Even worse, percentages like this will only hurt the public view of the OGG format, much like the popularity of mp3 files on Napster labeled them as "facilitators of piracy."
Lets be fair and honest about this. Here is a company that single handedly created the market for Personal Computers, brought computing to ordinary folks like you and me, made it affordable by encouraging mass acceptance and constantly strives to provide us ease of use in every sphere it touches.
This is simply not true. Apple created the market for personal computers. IBM tried to compete, but eventually lost when companies (such as Compaq) reverse-engineered the IBM bios and made compatible systems, rebirthing the market into basically the form we see today.
Did Microsoft do this? These systems were all running Microsoft software, but we're talking 1982 here. This is DOS, an OS Microsoft purchased, not developed; and, as it was originally named, it was more Quick and Dirty (QDOS) than it was revolutionary.
Microsoft is not successful because they make good software. They are successful because they are good businessmen. They leverage every bit of market penetration they can get to force exclusive contracts upon their distributers, meanwhile distancing them from industry standards to prevent any unnecessary compatibility that would threaten their monopoly.
Virtually all of the press that eminates from Microsoft's "Linux labs" is, in one way or another, a list of the reasons that existing MS tech is better than what is available in the F/OSS communities; but have there been instances where technologies and code from theses same F/OSS projects have been used in MS programs, either internally or in production?
A recent change in how the Opera browser identifies itself demonstrated this week that market penetration of the Microsoft IE browser has been greatly exaggerated. Now that Opera no longer includes the "Internet Explorer" identifier, usage statistics show that 88% of internet users are using the undervalued browser, with 10% of users using the Mozilla Firefox browser, 1% of users using Internet Explorer, and the remaining 1% split among the remaining browsers (Konqueror, Nautilus, links2, etc).
With this obvious defeat in the public mind, Microsoft had postponed the release of Windows Vista, while it examines how much of the perceived Windows install base is actually GNU/Linux with WINE.
Are you actually suggesting that the majority of us read the article?
If you mean the community-contributing, true nerd, posting kind of slashdot readers, then no, of course not.
But if you mean the script-kiddie, 1337, haxx0r, my-homepage-is-slashdot-because-I-think-they-think -I'm-cool, types, then yeah. And as little as I should care, it perpetuates this man's horendously bad journalism.
He also has the same last name of that guy that made that keyboard layout!
Sadly enough, that is probably a large root of his readership.
I know it's the first thing I think of whenever I read his name.
Why does slashdot time and time again reward Dvorak's senseless grumblings with links and an enormous readership? Until he has something worthwhile to say, we should stop supporting his constant dissidence. From where I sit, this guy is nothing more than a flamer.
I think that this bug is evidence of how intelligent Firefox's extention-based architecture really is. A severe security bug is discovered in a feature? I can disable it, and go on working. That feature can be updated, upgraded, and I can resume using it again, and I never had to think twice about changing browsers, or wait for the next version to come out (though, as I'd like to point out, an updated version of GreaseMonkey has already been prepared.)
You only have time to get a single version of the client ready so which OS do you support first?
I can see it now:
Online tax form application released; compatible only with 100% GNU/Linux based operating systems. Millions of citizens switch to Linux overnight to file taxes. BSD and Solaris form a coalition alledging that governments are monopolies. Microsoft takes the government to court, citing their patents for "an online system by which choice of operating system is passively forced."
In a related story, a record ten million new users join slashdot in an effort to "sh0 d3r 1337 sk1||z"
Intel created the x86 processor, not IBM. IBM 'clones' as they were typically called came about when the functionality of the IBM BIOS was able to be duplicated.
We cannot make a more advanced life form from a less advanced life form via mutation and natural selection. All we can do is make a life form that is the same species have more useful traits (that were previously recessive, or at least seldom seen, though still part of the genes).
This is, in my view, the biggest ding in the evolutionary armor. I, myself, am a seeker: I follow the teachings of the Christ, and serve, as he did, our Father; but I do not claim that I know enough about evolutionary theory to intelligently combat it.
Having said that, I have not seen any evidence that shows new traits having been added to a genome; genetics tells us that the evolution that we see, and that is used as evidence by proponents of evolution, is not the generation of new traits (as evolutionary theory implies) but the implementation of preexisting data in the DNA.
Has any experiment demonstrated new and useful traits being added to a genome? It seems to me that natural selection has been demonstrated, but not evolution. They are, after all, two different things.
Yes, F/OSS projects accept donations all the time. In fact, I'd be really surprised to see a major project that _didn't_ have a "click here to donate" paypal button.
~in service of the Root
Image there were ten companies each with ten software developers. Each company needs the same functionality from a piece of software, so each company has their ten software developers start working on the software. After ten years, the ten companies have produced ten different pieces of software, each with its own strengths and weaknessess. After ten years the ten companies each use their own software to make money.
This is open source development:
Image there were ten companies each with ten software developers. Each company needs the same functionality from a piece of software, so each company has their ten software developers start working on the software. One of the companies decides to license their project-in-progress as F/OSS. Four of the other companies see this, and check it out. Realizing that the first company did a lot of things right, they decide to use the development that the first company did, and all begin working on the same piece of software. After ten years, the ten companies have produced six different pieces of software. Five of them have had ten developers working on them for ten years, one of them has had fifty developers working on them for ten years.
The F/OSS software logically accumulated development at five times the rate of the other projects; thus it reached the same level of production in one-fifth the time. Thus the five companies who worked on the F/OSS project started making money using their software in two years, as opposed to the other five companies that worked on their own software for ten years.
What's more, the F/OSS project accumulated both these fifty _paid_ developers and hobbyist developers, developers from _other_ companies, etc. Thus production rates increase, functionality improves more quickly, and the software can be used earlier for more functions to make more money.
What you have to understand is that F/OSS finds value (whether it be intrinsic or monetary) in the _use_ of software, rather than in the _sale_ of software. The theory is that if developers work together they can produce better software, with software being a tool that each can use to make more money.
is invisible DRM. I'm not a big pirate, by any means. I'm one of the few that really will go buy the CD if he likes what he hears online. (waits for laughter to ensue)
Really, the only DRM I wouldn't complain about is DRM that I don't even notice. If it didn't stop anything I'm doing, I wouldn't care that it's there.
Why do I hate DRM? Is it copy limitations? Not really. Is it that my players must be authorized, and only a few can be at a time? It's not even that, really. I hate DRM because it's all proprietary. Give me an open DRM standard that any hardware/software vendor can freely implement, so that I don't have to worry if my DRM'd song will play on my muVo, my iPod, my MediaMonkey, my Winamp, or my MP3-CD player.
In truth, my knowledge of evolution comes from my own study, from many sources, each biased toward its own view.
As I said in a previous post, yes, natural selection is a principal of social biology. What is in dispute is the possibility of extra-genetic advancement through natural selection. In all observed instances of natural selection attributes that are already in existence in a genetic pool are simply brought to dominance. Evolution predicts that new attributes can be spontaneously adopted into a genome with no direct source.
Such an occurence has not been observed. Still, even if it were, the observance that such an event is possible would not technically prove that it is how our development occured. (It would make it near-infinitely more likely; and in no way would I use this idea as evidence to the contrary. Still, it's important to note that possibility does not imply truth necessairly).
The classic fruit-fly experiment shows the truth of natural selection, yes. Natural selection is a biological principle that accounts for many things. But laboratory experiments have not yet shown cross-species or extra-species development.
No self-respecting Creationist will deny the principle of natural selection; what they will deny, however, is that natural selection can bring new attributes into a genome, whereas observed natural selection only brings existing genetic material to dominance.
Creationism is unfalsifiable/unverifiable: you're right. Still, consider the fact that the same things that make creationism a matter of faith are the same points that we must take into account to accept the evolutionary process.
You make the point that creationism is not science; that too is correct. A Science, by virtue of the scientific method, would require a creationist to make predictions of the future based upon his theory and show truth in those predictions repeatedly and controllably.
Still, that which hedges creationism out of the realm of science does the same to evolutionary theory: evolution is the naturalist's 'best guess' of the past based upon the state of the earth today. In the same way, Creation is the Christian's 'best guess' of the past based upon knowledge passed-down from assumedly trustworthy sources.
Both processes, and thus both theories, require a great deal of interpolation and assumption. In fact, neither is truly science (though the social climate that surrounds supernaturalism vs naturalism connotates [perhaps falsly] that evolution is more believable, simply because the belief in a God-figure is 'outdated').
Personally, I find Divine Creation much more likely than Natural Evolution. Both require you to simply 'believe' that the process is possible, as no experiment performed today can replicate either prediction. The existence of a God-being would simplify the creation process, whereas the existence of spontaneous evolution would still leave biology in a lurching chaos of unpredictability and butterfly effects. It has been my experience that, when in doubt, the simpler, more elegant solution is usually correct.
This is exactly what we've seen time and time again.
1. a standard exists
2. good products support the standard
3. Microsoft creates their own proprietary "standard" and uses it instead
4. because IE has the largest marketshare, websites are designed to render properly on IE
5. customers try a standards-compliant product, only to find that their sites don't render 'properly'
This is deliberate anticompetetive behavior, plain and simple.
Slashdot Mirror
And remember, read CmdrTaco, eat Taco Bell. Always open late.
Even worse, percentages like this will only hurt the public view of the OGG format, much like the popularity of mp3 files on Napster labeled them as "facilitators of piracy."
What ever happened to "640K should be enough for anyone"?
This is simply not true. Apple created the market for personal computers. IBM tried to compete, but eventually lost when companies (such as Compaq) reverse-engineered the IBM bios and made compatible systems, rebirthing the market into basically the form we see today.
Did Microsoft do this? These systems were all running Microsoft software, but we're talking 1982 here. This is DOS, an OS Microsoft purchased, not developed; and, as it was originally named, it was more Quick and Dirty (QDOS) than it was revolutionary.
Microsoft is not successful because they make good software. They are successful because they are good businessmen. They leverage every bit of market penetration they can get to force exclusive contracts upon their distributers, meanwhile distancing them from industry standards to prevent any unnecessary compatibility that would threaten their monopoly.
Virtually all of the press that eminates from Microsoft's "Linux labs" is, in one way or another, a list of the reasons that existing MS tech is better than what is available in the F/OSS communities; but have there been instances where technologies and code from theses same F/OSS projects have been used in MS programs, either internally or in production?
I've seen the future of Slashdot:
A recent change in how the Opera browser identifies itself demonstrated this week that market penetration of the Microsoft IE browser has been greatly exaggerated. Now that Opera no longer includes the "Internet Explorer" identifier, usage statistics show that 88% of internet users are using the undervalued browser, with 10% of users using the Mozilla Firefox browser, 1% of users using Internet Explorer, and the remaining 1% split among the remaining browsers (Konqueror, Nautilus, links2, etc).
With this obvious defeat in the public mind, Microsoft had postponed the release of Windows Vista, while it examines how much of the perceived Windows install base is actually GNU/Linux with WINE.
I think the news is that there are still people out there that are this oblivious to the marketing practices of Microsoft.
At least, that's what I've decided to tell myself.
Are you actually suggesting that the majority of us read the article? If you mean the community-contributing, true nerd, posting kind of slashdot readers, then no, of course not. But if you mean the script-kiddie, 1337, haxx0r, my-homepage-is-slashdot-because-I-think-they-think -I'm-cool, types, then yeah. And as little as I should care, it perpetuates this man's horendously bad journalism.
He also has the same last name of that guy that made that keyboard layout! Sadly enough, that is probably a large root of his readership. I know it's the first thing I think of whenever I read his name.
Why does slashdot time and time again reward Dvorak's senseless grumblings with links and an enormous readership? Until he has something worthwhile to say, we should stop supporting his constant dissidence. From where I sit, this guy is nothing more than a flamer.
I think that this bug is evidence of how intelligent Firefox's extention-based architecture really is. A severe security bug is discovered in a feature? I can disable it, and go on working. That feature can be updated, upgraded, and I can resume using it again, and I never had to think twice about changing browsers, or wait for the next version to come out (though, as I'd like to point out, an updated version of GreaseMonkey has already been prepared.)
You only have time to get a single version of the client ready so which OS do you support first?
I can see it now:
Online tax form application released; compatible only with 100% GNU/Linux based operating systems. Millions of citizens switch to Linux overnight to file taxes. BSD and Solaris form a coalition alledging that governments are monopolies. Microsoft takes the government to court, citing their patents for "an online system by which choice of operating system is passively forced."
In a related story, a record ten million new users join slashdot in an effort to "sh0 d3r 1337 sk1||z"
The future is bright indeed.
Intel created the x86 processor, not IBM. IBM 'clones' as they were typically called came about when the functionality of the IBM BIOS was able to be duplicated.
If you give a man a coke, he drinks for a day. Teach him to use bittorrent, and the MPAA's after him for a lifetime.
STOP 0x0000000A
A problem has been detected and your engine has been shut down to prevent damage to your car. Any life you may have been living has been lost.
We cannot make a more advanced life form from a less advanced life form via mutation and natural selection. All we can do is make a life form that is the same species have more useful traits (that were previously recessive, or at least seldom seen, though still part of the genes).
This is, in my view, the biggest ding in the evolutionary armor. I, myself, am a seeker: I follow the teachings of the Christ, and serve, as he did, our Father; but I do not claim that I know enough about evolutionary theory to intelligently combat it.
Having said that, I have not seen any evidence that shows new traits having been added to a genome; genetics tells us that the evolution that we see, and that is used as evidence by proponents of evolution, is not the generation of new traits (as evolutionary theory implies) but the implementation of preexisting data in the DNA.
Has any experiment demonstrated new and useful traits being added to a genome? It seems to me that natural selection has been demonstrated, but not evolution. They are, after all, two different things.
Yes, F/OSS projects accept donations all the time. In fact, I'd be really surprised to see a major project that _didn't_ have a "click here to donate" paypal button. ~in service of the Root
This is closed source development:
Image there were ten companies each with ten software developers. Each company needs the same functionality from a piece of software, so each company has their ten software developers start working on the software. After ten years, the ten companies have produced ten different pieces of software, each with its own strengths and weaknessess. After ten years the ten companies each use their own software to make money.
This is open source development:
Image there were ten companies each with ten software developers. Each company needs the same functionality from a piece of software, so each company has their ten software developers start working on the software. One of the companies decides to license their project-in-progress as F/OSS. Four of the other companies see this, and check it out. Realizing that the first company did a lot of things right, they decide to use the development that the first company did, and all begin working on the same piece of software. After ten years, the ten companies have produced six different pieces of software. Five of them have had ten developers working on them for ten years, one of them has had fifty developers working on them for ten years.
The F/OSS software logically accumulated development at five times the rate of the other projects; thus it reached the same level of production in one-fifth the time. Thus the five companies who worked on the F/OSS project started making money using their software in two years, as opposed to the other five companies that worked on their own software for ten years.
What's more, the F/OSS project accumulated both these fifty _paid_ developers and hobbyist developers, developers from _other_ companies, etc. Thus production rates increase, functionality improves more quickly, and the software can be used earlier for more functions to make more money.
What you have to understand is that F/OSS finds value (whether it be intrinsic or monetary) in the _use_ of software, rather than in the _sale_ of software. The theory is that if developers work together they can produce better software, with software being a tool that each can use to make more money.
~ In service of the Root.
Now if only it was this easy to kill _other_ laws. I can see it now. Tomorrow's /. reads:
Congress: The DMCA is dead.
Check the painful (for IBM) irony:
Microsoft: We think we have what you need. It's called "DOS."
IBM: Oh, really?
Microsoft: Really; but we're not going to sell it to you: we're going to sell you a license to use it.
IBM: Sound's ok. The money's in the hardware, not the software.
is invisible DRM. I'm not a big pirate, by any means. I'm one of the few that really will go buy the CD if he likes what he hears online. (waits for laughter to ensue)
Really, the only DRM I wouldn't complain about is DRM that I don't even notice. If it didn't stop anything I'm doing, I wouldn't care that it's there.
Why do I hate DRM? Is it copy limitations? Not really. Is it that my players must be authorized, and only a few can be at a time? It's not even that, really. I hate DRM because it's all proprietary. Give me an open DRM standard that any hardware/software vendor can freely implement, so that I don't have to worry if my DRM'd song will play on my muVo, my iPod, my MediaMonkey, my Winamp, or my MP3-CD player.
In truth, my knowledge of evolution comes from my own study, from many sources, each biased toward its own view.
As I said in a previous post, yes, natural selection is a principal of social biology. What is in dispute is the possibility of extra-genetic advancement through natural selection. In all observed instances of natural selection attributes that are already in existence in a genetic pool are simply brought to dominance. Evolution predicts that new attributes can be spontaneously adopted into a genome with no direct source.
Such an occurence has not been observed. Still, even if it were, the observance that such an event is possible would not technically prove that it is how our development occured. (It would make it near-infinitely more likely; and in no way would I use this idea as evidence to the contrary. Still, it's important to note that possibility does not imply truth necessairly).
The classic fruit-fly experiment shows the truth of natural selection, yes. Natural selection is a biological principle that accounts for many things. But laboratory experiments have not yet shown cross-species or extra-species development.
No self-respecting Creationist will deny the principle of natural selection; what they will deny, however, is that natural selection can bring new attributes into a genome, whereas observed natural selection only brings existing genetic material to dominance.
Creationism is unfalsifiable/unverifiable: you're right. Still, consider the fact that the same things that make creationism a matter of faith are the same points that we must take into account to accept the evolutionary process.
You make the point that creationism is not science; that too is correct. A Science, by virtue of the scientific method, would require a creationist to make predictions of the future based upon his theory and show truth in those predictions repeatedly and controllably.
Still, that which hedges creationism out of the realm of science does the same to evolutionary theory: evolution is the naturalist's 'best guess' of the past based upon the state of the earth today. In the same way, Creation is the Christian's 'best guess' of the past based upon knowledge passed-down from assumedly trustworthy sources.
Both processes, and thus both theories, require a great deal of interpolation and assumption. In fact, neither is truly science (though the social climate that surrounds supernaturalism vs naturalism connotates [perhaps falsly] that evolution is more believable, simply because the belief in a God-figure is 'outdated').
Personally, I find Divine Creation much more likely than Natural Evolution. Both require you to simply 'believe' that the process is possible, as no experiment performed today can replicate either prediction. The existence of a God-being would simplify the creation process, whereas the existence of spontaneous evolution would still leave biology in a lurching chaos of unpredictability and butterfly effects. It has been my experience that, when in doubt, the simpler, more elegant solution is usually correct.
This is exactly what we've seen time and time again.
1. a standard exists
2. good products support the standard
3. Microsoft creates their own proprietary "standard" and uses it instead
4. because IE has the largest marketshare, websites are designed to render properly on IE
5. customers try a standards-compliant product, only to find that their sites don't render 'properly'
This is deliberate anticompetetive behavior, plain and simple.