Sure, if the average user decides he likes Gnome best, he can still use KDE applications, but the little inconsitencies in the interface will start to wear on him. Why is that? Because the inconsistencies lead to things not "just working". Users don't want to have to know 3 different ways to paste something based on what toolkit the app is based on. They just want to go to Edit -> Paste (the more savvy ones may know Control+V) and have it work.
I have to ask whether you've ever used Microsoft's OS. The interface varies from tool to tool and many applications completely ignore all standard UI guidelines. Windows Media Player continues to eschew all expected interface decisions. Even Microsoft Office 2000 was different between Word and Excel (MDI versus SDI). I agree that more commonality between all applications and OS components helps, but it clearly isn't a hinderance to "user friendly" status.
If you were allowed to expect caches to retroactively honor robots.txt, you could expect a flood of lawsuits from unscrupulous people adding robots.txt to their websites after they'd been added to archives.
While I don't agree with the suit, this case is a little different in that this cache offers to remove historical data based upon current robot.txt files.
No. They didn't sell their web page, nor did they broadcast it, so it is not like a newspaper which had been legally purchased...
Ahh! So it would be okay in a newspaper that I paid for, but if it were in a free weekly paper (advertiser supported) or if I stole my neighbor's paper the situation is completely different. I see.
US copyright law exists to protect an author's right to express his or her ideas in their own particular... (idiom, sir?)...idiom. From the US Copyright Office: Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work. The attorneys in the case are examining the factual information conveyed and have no concern with the artistic elements of the web pages.
Imagine a rich person with an expensive painting puts it up in his gallery. You take a picture of it while it's in the gallery - there is nothing saying you can, but nothing saying you can't reproduce them. Now he dies and his son inherits, or he has a change of heart, and locks it away in his private room. This having happened, do you have the right to display your photo of the picture in public?
It would depend on your intent and particular usage. Fair use would allow it as reference in a work or perhaps for educational use. The courts have upheld "incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported" but this problably would not apply to your example.
In a nutshell, fair use allows limited non-commercial use of copyrighted material. The project in question is clear about their purpose - documenting the ever-changing Web for history's sake. They are non-profit and don't even cache the images (AFAIK). This information was published to the public. Others cannot represent the work as their own nor can the use it (without permission) in a commercial context.
Would a lawsuit be considered if instead of a cache of web pages, the other side had used old newspapers from the library or VHS recordings of an old television broadcast? Once they've put their web pages into the public, don't they lose control of who keeps a copy?
Part of the problem is no doubt the choice of developers. In the case of eTax, it's written in Delphi. Delphi developers aren't exactly known for their cross-platform awareness.
There is no way this can be blamed on the developers. The public employees in charge of this project failed to require a cross-platform solution. Don't try to pawn this off on the coders or analysts - this falls completely on the shoulders of someone at the Tax Dept. Of course, it is possible that they considered a cross-platform application and found that it was cheaper to have those Delphi guys do it just for Windows.
Seriously, the solution will only alleviate any effects caused by downloading too much from Napster. Which doesn't happen, so this won't do anything.
The idea is that schools will partially or completely subsidize the cost of Napster downloads and use firewall/packet-shaper rules to squeeze the life out of P2P used for illegal sharing. This allows the schools to offer a legal option for low-cost or free music downloads and not blow up their Internet pipe in the process.
Funny, I thought that uploading (sharing) copyrighted music files was the illegal part.
Folks who upload large numbers of files attract attention and are more likely to be caught and prosecuted/sued. Yet, that does not mean that freely downloading and using copyrighted material is legal.
Almost everyone has their base music collection built by now, they would just be adding songs here and there. This won't help bandwidth issues, the big culprit is movie and tv downloads. I would just laugh a rep that came and talked to me about their service.
Napster's subscription service streams the music, so this most certainly would help bandwidth issues. Also, I imagine new hit songs see a lot of downloads when they are released, so this could help even if most users aren't on the subscription plan.
We've used their enterprise tool (with a central console and we push the app to everyone) for the past year and it has nearly eliminated our spyware problems. Our small university network (approximately 350 Windows boxes) was becoming a real nightmare, as we cleaned spyware from - or, more often, Ghosted - two or three machines a week. We now see less than one a month, and these usually are some really wacked out virus/malware thing that I can't find anywhere on Google.
The speed limit is there for a reason - it's a safe speed to drive. If you disagree, don't blame the people following the law. Take it to whatever legislative body sets the numbers.
First, many of the problem drivers actually drive slower than the posted speed limit. Second, most problems caused by slow drivers are because he or she is inconsideratly poking along in the fast/passing lane. Third, at least in the US, the federal government sets most interstate speed limits by providing funding only to those states that meet the federal recommendations on speed limits. The federal guidelines are as much about fuel economy as safety. The average car will get much better gas mileage at 55 to 60 mph and will notice a significant drop-off at 75 mph.
The speed limit also provides a nice method of synchronization between all the drivers. If everybody goes at the posted speed, there are fewer slower drivers, and the rate can be sustained for longer periods of time because fewer accidents will happen.
By your logic, we always should drive at the speed of the slowest driver. My complaint is about those who are going noticeably slower than 98% of the rest of traffic, regardless of the posted speed limit. Why should everyone else have to drive slower just because grandma can't see past the steering wheel any longer? I agree that those trying to drive much faster than the flow of traffic also are dangerous. My point is that on a day-to-day basis, I see many more problems caused by those driving slower than the rest of traffic.
Now, if we could only make the silly drivers understand that the fastest way to get where they're going is to not speed, let people into lanes, and all the other things that used to be called "courtesy," we'd be in good shape.
I tend to drive a little above the speed limit but I grew up on a small farm and I am familiar with having to drive slower than traffic (when hauling hay or livestock, for example). I agree that courtesy is missing from too many drivers. When hauling a load of hay, I stay in the slow lane and occasionally pull off to allow traffic by when on a two-lane road. In my day-to-day driving I allow others to merge and generally follow the Golden Rule. However, I also do not hesitate to tell people about their stupidity when they run a red light, cut me off, or hold up traffic by driving too slowly in the left lane.
Going a lower speed can limit the total throughput of a freeway, but having a car accident or a series of braking because someone passess makes things alot worse.
I live in a small city with a population of just over 50,000 and nearly as many more in nearby suburbs and sprawl. I can say with complete certainty that slow drivers cause significantly more congestion than occasional problems caused by those going too fast. I see traffic messes several times each week caused by someone going slower than the flow of traffic and doing it in the left-most lane (our passing lane).
I don't believe it is in anyone's best interest that the Department of Commerce should control the internet root, nor should ICANN. The internet should be looked at as a free and global resource, not as a commercial or political development (though for many companies, it is).
That sounds noble and all, but how exactly do you recommend that this be implemented in a system that depends on a few central servers? Someone has to be in charge.
Just another one of those ways the US can use to try and gain power and influence, and eventually step outside the bounds of their own Constitution.
Clearly!
1. Establish control of root zone files. 2. ??? 3. Take over the world.
I'm no fan of our current administration, but at least use your brain instead of mindless anti-American dick-waving.
I have YET to purchase a single thing from Amason [sic]. Their prices (especially on nerd-type books) aren't that good anyway.
I've never looked at nerdbooks.com, but Amazon's prices regularly beat any other major book retailer (both local and online). Plus, the free shipping on orders over $25 makes it even better.
You're probably right that cable is a natural monopoly. It doesn't necessarily follow that public ownership is the answer.
The alternative is to say a monopoly is okay and consumers don't need choice or competition in this huge market. A natural monopoly is not caused by illegal collusion and is not fixed by market forces.
Even a monopoly has to respond to market forces. Given that 80% rather than 100% of Americans have cable suggests that cable companies have found a point of maximal profit, but they don't set prices arbitrarily.
Why does a natural monopoly have to respond to market forces? Plenty of studies have shown significant price differences between cable markets with competition and those without. They only have to keep their prices within reason, based upon comparisons to cable service elsewhere or (only in the past few years) satellite service.
Furthermore, cable can't be a true monopoly in the sense that there are numerous imperfect substitutes, e.g. satellite, xm radio, broadcast tv, the internet, etc.
Somewhat true, but they don't compete in the same spheres. There are plenty of areas that can't get satellite or broadcast TV and the cable provider is their only broadband provider. Even satellite hasn't brought down the price of cable, although they have slowed the price gouge a bit. I watched my cost for service increase over 100% in only three years before switching to satellite. When the wife couldn't stand missing the locals any longer and the trade-in-your-dish deal got sweet enough, we came back to cable. I currently have DSL for Internet service, but will have no choice but cable once I move this summer.
Also, we're not talking about a vital service. Roads, water, power, etc. are vital services.
Why are these vital? I grew up in a rural area and I am preparing to move back there. Many of our roads are not maintained by the government, we aren't provided public water or sewage, and most everyone has a generator and wood stoves for the power outages that occur most winters. Today's economy relies on the "vital services" you listed, but any of us could do without if necessary (in theory, although many of us don't believe it possible). Today's economy is nearing the point where ubiquitous broadband is expected. You or I could do without it, but the economy needs it (or nearly does).
Cable TV is entertainment.
And this discussion happened only because those cables are being used for more than cable television service. Pay attention.
Once you get outside of the big cities, you'll find that public libraries are neither convenient nor do all have public Internet access (or they have one or two old POS computers using such restrictive software that you are banned from half the Internet).
Cable tv, internet access..etc, are luxuries, not necessities.
I agree, but so are telephone service, running water, and electricity. The point is that broadband service is getting close to the point of a hard-to-do-without luxury, similar to telephone service. Does it make sense for a natural monopoly to control something so common and expected?
The problem with software patents, is that companies like microsoft patent one tiny part of a huge system, and then the only way to make software that's compatable with is by violating the patent. Look at microsoft's sender ID system, they produce a 'fingerprint' of the sender based on standard mail headers, but the algorithm to do that is patented. I think this sort of use of software patents should be banned. On the other hand, something like a new and innovative video compression codec should be patentable, IMO.
An algorithm is an algorithm, for purposes of this conversation. Why is a video compression algorithm so much more in need of a patent than one that creates a unique fingerprint for each email. When talking about patents, these are no different.
>1. What do you suppose patents are for?
Well, that's a very complicated answer, but lets assume that they are there for some reason, in terms of physical objects and devices.
So you didn't answer the question, or at least said nothing related to this thread.
>2. What do think patents are for, if you think they work so well? What is their purpose?
Well, this is the same question as #1. I'm not going to get into that, but I guess you think that regular patents are OK.
Still no answer.
>3. What perculiar property do you feel pertains to computational methods that distinguish them from any other creative work?
Well, whats the diffrence between designing a new kind of valve or something and any other type of creative work?
First, you didn't answer the question. Posing another question does not count. Second, your example is a physical creation, not a mathematical or logical process.
>4. What is it about software that justifes protection both under copyright and under patent?
What is it about physical devices that justifes protection both under copyright and under patent? Most people don't bother to enforce copyright on physical designs, but you certanly could. Why not copyright blueprints or whatnot? The real question is what makes hardware diffrent then software that it shouldn't be patentable?
Using your example from question three, are you saying that a new valve is copyrighted? From the US Copyright Office: "Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works." Is your valve a literary work? Perhaps it is musical?
How do you imagine blueprints are patentable? I'll give you a hint - they aren't.
More information for you, courtesy of the US Patent and Trademark Office: "Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights are three types of intellectual property protection. They are different and serve different purposes. Patents protect inventions, and improvements to existing inventions... Copyrights protect literary, artistic, and musical works." You clearly do not understand copyrights and patents. Please stop talking out of your ass.
Firefox has been working on it and Opera fixed it. Microsoft says they aren't going to fix it since it is a "feature". Even better, Microsoft's answer is for users to install XP SP2 and make sure the firewall is enabled. Beautiful...
I suppose you have something to back this up other than your claim? I don't suppose all the other reasons cited by Apple, Intel, the press, and the Slashdot crowd don't make sense to you?
Doesn't Intel have all kinds of vault-like protection system being built into their chips?
They are including support for some DRM technologies, but rumors indicate IBM is building similar technologies into their chips so this is quite unlikely a factor.
I do agree that this would be a way for Apple require Apple hardware for their software and something that I've not seen many people suggest. Everyone has been worried about Microsoft ending the PC revolution with their implementation of "Trusted Computing" but Apple might go there first.
There is plenty of data and anecdotal bits floating around indicating that Microsoft knew about widespread piracy, allowed it to continue, and benefitted from it. Now, they have a solid monopoly and are finally trying to crack down on piracy to increase their revenue.
However, Apple is not a software company like Microsoft (was) and they don't have the large base of businesses and OEMs to subsidize the home piracy market. If OS X is hacked to run on commodity x86 hardware and is available via P2P, Apple will either add serious DRM to their application and OS software (something they've avoided thus far) or face extinction. How will they continue to innovate when they suddenly have an increased market share but one paying for either their hardware or their software?
By tell him, I mean tell him that the Qwerty being designed to slow down your typing is nothing more than a myth?.
Did you even bother to RTFA that you linked? The article makes no claims of debunking the story behind the QWERTY design. It instead concentrates on debunking the stories claiming that the Dvorak layout is superior but never adopted simply because of lock-in to the existing layout.
Did you even read the article to which you linked? TFA is dedicated to debunking arguments that claim the Dvorak arrangement is superior but is not used simply because of QWERTY lock-in. It mentions the supposed reason for the original QWERTY layout but doesn't make any claim about the validity of the story.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to ask whether you've ever used Microsoft's OS. The interface varies from tool to tool and many applications completely ignore all standard UI guidelines. Windows Media Player continues to eschew all expected interface decisions. Even Microsoft Office 2000 was different between Word and Excel (MDI versus SDI). I agree that more commonality between all applications and OS components helps, but it clearly isn't a hinderance to "user friendly" status.
While I don't agree with the suit, this case is a little different in that this cache offers to remove historical data based upon current robot.txt files.
Ahh! So it would be okay in a newspaper that I paid for, but if it were in a free weekly paper (advertiser supported) or if I stole my neighbor's paper the situation is completely different. I see.
US copyright law exists to protect an author's right to express his or her ideas in their own particular... (idiom, sir?)...idiom. From the US Copyright Office: Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work. The attorneys in the case are examining the factual information conveyed and have no concern with the artistic elements of the web pages.
Imagine a rich person with an expensive painting puts it up in his gallery. You take a picture of it while it's in the gallery - there is nothing saying you can, but nothing saying you can't reproduce them. Now he dies and his son inherits, or he has a change of heart, and locks it away in his private room. This having happened, do you have the right to display your photo of the picture in public?
It would depend on your intent and particular usage. Fair use would allow it as reference in a work or perhaps for educational use. The courts have upheld "incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported" but this problably would not apply to your example.
In a nutshell, fair use allows limited non-commercial use of copyrighted material. The project in question is clear about their purpose - documenting the ever-changing Web for history's sake. They are non-profit and don't even cache the images (AFAIK). This information was published to the public. Others cannot represent the work as their own nor can the use it (without permission) in a commercial context.
Would a lawsuit be considered if instead of a cache of web pages, the other side had used old newspapers from the library or VHS recordings of an old television broadcast? Once they've put their web pages into the public, don't they lose control of who keeps a copy?
There is no way this can be blamed on the developers. The public employees in charge of this project failed to require a cross-platform solution. Don't try to pawn this off on the coders or analysts - this falls completely on the shoulders of someone at the Tax Dept. Of course, it is possible that they considered a cross-platform application and found that it was cheaper to have those Delphi guys do it just for Windows.
-1 Offtopic on a thread that is 100% offtopic? Sheesh! I guess Zonk gets mod points too :)
The idea is that schools will partially or completely subsidize the cost of Napster downloads and use firewall/packet-shaper rules to squeeze the life out of P2P used for illegal sharing. This allows the schools to offer a legal option for low-cost or free music downloads and not blow up their Internet pipe in the process.
Folks who upload large numbers of files attract attention and are more likely to be caught and prosecuted/sued. Yet, that does not mean that freely downloading and using copyrighted material is legal.
Napster's subscription service streams the music, so this most certainly would help bandwidth issues. Also, I imagine new hit songs see a lot of downloads when they are released, so this could help even if most users aren't on the subscription plan.
Zonk? Is that you?
We've used their enterprise tool (with a central console and we push the app to everyone) for the past year and it has nearly eliminated our spyware problems. Our small university network (approximately 350 Windows boxes) was becoming a real nightmare, as we cleaned spyware from - or, more often, Ghosted - two or three machines a week. We now see less than one a month, and these usually are some really wacked out virus/malware thing that I can't find anywhere on Google.
First, many of the problem drivers actually drive slower than the posted speed limit. Second, most problems caused by slow drivers are because he or she is inconsideratly poking along in the fast/passing lane. Third, at least in the US, the federal government sets most interstate speed limits by providing funding only to those states that meet the federal recommendations on speed limits. The federal guidelines are as much about fuel economy as safety. The average car will get much better gas mileage at 55 to 60 mph and will notice a significant drop-off at 75 mph.
The speed limit also provides a nice method of synchronization between all the drivers. If everybody goes at the posted speed, there are fewer slower drivers, and the rate can be sustained for longer periods of time because fewer accidents will happen.
By your logic, we always should drive at the speed of the slowest driver. My complaint is about those who are going noticeably slower than 98% of the rest of traffic, regardless of the posted speed limit. Why should everyone else have to drive slower just because grandma can't see past the steering wheel any longer? I agree that those trying to drive much faster than the flow of traffic also are dangerous. My point is that on a day-to-day basis, I see many more problems caused by those driving slower than the rest of traffic.
Now, if we could only make the silly drivers understand that the fastest way to get where they're going is to not speed, let people into lanes, and all the other things that used to be called "courtesy," we'd be in good shape.
I tend to drive a little above the speed limit but I grew up on a small farm and I am familiar with having to drive slower than traffic (when hauling hay or livestock, for example). I agree that courtesy is missing from too many drivers. When hauling a load of hay, I stay in the slow lane and occasionally pull off to allow traffic by when on a two-lane road. In my day-to-day driving I allow others to merge and generally follow the Golden Rule. However, I also do not hesitate to tell people about their stupidity when they run a red light, cut me off, or hold up traffic by driving too slowly in the left lane.
I live in a small city with a population of just over 50,000 and nearly as many more in nearby suburbs and sprawl. I can say with complete certainty that slow drivers cause significantly more congestion than occasional problems caused by those going too fast. I see traffic messes several times each week caused by someone going slower than the flow of traffic and doing it in the left-most lane (our passing lane).
That sounds noble and all, but how exactly do you recommend that this be implemented in a system that depends on a few central servers? Someone has to be in charge.
Just another one of those ways the US can use to try and gain power and influence, and eventually step outside the bounds of their own Constitution.
Clearly!
1. Establish control of root zone files.
2. ???
3. Take over the world.
I'm no fan of our current administration, but at least use your brain instead of mindless anti-American dick-waving.
How many voters does it take to change a lightbulb?
None. Voters can't change anything.
I've never looked at nerdbooks.com, but Amazon's prices regularly beat any other major book retailer (both local and online). Plus, the free shipping on orders over $25 makes it even better.
The alternative is to say a monopoly is okay and consumers don't need choice or competition in this huge market. A natural monopoly is not caused by illegal collusion and is not fixed by market forces.
Even a monopoly has to respond to market forces. Given that 80% rather than 100% of Americans have cable suggests that cable companies have found a point of maximal profit, but they don't set prices arbitrarily.
Why does a natural monopoly have to respond to market forces? Plenty of studies have shown significant price differences between cable markets with competition and those without. They only have to keep their prices within reason, based upon comparisons to cable service elsewhere or (only in the past few years) satellite service.
Furthermore, cable can't be a true monopoly in the sense that there are numerous imperfect substitutes, e.g. satellite, xm radio, broadcast tv, the internet, etc.
Somewhat true, but they don't compete in the same spheres. There are plenty of areas that can't get satellite or broadcast TV and the cable provider is their only broadband provider. Even satellite hasn't brought down the price of cable, although they have slowed the price gouge a bit. I watched my cost for service increase over 100% in only three years before switching to satellite. When the wife couldn't stand missing the locals any longer and the trade-in-your-dish deal got sweet enough, we came back to cable. I currently have DSL for Internet service, but will have no choice but cable once I move this summer.
Also, we're not talking about a vital service. Roads, water, power, etc. are vital services.
Why are these vital? I grew up in a rural area and I am preparing to move back there. Many of our roads are not maintained by the government, we aren't provided public water or sewage, and most everyone has a generator and wood stoves for the power outages that occur most winters. Today's economy relies on the "vital services" you listed, but any of us could do without if necessary (in theory, although many of us don't believe it possible). Today's economy is nearing the point where ubiquitous broadband is expected. You or I could do without it, but the economy needs it (or nearly does).
Cable TV is entertainment.
And this discussion happened only because those cables are being used for more than cable television service. Pay attention.
Once you get outside of the big cities, you'll find that public libraries are neither convenient nor do all have public Internet access (or they have one or two old POS computers using such restrictive software that you are banned from half the Internet).
Cable tv, internet access..etc, are luxuries, not necessities.
I agree, but so are telephone service, running water, and electricity. The point is that broadband service is getting close to the point of a hard-to-do-without luxury, similar to telephone service. Does it make sense for a natural monopoly to control something so common and expected?
An algorithm is an algorithm, for purposes of this conversation. Why is a video compression algorithm so much more in need of a patent than one that creates a unique fingerprint for each email. When talking about patents, these are no different.
>1. What do you suppose patents are for?
Well, that's a very complicated answer, but lets assume that they are there for some reason, in terms of physical objects and devices.
So you didn't answer the question, or at least said nothing related to this thread.
>2. What do think patents are for, if you think they work so well? What is their purpose?
Well, this is the same question as #1. I'm not going to get into that, but I guess you think that regular patents are OK.
Still no answer.
>3. What perculiar property do you feel pertains to computational methods that distinguish them from any other creative work?
Well, whats the diffrence between designing a new kind of valve or something and any other type of creative work?
First, you didn't answer the question. Posing another question does not count. Second, your example is a physical creation, not a mathematical or logical process.
>4. What is it about software that justifes protection both under copyright and under patent?
What is it about physical devices that justifes protection both under copyright and under patent? Most people don't bother to enforce copyright on physical designs, but you certanly could. Why not copyright blueprints or whatnot? The real question is what makes hardware diffrent then software that it shouldn't be patentable?
Using your example from question three, are you saying that a new valve is copyrighted? From the US Copyright Office: "Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works." Is your valve a literary work? Perhaps it is musical?
How do you imagine blueprints are patentable? I'll give you a hint - they aren't.
More information for you, courtesy of the US Patent and Trademark Office: "Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights are three types of intellectual property protection. They are different and serve different purposes. Patents protect inventions, and improvements to existing inventions... Copyrights protect literary, artistic, and musical works." You clearly do not understand copyrights and patents. Please stop talking out of your ass.
Firefox has been working on it and Opera fixed it. Microsoft says they aren't going to fix it since it is a "feature". Even better, Microsoft's answer is for users to install XP SP2 and make sure the firewall is enabled. Beautiful...
The law specifically includes an affirmative defense. See here.
I suppose you have something to back this up other than your claim? I don't suppose all the other reasons cited by Apple, Intel, the press, and the Slashdot crowd don't make sense to you?
Doesn't Intel have all kinds of vault-like protection system being built into their chips?
They are including support for some DRM technologies, but rumors indicate IBM is building similar technologies into their chips so this is quite unlikely a factor.
I do agree that this would be a way for Apple require Apple hardware for their software and something that I've not seen many people suggest. Everyone has been worried about Microsoft ending the PC revolution with their implementation of "Trusted Computing" but Apple might go there first.
However, Apple is not a software company like Microsoft (was) and they don't have the large base of businesses and OEMs to subsidize the home piracy market. If OS X is hacked to run on commodity x86 hardware and is available via P2P, Apple will either add serious DRM to their application and OS software (something they've avoided thus far) or face extinction. How will they continue to innovate when they suddenly have an increased market share but one paying for either their hardware or their software?
Did you even bother to RTFA that you linked? The article makes no claims of debunking the story behind the QWERTY design. It instead concentrates on debunking the stories claiming that the Dvorak layout is superior but never adopted simply because of lock-in to the existing layout.
Did you even read the article to which you linked? TFA is dedicated to debunking arguments that claim the Dvorak arrangement is superior but is not used simply because of QWERTY lock-in. It mentions the supposed reason for the original QWERTY layout but doesn't make any claim about the validity of the story.