into a grayer area about it being cheaper to pay per month than up front, due to about how much money you could make off of the base cost in interest on investments.
Well..then you have the likes of me...I will what I can to not have a monthly bill for things I own. (Yes, cell phone, Internet, etc. have monthly bills...I'm not talking about that kind of stuff.) For example, I will never lease a car since after 2 or 3 years paying about the same rate I can own it, and then it becomes an asset (though the ROI is not that great - I still own it). Likewise with software, computers, etc. My goal is to minimize my debt - I have student loan debt, I've taken debt to buy a car (new - and don't regret it), and I will take debt to buy a house at some point; but that's about it.
Now, on the other hand, I am not adverse to having a model like that used by the Linux Distributions - I can get the software for free, and optionally pay for support; and if running a company, I would go for this very quickly; but I would still maintain an in-house help desk and IT staff. (I wouldn't want my secretary talking to RH support staff to get their computer working - the Help Desk can do that.)
When possible, I'd rather own. It's better and easier on the accounting books too. For example, by buying something it will depreciate and eventually the costs will be recouped by not having to either (a) depreciate something further, or (b) pay someone else. On the other hand, by not purchasing and paying that monthly fee, I will forever have a monthly fee on the books that will not go away. (For example, if a theoretical business used a SAAS productivity suite, then they would forever be paying for it, and if the business hit some hard times, then they would still have to pay for it or risk adverse affects to the business (not being able to do their work) or pay a lump sum out for a non-SAAS productivity suite; conversely, if the same business had a support contract (e.g. like RH's), and they hit hard times - then they could (a) renegotiate the contract's end date perhaps have to pay a fee for early termination but they could close it out, or (b) not renew it; and not have any major adverse affect on the business as they could still do their work.)
So yeah - owning is better.
And if you are thinking of the long term financial health of a company, you'd realize that too. Companies that are (a) always leasing their place of business, and (b) leasing everything they can are not going to be healthy in the long term - they're thinking short term; and they'll hurt for it. Additionally, if they are doing it to pass the buck to their customer (e.g. leasing so that they can charge the proportionate cost of the lease to their respective clients), then they're adding to inflation by raising the cost of goods, which will eventually affect everyone; and the companies that are not, will eventually have lower cost that could be passed along to their customers, which would lower the cost of goods. But, then you don't see that unless you are looking at the long term. (And 5 years is not long term - think 20, 30, 40, 50 years.)
Well... a couple of things. First, most ISPs won't actually give you a real map of where there coverage is. It's really sketchy. Sometimes you can't even tell until you go to order the service. I remember doing a check a few years ago where I entered my address into Verizon's online thing, and it said I could get DSL. Then I tried ordering it, and they said that the website was wrong.
Been there. Had an apartment in Fairfax, VA and wanted to get the SpeakEasy deal that SourceForge offers ($60/month for static IPs). However, I couldn't get DSL because while I was within the 18000 feet limit for basic DSL, I wasn't within the 15000 limit for the "high-speed" DSL, so they (Verizon) didn't want to provide me service. I got cable instead.
Second, if you RTFA (or even the summary), the guy bought a house three-tenths of a mile outside the broadband coverage. So basically that means that they guy down the street could get broadband and he couldn't. It's pretty understandable why he wouldn't catch this ahead of time.
See this too over in Springfield, VA. A friend of mine was stuck using dial-up for years, despite the cable drop being about 500 feet away from his house. The cable company finally got around to extending it past them about 3 years back; but it had been in the neighborhood for several years before that happened. (And their dial-up was not that great - the lines were terrible, so 56k was bearly possible. I think they usually ended up with 28.8k speeds.)
What I'm surprised by here is that it seems like everybody thinks that broadband = cable or DSL (or, God help you, a Point To Point T1). From reading the comments, nobody is even looking at rural wireless satellite broadband.
Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that Satellite has historically been tied to a dial-up modem as well. It wasn't until a few years back (2001?) that bi-directional sat-comms were even allowed for the home (FCC regulation); and it has taken a few years after that for the Sat Comm providers to even get something out that didn't require a modem to upload. So, it's still a young industry...
That said, the 400-1200 ms latency (average in 500 to 600 ms range) doesn't help anything either; nor do the up-front-costs, etc. Then, of course, you have to deal with the fact that its portioned out, so if you're not using all your bandwidth all the time then it may take a while to ramp up to the bandwidth when you are doing something that needs it - if you are lucky enough that your need outweighs the others using the same Sat network. (Yes, they over provision too.)
Also, don't forget how the Sat Comms are affected by:
birds flying your line-of-sight path
weather (clouds, etc.)
trees growing into, falling into, or swaying into your line-of-sight path
vehicular movement obstructing your line-of-sight path (depending on placement, and sizes of vehicles)
etc.
So, there are a lot of factors in there, and I'm guessing a few of them probably give people the "it sucks" view point.
The new U.S. law will probably make it illegal to download music from and site hosted in a country that is not in alignment with U.S. IP laws.
So you're basically going to outlaw all internet sites that are not within the U.S. or Europe? That would basically put the US in an isolationist policy with regards to the Internet, and the only people we'd be hurting would be ourselves.
In fact, I would be willing to bet (even though I don't bet) that should something like that pass and be enforced that the U.S. would then end up at the bottom of the technology stack - behind 3rd world countries - as the rest of the world realizes the mistakes of the U.S. and doesn't make them - meanwhile, the U.S. and its IP allies are forbidding themselves from partaking in those economies...essentially putting up a reverse version of China's Internet Firewall.
Yeah, smart. And yeah - I could see Congress trying to do it - because they really are that dumb as a group; or at least there are enough of them that are paid off well enough by the likes of the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, Disney, and others that they may well just not care enough and do it regardless...
Here's hoping I'm wrong. (At least, hoping for the U.S.)
Hold a panel on Copyright issues, invite him and a colleague to represent the MPAA; also invite a lawyer that specializes in IP, specifically Copyright; the prof who teaches the school's Business & Law class (if you have one; the EFF; some reps from the faculty and student body; and then hold a public panel where the MPAA can present their case, and you can present yours, and then open up to questions from anyone in attendance.
Also, arrange with the school TV network to broadcast the panel across campus, and arrange with the school telephone registry to have a line so anyone on campus can call in questions too.
Put out invites to local schools as well, so that you can get the broadest coverage, and get the issue out in the public as much as possible. For that matter, invite some members of the press - both the school newspapers (for your and any other school that participates) and the local TV stations and newspapers.
See if you can arrange with the schools IT department to have it webcast. And if you can't do that (due to lack of resources) try to record it to host it later on GoogleVideo/YouTube/etc if you can't host the video off the school's website. (Who knows, perhaps EFF would be willing to host it.)
Slashdot Mirror
I think GIMP has a lot of potential - especially given the functionality they do have. But they have in the past been so uptight about changing the UI, and the UI was the one big thing keeping me from using it. Hopefully they will come up with some more intuitive to the non-GIMP-geek, non-Developer person.
The one thing I really do hope they adopt with the MDI within an SDI (e.g. like Eclipse and and Visual Studios to name a couple examples). It just makes it so much easier to operate when the toolbars dock to the program window and you don't have to pop all over to different windows to do stuff.
So, I'll wait and see what they come up with...perhaps they'll even see this on Slashdot and incorportate Slashdot's comments (not likely...but possible...)..and then I'll check into using it again.
Then of course there is the whole HDMI/HCMI/HDCP debacle, which will limit what can and cannot go out of that converter box. DTV/HDTV is prime for that too.
So, until you're really willing to get rid of all your fair-use rights with relation to what comes in from your TV provider (OTA or otherwise), then you really need to ask the question - do you really want it? Are you willing to give up your ability to record stuff (on existing equipment) to get it?
Myself - the answer is no. I'll go to other mediums - DVDs on the computer with a nice projector and speaker setup - and just forget about the OTA or cable/etc. It's not worth it.
And of course don't forget this other post: There really is a lot of truth in that.
Oh, and don't forget about the nuclear-ness of this. Right now, if U.S. were destroyed by a nuke, you'd still be able to use any TV or radio to get information around. Once DTV/HDTV goes into effect, that won't be the case - in fact, you'll need something with a computer process, which might not survive the EMP of the nukes, to decode the signal; thus you've now effectively killed all public broadcast comms in the U.S. It would bring on a new kind of comms attack - EMP - that would kill the U.S. public comms structure.
Still, my biggest recommendation to up-coming computer scientists (e.g. students, etc.) is to get involved in an open source project and show they are serious about the field.
You can't have a Profit list without a "???" entry.
An 'SLA' is simply a Service Line Agreement, which when it comes to the Internet and Internet traffic, to properly provide means that the SLP (Service Line Provider) must not do anything to control traffic on that line - they're right under an SLA is to make sure the traffic gets to where it is suppose to go.
While the road analogies are bad, they are the closest. But think of it this way - you contract an 'SLA' to get somewhere (say the airport) with a Taxi Service. The Taxi Service must get you to your destination and do it in a timely manner. The contract does not allow them to say "well, that destination is in our premium price so you have to pay me more to get there", nor does an SLA with you give the Taxi Service any ability to say to the airport "well, our customer with whom we have this SLA contract wants to come to you, and you are in our premium price area, so you must pay us this additional amount or we won't bring our customer there in time to meet their flight, thus costing you more money than we're asking for". The Taxi service has an obligation to get the traffic there.
Now, that does not preclude the Airport from saying to the Taxi Service - you frequently bring customers to us, so we built this new road for our own transportation, and if you sign this other SLA with us, then we'll give you access to it so you can get to us faster and get back to servicing other customers, and btw, the route is just as long so you don't lose any mileage money.
Essentially (to wrap this up), you are the customer. The Taxi Service is the providers of the Internet - with whom you have a contract with your ISP to provide you access to anyone you desire to contact on the Internet. The Airport is whatever site you want to contact (e.g. Google, Microsoft, Slashdot, SourceForge, FSF, DoJ, etc.), and they also have an SLA with the Internet - with their provider, which is even more expansive than the one you have (they can do more than you can, and they also pay a lot higher price for it). For any of those Internet providers to fulfill their contractual obligations with either you (their customer) or the site you wish to visit (also their customer), they must provide a neutral means of getting there.
And, that "new road" the Airport built would simply be another SLA from their SLP, or perhaps another SLP. (Any business that relies on Internet for its business - e.g. Amazon, Google, etc. - would be a fool to only have one SLP. So multiple SLAs with multiple SLPs would be required.) But that is that business's decision - not the SLP's decision.
Going back to my example - if the Taxi Service said to you "we can't take you there because they won't pay this fee for us delivering you there" even though you had an SLA with them, then they would be in breach of contract and liable to you in court. (IANAL, but that should be pretty obvious.)
So you say - well, just go to another Taxi Service. What if all the Taxi Services did that? Or what if you didn't have the money to call or otherwise access another Taxi Service? What if the Airport was unable to pay? What if the fees were too expensive for the Airport (e.g. paying them would put the airport out of business, but the Taxi Service(s) based the fees on what it got from others that could pay and wouldn't change them)? What if the Taxi Service was the only way to get anywhere?
See the implications? Net Neutrality is certainly something that is required for the Internet to operate. If the Service Providers need to put in more lines to fulfill their contracts, well that is their problem. They are getting paid by two parties to provide, and if they don't provide then they are liable. (Again, IANAL but that should be pretty obvious.) If the Taxi Service couldn't provide because all their drivers were tied up, then they'd have to hire m
We already have the technology to do this. It's just a matter of will. Not saying that we should - as I think the environmental damage would be too great if we did. But some future generation just might try.
On the other hand, unless we destroy the environment too much to start with...the cost of doing so would probably be too economically prohibitive by any society to fully thrive in that manner - for an existing planetary biosphere such as we have on earth...
However, it might be an interesting challenge for developing such technologies at a reasonable cost for planets without the existing biosphere (e.g. the Moon, Mars, etc.). The great thing there is that you wouldn't have an environmental impact in the manner of destroying the ecosystem/animal-life.
Then, of course, you have to think of the cross-pollination by some insects (e.g. bees, etc.). Interesting concept. You'd also have to filter out other chemicals (e.g. NO) otherwise you could pollute the crops. Interesting though...of course, you have to fix the aforementioned issues first.
At points they undercut their markets like the Mafia - break legs, etc. - and then moved more towards monetary. They've always corned out people they didn't want, and promoted those they did. Didn't like their game? Ok - but you won't get a record out, and you won't make any money. Don't like their prices? Ok - but we're not changing them.
The only difference is that the Internet has allowed the black-market of music[1] that has always been there to thrive large enough to actually start affecting them and force them into this position. They don't like it (of course), but there isn't anything they can do to stop it. Providers will just move to where the RIAA can't touch them, and then they'll have to go after their own customers - eventually undercutting themselves so badly they'll put themselves out of business.
The SCO Group has already shown us what happens when you sue your own customers. RIAA started the practice, but SCO shows the outcome. It's just a matter of time before the RIAA follows suit - either because they did it to themselves or a court orders their breakup, due to their monopolistic & anti-trust behaviors.
[1]Though to note, this "black-market of music" also has quite a big foundation in fair-use. Some parts of it are truly black-market, others aren't. For example - it's easier to get a high-quality MP3/AAC/MP4/OGG/etc of an track to a CD I already own using such a black-market; I could just generate the MP3/AAC/MP4/OGG/etc myself since I have the media (e.g CD, etc.) and equipment necessary, but either don't want to take the time, or find that someone else can do the same thing a little better. At the same time, I'm not necessarily going to pay for it. (Sure, I'll buy it if I don't already own in; but if I do already own it, then I'm not going to pay again. Anyone basing their business on such a model needs to re-evaluate their business because it is a very short term model that will eventually lead to high customer attrition rates.) Incidentally, as long as I don't use the MP3/AAC/MP4/OGG/etc and the CD at the same time, I am completely within my Fair Use rights.
...is also one of several profs from the same college that put together one of the most widely used C++ programming books, which was also followed up by him and a couple others with a Java version. (Don't know how popular the Java version is though.)
For more check out his publications page.
He is also behind his colleges primary super computer, Ohm, which was put together back in 2003/2004 (1 Ghz/1GB RAM by 16 systems); and apparently he might have a new grant to upgrade it.
In other words, too many people have their Phds and/or Masters based on it to find anything else to have validity.
Last I checked, we weren't building things purely vertical.
Actually, so far as I am aware, header files cannot be copyrighted (at least in the U.S.), so the licensing of them, and thus the complaint, is moot (at least in the U.S.).
This is one point I remember from the SCO v. IBM litigation. SCO was accusing IBM of having included the ELF header files in Linux; however, it as pointed out on Groklaw that header files are not copyrightable, so it was not a valid accusation; or something along those lines.
Some info from Groklaw: (formatting added)
Any how...IANAL - so check with one that is to know for sure; but that's my thought. Take it with a grain of salt.
Also remember - you need to be able to pay your bills. If you can't cover the monthly cost of the loan without dipping into that cash reserve, then you better use the cash reserve up front (so you get an asset in return) instead of a loan (a liability against you).
Now, if you are just starting out - then yes, you need to build up that cash reserve. However, you also have to remember that that debt comes with a price - interest. So, say you have $10k in the bank and need to spend $8k. If you borrow the $8k, then you will be spending $8k + interest (2% at _best_, likely closer to 5%, though if the company doesn't have much of a record or has a bad record, it could be 20% or higher). So, then you may end up spending $13k on what would have otherwise cost you $8k.
So, yes - keep some cash in reserve (good thing), but also don't be afraid to spend it.
FYI - how do you think Microsoft got to where they are today? Billy Gates ran the company on zero debt. If they didn't have the cash for it, they didn't buy it or have it. So, yes - keeping that kind of policy can pay off big time because then you don't lose money (to interest payments) in the process; and when things start paying off, you don't lose money to your debt collectors - it's all yours to keep. (Probably the only real debt that Microsoft has is their stock. But that is probably pretty secure and backed by enough money now to make it pretty solid.)
I doubt Google is similar, and probably has a good deal of debt. Most do not run a company financially like Billy Gates did with Microsoft.
Now, on the other hand, I am not adverse to having a model like that used by the Linux Distributions - I can get the software for free, and optionally pay for support; and if running a company, I would go for this very quickly; but I would still maintain an in-house help desk and IT staff. (I wouldn't want my secretary talking to RH support staff to get their computer working - the Help Desk can do that.)
When possible, I'd rather own. It's better and easier on the accounting books too. For example, by buying something it will depreciate and eventually the costs will be recouped by not having to either (a) depreciate something further, or (b) pay someone else. On the other hand, by not purchasing and paying that monthly fee, I will forever have a monthly fee on the books that will not go away. (For example, if a theoretical business used a SAAS productivity suite, then they would forever be paying for it, and if the business hit some hard times, then they would still have to pay for it or risk adverse affects to the business (not being able to do their work) or pay a lump sum out for a non-SAAS productivity suite; conversely, if the same business had a support contract (e.g. like RH's), and they hit hard times - then they could (a) renegotiate the contract's end date perhaps have to pay a fee for early termination but they could close it out, or (b) not renew it; and not have any major adverse affect on the business as they could still do their work.)
So yeah - owning is better.
And if you are thinking of the long term financial health of a company, you'd realize that too. Companies that are (a) always leasing their place of business, and (b) leasing everything they can are not going to be healthy in the long term - they're thinking short term; and they'll hurt for it. Additionally, if they are doing it to pass the buck to their customer (e.g. leasing so that they can charge the proportionate cost of the lease to their respective clients), then they're adding to inflation by raising the cost of goods, which will eventually affect everyone; and the companies that are not, will eventually have lower cost that could be passed along to their customers, which would lower the cost of goods. But, then you don't see that unless you are looking at the long term. (And 5 years is not long term - think 20, 30, 40, 50 years.)
See this too over in Springfield, VA. A friend of mine was stuck using dial-up for years, despite the cable drop being about 500 feet away from his house. The cable company finally got around to extending it past them about 3 years back; but it had been in the neighborhood for several years before that happened. (And their dial-up was not that great - the lines were terrible, so 56k was bearly possible. I think they usually ended up with 28.8k speeds.)
That said, the 400-1200 ms latency (average in 500 to 600 ms range) doesn't help anything either; nor do the up-front-costs, etc. Then, of course, you have to deal with the fact that its portioned out, so if you're not using all your bandwidth all the time then it may take a while to ramp up to the bandwidth when you are doing something that needs it - if you are lucky enough that your need outweighs the others using the same Sat network. (Yes, they over provision too.)
Also, don't forget how the Sat Comms are affected by:
So, there are a lot of factors in there, and I'm guessing a few of them probably give people the "it sucks" view point.
In fact, I would be willing to bet (even though I don't bet) that should something like that pass and be enforced that the U.S. would then end up at the bottom of the technology stack - behind 3rd world countries - as the rest of the world realizes the mistakes of the U.S. and doesn't make them - meanwhile, the U.S. and its IP allies are forbidding themselves from partaking in those economies...essentially putting up a reverse version of China's Internet Firewall.
Yeah, smart. And yeah - I could see Congress trying to do it - because they really are that dumb as a group; or at least there are enough of them that are paid off well enough by the likes of the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, Disney, and others that they may well just not care enough and do it regardless...
Here's hoping I'm wrong. (At least, hoping for the U.S.)
Hold a panel on Copyright issues, invite him and a colleague to represent the MPAA; also invite a lawyer that specializes in IP, specifically Copyright; the prof who teaches the school's Business & Law class (if you have one; the EFF; some reps from the faculty and student body; and then hold a public panel where the MPAA can present their case, and you can present yours, and then open up to questions from anyone in attendance.
Also, arrange with the school TV network to broadcast the panel across campus, and arrange with the school telephone registry to have a line so anyone on campus can call in questions too.
Put out invites to local schools as well, so that you can get the broadest coverage, and get the issue out in the public as much as possible. For that matter, invite some members of the press - both the school newspapers (for your and any other school that participates) and the local TV stations and newspapers.
See if you can arrange with the schools IT department to have it webcast. And if you can't do that (due to lack of resources) try to record it to host it later on GoogleVideo/YouTube/etc if you can't host the video off the school's website. (Who knows, perhaps EFF would be willing to host it.)
Just some thoughts.