The article completely ignores the most important part about math: It's a language. A very good language, even. More modern than any of our natural languages, capable of expressing non-Newtonian, non-Euclidian and non-Aristotelian facts of the world we today know to be true but still struggle to fit into our mother tongues.
Also, it is what Latin used to be in the middle ages - the common language of people all over the world. Scientists from different continents may be barely able to communicate in their respective mother languages or in english, but if they write down their formulas, they both know exactly what the other is talking about.
But no, the most important part is that math still evolves, and rapidly. As so many other critics, the author of the article appears to have a very limited understanding of math.
Unless my maths are wrong, they're 3% shy of their target. Which doesn't seem to be too shabby. For some companies, it would. But MS shareholders expect MS to considerably exceed the goals. Even just barely reaching them would be a low point.
They've made bucketloads of money That's the point. They haven't. The whole console branch is a loss leader. Less consoles means less games sold means less of the only part of the console business where there is actual profit potential.
Yes, it's a major problem, especially for a company that is very used to exceeding their goals.
The fuel industry claims that the costs of installing temerature-adjustment sensors on every pump would be prohibitively high. These sensors are already installed in Canada, however, where the colder temperatures favor consumers. Which is really what it's all about. The full sentence (which they didn't say) is "the costs of installing temperature-adjustment sensors on every pump would be prohibitively high if it doesn't yield us a profit in exchange".
They're even right. Consumers have accepted it so far. Heck, they don't have much of a choice, do they? Now if this were a real industry, you know with competition and stuff, one of the players would offer a choice, a better deal to the consumer, and in exchange gain a higher market share. Since it isn't, he won't.
Yes. If your business generates only 0,1% of GCI's revenue with a similar product Then what?
Your argument really is that money determines who gets a right and who doesn't? Maybe my oxyen and water consumption isn't less effective than Joe Rich's, so you're going to terminate my living license next?
That's how the world works - the weak perish, only the strong survive. Actually, you don't understand Darwin. It's not the strong who survive, it's the most adaptable. But that's another topic.
What this is about is Trademark Law. Now you can argue for it to be completely abolished and maybe we can even agree there. But if we accept trademark law, then it can not be right that the deeper pockets win just because they are deeper. Because even Google started out as a small company. Because every giant corporation of today was small once. If you allow only the big to survive, then us humans wouldn't be here today and it would be all dinosaurs instead.
If I were Google I would simply shut down Google.de and the German GMail and give the whole country the big old middle finger. I bet it would only take months for local public pressure to force g-mail to get out of the way of the real Google GMail. You, sir, have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
For starters, Germany is the export world record holder. Its 80 million people are one of the most important markets on this planet. It is also one of the leading countries of the European Union, the largest and most profitable economy around.
You don't walk away from that market, unless you have an (economic) suicide wish and want to be fired by your shareholders.
I'm sure that someday the WTO will have something arranged so that the guy producing the most benefit from the trademark will win. If you came up with the trademark (or a copyrighted idea) twenty years ago and are using it to generate a million dollars in business per year, you have to surrender it to the bigger company who comes along and is making a billion dollars per year off of it. And that would be good why, exactly?
Look, if my business is doing well, and earning say 2-3 millions a year in a local market. Assume it's a good product, the customers are happy, everything is fine. Assume that it's a product that relies on brand recognition.
Now along comes Giant Corporation Inc. with a similar-named product. It would nevertheless hurt my business considerably. You're saying that's ok and I and my customers have to suck it up simply because GCI is bigger?
MiiVi also offered client software to speed up the downloading process. Ok, what kind of total idiot would install that kind of software anyways? If it's not a MPAA trojan, it's a spammer trojan or logging your PIN numbers and sending them to Russia.
Thank you, MPAA, for weeding the general public of the lower 5%. May I suggest you shoot them first, and then yourself? You'd do us all a great favor.
For example, giving away x would "reduce" my taxable income. If that means it goes below a certain value, the tax percentage on my total income goes down. I might very well end up with a net profit. e.g. if I earn 101k, and pay 40% taxes on that, but earning 99k would put me in a 38% tax bracket, I'd pay 99k*0.38=38.61k and get to keep 61.38k. If I had paid 40% on 101k, I'd be left with just 60.6k.
Actual tax laws are a ton more complicated then that and allow you a lot more loopholes. Especially if you don't so much "give away" the money than invest it in a foundation under your own control. That's more a redistribution than a loss.
Don't get me wrong, his philantropy is possibly the only redeeming feature of Bill Gates. I just find it important to point out that there are a lot of tax incentives for these donations, and a lot of them wouldn't happen without.
What's surprising about that? Someone in MS Spin Control and Public Relations is worth his salary. The story could have exploded into an "avoid MS products if you want your data accessible some years down the road" fiasco (we all know that MS is the worst offender when it comes to changing the document formats, usually undocumented). Instead, it was turned into another push for their next format.
Brilliant.
"What, the shit I sold you yesterday stinks? Try this new shit, it's great and it has none of the problems of the old one."
No matter how contrarian you are trying to be, this is still NOT a feature. That depends entirely on your POV.
For many corporations, the lack of a camera does qualify as a feature, for example.
From the POV of society, less noise and less "look ma" definitely is an improvement. Sure people want to personalize. But if they've lost all powers of self-regulation, then as everywhere, external regulation has to follow. I'd much prefer it coming from the phone companies, with such simple things as noise detectors and reducing the ring tone volume if the surrounding is quite, only using a loud one if the surrounding is noisy, or just the simple fact of making vibrate the factory default.
Plus I want a brick attached to every cell phone, to punch its owner in the face with if he behaves like an asshole.
I do believe that corporations in the US expect to be treated as a "person" under national and international law. You start your argument with a wrong assumption.
Corporations (in the US and elsewhere) employ entire squads of lawyers whose sole job it is to navigate the most profitable path through the jungle of laws. That includes demanding to be treated as a "person" whenever it is profitable to do so, and on the other hand demanding to be treated as a purely legal entity whenever that is more profitable.
- Songs as Ringtones I think that qualifies as a feature. Ringtones are bad enough as they are. On some days, I feel like punishing the idiots in the face who have their ringtones as loud as possible, finally take it out of their pocket after the 3rd ring, and let it ring two more times in the open, just to make sure everyone on the train knows they have a cellphone. Dudes, it's not 1995 anymore when having a cellphone was a symbol of cool and/or importance.
I don't know why everyone's getting so hyped up over a small part of the iPhone. I know I want one because a) it syncs with iCal and addressbook and b) it has good chances to being the first ever actually useable smartphone. I've looked all over the market about a year ago, and to be honest, every smartphone sucks, just each one in different ways. From what I've seen, the iPhone has the lowest "suck factor" by far, and a couple really nice features. I don't think the web-browsing will clock in a considerable part of the time you spend with your phone for most people.
Some time soon, we will cross the line where my opinion becomes a majority opinion: That any and all unasked for advertisement is harassment and should carry criminal penalties accordingly. Double the punishment if it masquerades as something else (i.e. fake grassroots campaigns, product placement, etc.)
Alternatively, lift all restrictions on advertisement. Then we'd at least have nude girls and hardcore porn on every wall and window, instead of beer and washing powder.
On the other hand, it can be argued that artists in early times were living on a very different business model - usually work-for-hire (ironically what the RIAA wants to re-introduce).
But while we're at the historical context, let's not forget that the very first copyright laws (in England) were for the protection of publishers, not artists.
Hmmm... Looks like we didn't really advance very much since then.
Give me an example of a 'copying industry' that significantly predates that. The printing press was invented in 1450, only 250 years previous. Sound recording came much later. Works of art were reproduced by hand, in extremely small quantities. In the centuries mentioned, the industry was a manual industry. Maybe "industry" is the wrong word, because the industrial revolution was in the 18th century.
As for the examples you mention, remembering a song and then singing it later isn't prohibited by copyright anyway - unless you're performing it in public. How many people, in a basically subsistence economy, have the time or ability to 'share' songs in that way? You'd be surprised. Since not much of the folk culture was ever written down, only fragments remain, but for all we know, our "primitive" ancestors had a rich culture full of songs and stories. Imagine that public performances (in the village square) of song and story as the replacement of television and radio. I think that puts your roughly in the area.
Now go back a thousand years. Ancient greece, rome - yes, books were copied by hand. But we know for a fact that libraries existed, and that literacy was common. There are quite a few copies of Homer, for example.
True, but incomplete. You could easily copy on the scale that 99% of the people the MP/RIAA sue do, even in 2000 BC. A song is quickly learnt and repeated, and back then people had better-trained memories.
In fact, I think the copying industry very much pre-dates copyright. People made a living copying paintings or books centuries before copyright came into existence.
But then, if an image is infringing on someone's copyright, doesn't the civil law come into play? Yes, but...
I think the wording is the give-away. As long as the image is legal. A copyrighted picture is a perfectly legal image. It might not be legal to host it without the copyright holder's consent, but the image itself is perfectly legal. Very few images are illegal all by themselves. Child porn is about the only thing I can think about right now.
their version of making it free is take someones hard work, and let anyone who wants it get it without collecting any monetary reward for the person who did the work. You've had too much of the MAFIAA propaganda.
The entire foundation of our culture was created without the existence of copyright. All your Aristotle, Homer, Mozart, da Vinci. There's no copyright on the paintings in the pyramids nor on the bible.
Slashdot Mirror
...let's see if the /. crowd rips it apart like the iPhone for not having that... :-)
The article completely ignores the most important part about math: It's a language. A very good language, even. More modern than any of our natural languages, capable of expressing non-Newtonian, non-Euclidian and non-Aristotelian facts of the world we today know to be true but still struggle to fit into our mother tongues.
Also, it is what Latin used to be in the middle ages - the common language of people all over the world. Scientists from different continents may be barely able to communicate in their respective mother languages or in english, but if they write down their formulas, they both know exactly what the other is talking about.
But no, the most important part is that math still evolves, and rapidly. As so many other critics, the author of the article appears to have a very limited understanding of math.
Yes, it's a major problem, especially for a company that is very used to exceeding their goals.
They're even right. Consumers have accepted it so far. Heck, they don't have much of a choice, do they? Now if this were a real industry, you know with competition and stuff, one of the players would offer a choice, a better deal to the consumer, and in exchange gain a higher market share. Since it isn't, he won't.
Your argument really is that money determines who gets a right and who doesn't? Maybe my oxyen and water consumption isn't less effective than Joe Rich's, so you're going to terminate my living license next? That's how the world works - the weak perish, only the strong survive. Actually, you don't understand Darwin. It's not the strong who survive, it's the most adaptable. But that's another topic.
What this is about is Trademark Law. Now you can argue for it to be completely abolished and maybe we can even agree there. But if we accept trademark law, then it can not be right that the deeper pockets win just because they are deeper. Because even Google started out as a small company. Because every giant corporation of today was small once. If you allow only the big to survive, then us humans wouldn't be here today and it would be all dinosaurs instead.
For starters, Germany is the export world record holder. Its 80 million people are one of the most important markets on this planet. It is also one of the leading countries of the European Union, the largest and most profitable economy around.
You don't walk away from that market, unless you have an (economic) suicide wish and want to be fired by your shareholders.
Look, if my business is doing well, and earning say 2-3 millions a year in a local market. Assume it's a good product, the customers are happy, everything is fine. Assume that it's a product that relies on brand recognition.
Now along comes Giant Corporation Inc. with a similar-named product. It would nevertheless hurt my business considerably. You're saying that's ok and I and my customers have to suck it up simply because GCI is bigger?
Thank you, MPAA, for weeding the general public of the lower 5%. May I suggest you shoot them first, and then yourself? You'd do us all a great favor.
Because the tax system is not as simple as that.
For example, giving away x would "reduce" my taxable income. If that means it goes below a certain value, the tax percentage on my total income goes down. I might very well end up with a net profit. e.g. if I earn 101k, and pay 40% taxes on that, but earning 99k would put me in a 38% tax bracket, I'd pay 99k*0.38=38.61k and get to keep 61.38k. If I had paid 40% on 101k, I'd be left with just 60.6k.
Actual tax laws are a ton more complicated then that and allow you a lot more loopholes. Especially if you don't so much "give away" the money than invest it in a foundation under your own control. That's more a redistribution than a loss.
Don't get me wrong, his philantropy is possibly the only redeeming feature of Bill Gates. I just find it important to point out that there are a lot of tax incentives for these donations, and a lot of them wouldn't happen without.
What's surprising about that? Someone in MS Spin Control and Public Relations is worth his salary. The story could have exploded into an "avoid MS products if you want your data accessible some years down the road" fiasco (we all know that MS is the worst offender when it comes to changing the document formats, usually undocumented). Instead, it was turned into another push for their next format.
Brilliant.
"What, the shit I sold you yesterday stinks? Try this new shit, it's great and it has none of the problems of the old one."
That's what you hire PR people for.
Don't forget that the rich "giving money away" often do it for the tax breaks.
I don't know how much of that is the case for Bill. But I'd be surprised if it weren't at least a part of the reason.
For many corporations, the lack of a camera does qualify as a feature, for example.
From the POV of society, less noise and less "look ma" definitely is an improvement. Sure people want to personalize. But if they've lost all powers of self-regulation, then as everywhere, external regulation has to follow. I'd much prefer it coming from the phone companies, with such simple things as noise detectors and reducing the ring tone volume if the surrounding is quite, only using a loud one if the surrounding is noisy, or just the simple fact of making vibrate the factory default.
Plus I want a brick attached to every cell phone, to punch its owner in the face with if he behaves like an asshole.
Corporations (in the US and elsewhere) employ entire squads of lawyers whose sole job it is to navigate the most profitable path through the jungle of laws. That includes demanding to be treated as a "person" whenever it is profitable to do so, and on the other hand demanding to be treated as a purely legal entity whenever that is more profitable.
- Songs as Ringtones I think that qualifies as a feature. Ringtones are bad enough as they are. On some days, I feel like punishing the idiots in the face who have their ringtones as loud as possible, finally take it out of their pocket after the 3rd ring, and let it ring two more times in the open, just to make sure everyone on the train knows they have a cellphone. Dudes, it's not 1995 anymore when having a cellphone was a symbol of cool and/or importance.
I think that's a part of the success story:
Apple makes mistakes.
But Apple learns from its mistakes.
Making it illegal to force your employees to be chipped is now "daemonization"?
Please, can we round up and shoot all the PR and marketing freaks who wage war on our minds using language as their weapon?
I don't know why everyone's getting so hyped up over a small part of the iPhone. I know I want one because a) it syncs with iCal and addressbook and b) it has good chances to being the first ever actually useable smartphone. I've looked all over the market about a year ago, and to be honest, every smartphone sucks, just each one in different ways. From what I've seen, the iPhone has the lowest "suck factor" by far, and a couple really nice features. I don't think the web-browsing will clock in a considerable part of the time you spend with your phone for most people.
Some time soon, we will cross the line where my opinion becomes a majority opinion: That any and all unasked for advertisement is harassment and should carry criminal penalties accordingly. Double the punishment if it masquerades as something else (i.e. fake grassroots campaigns, product placement, etc.)
Alternatively, lift all restrictions on advertisement. Then we'd at least have nude girls and hardcore porn on every wall and window, instead of beer and washing powder.
Yes, good point.
On the other hand, it can be argued that artists in early times were living on a very different business model - usually work-for-hire (ironically what the RIAA wants to re-introduce).
But while we're at the historical context, let's not forget that the very first copyright laws (in England) were for the protection of publishers, not artists.
Hmmm... Looks like we didn't really advance very much since then.
Now go back a thousand years. Ancient greece, rome - yes, books were copied by hand. But we know for a fact that libraries existed, and that literacy was common. There are quite a few copies of Homer, for example.
True, but incomplete. You could easily copy on the scale that 99% of the people the MP/RIAA sue do, even in 2000 BC. A song is quickly learnt and repeated, and back then people had better-trained memories.
In fact, I think the copying industry very much pre-dates copyright. People made a living copying paintings or books centuries before copyright came into existence.
Ok replace with "tombs in the valley of kings". It's longer and the point remains.
I think the wording is the give-away. As long as the image is legal. A copyrighted picture is a perfectly legal image. It might not be legal to host it without the copyright holder's consent, but the image itself is perfectly legal. Very few images are illegal all by themselves. Child porn is about the only thing I can think about right now.
The entire foundation of our culture was created without the existence of copyright. All your Aristotle, Homer, Mozart, da Vinci. There's no copyright on the paintings in the pyramids nor on the bible.