The big change that permitted science to flourish was the willingness to share information. Because the information was shared, progress was not limited to what one person could create.
Not really, the big change came mainly out of stealing information & ignoring patents (The last one because of differences in laws between countries and some wars). Those two inspired more companies to license their inventions to others so that they at least would earn some money, and set a minimum productprice which due to the license was hopefully equal or higher to what they sold themselves.
I think reforms in the educational system of basic science (Darwin, math, economics) made the changes possible. At this moment there are still limits on information causing lots of reinventions just to get were a company or country wants to go, for example nuclear technology.
So far the economics of closed standards worked pretty good, but only for companies which license their standards to others. The ones who did not and became to powerful, have been hit by lawsuits (IBM, Microsoft ea). Still those are the ones who set industry standards with their closed products. Licensing it in a more fair way would most likely have prevented the MS lawsuits, while they could (they still can at this moment) control the standards, and stay ahead of the curve.
Hey, the shopping carts in the supermarket have this for several years already! Oh, I see, Amazon.com is just expecting the patent reform to go through, which makes prior art not relevant, but which just works on a first come, first served basis.
4 step pla to get quick rich in new patent system:
1. Wait in front of patent office on Amazon.com lawyer
2. Steal suitcase with patents from lawyer
3. Submit Amazon patents as own patents
4. Sue Amazon=> profit!
I was trying to make a sarcastic point. As you probably know, the filters do not only block adult content, in which a kid is not interested in the sameway anyway (blocking adult material is a nice way for parents not to have to explain anything, hence the point you made (-: ), or probably not interested at all. Also some sites with opiniated materials are blocked. A lot of that content is to high level, but what if it gets in fashion to block sites promoting environmental solutions, or politically oriented sites (all democrat sites are blocked for example, all republican sites are not, or vice versa). That will really change the perception of the kids on the world in such a way that it can become harmfull to society as a whole.
Filters are a lazy persons way. The bad part by now is, that if there is no filter, and a kid ends up at a porn site, that the parent could get charged for child abuse if the kid talks about it to his friends, which will tell their parents, which will declare the other parents as freaks, which can get them arrested. I would not be surprised if this already happened.
Overhere in about the most liberal country of the world, there issues do not exist (yet) and will hopefully never exist. If I ever get kids, I rather explain all the things they run into myself, then not to let them see it at all. My youth however is from pre public internet era, so I had to do it with selecting the wrong books in a library (do not underestimate the power of a Dutch writer in being graphical with words), and discover that as a kid you do not like those stories (it was recognized literature about the 2nd world war), and that you rather go back to the other section which is more interesting for a kid. I think on the internet a kid will behave the same: Fun discoverykids.com site, or graphic pictures of dead iraqi? discoverykids it is after looking at 3 pictures of the iraqi. There are ofcourse always exceptions, but they already show up now with filters, so what does the filter do anyway?
This argument of the web making kids more creative is I think faulty. The reasoning:
Smart & creative kids use the current environment of social structure to get to the information they want, or the tools they want. A library is one of those tools. The internet only makes it easier to access a lot more less structures information.
What the net probably does, is make it less boring for some kids, and thus giving more creative but without the internet easily bored kids a chance to show their creativity. Boredom and attentionspan problems will however also take their toll on the internet, so to predict a more creative generation is not justifiable.
N-American children will most likely be more creative again than W-European children. This is caused by overly worried parents in N-America installing all kinds of filters, which the children have to circumvent to get to where they want to go. In W-Europe this is done a lot less, thus not making the children equally creative.
It will reduce the gene pool in such a case. It will probably not clean it up: Heavy toxins make the abnormal ones survive, probably with nice new additions to the genes to make the gene lottery even more interesting for a next generation.
The added value of skype is that they have a pretty good working voice protocol compared to others at this moment. The other part in added value is that they can connect to the normal voice networks globally. Just having an opensource chat program is not going to do you a lot of good in the second case.
An internationally recognized test for well load balanced http servers.
Anyway: Philip K Dick in the story Do robots dream of electric sheep, discussess the ways to distinguish androids from humans with some nice tests. They also upgrade the tests all the time. Maybe it is time to upgrade the Turing test too.
You are right: Firefox is an enabler to switch to other platforms, other office applications are a direct hitter on profits. And it is all about making it hard to switch.
And compared to the firefox story, which just hurts freely given away IE, and people still use MS windows as platform, so not costing any profits, and uptake of 10% in OpenOffice would really hurt the bottomline of MS. Not that they will lose money because of it, but the profitability goes down, maybe even pricing pressure to keep people away from this free OpenOffice.
Hey, how about a page size add in a newspaper for www.downloadOpenOffice.org (already exists, and is someones attempt to earn some cash, to bad)
People also tend to use one office set. So Mas. switching to OO, could end up people downloading OO to be able to use the documents (Ok, there are PDF versions). MS will most likely counter that by releasing an update or a plugin to be able to read OO documents in some twisted destructive, or correct later on way, and not being able to save OO documents.
I just think that MS will support OO formats soon enough, because they would really not like to lose customers over such a simple thing as a document format, hey, they even might be able to sell the OO upgrade for MS office to these people!
Here's my plan: everyone who wants a program to be written pays a share of the cost. Then, once it's written, everyone gets to use it. The ones who pay aren't paying for copies of a program, or even the right to use a program - they're paying programmers to use their time and skill to write a program.
I tried to launch such a method overhere, companies (schools in this case) do not have the basic abilities to cooperate on such a level. That is where software companies come into play: They invest and sell the program to the same group which could have cooperated. Cooperation is apparently very tough to do.
The scarcity does exist: It is the time and money of the developpers being put into the product. That has to be returned to make it a viable business. If the market is big enough, opensource works. For small markets, opensource does not work.
You might have tried this with speeding. It does not work that way. Huge protests against this kind of law might work, but just look at the basics of the law. Those basics are not unfair. The new extensions of 50 years, DRM, not able to resell your CDs legally (not law yet, just wait...) are unfair and showing to much power of the industry representing groups.
1/ It is not about you stealing one object and preventing somebody else by owning that object. What you mention is production/distribution cost. The distribution cost is neglectable in case of digital distribution over P2P networks. The production cost however still exist, so a fee is in order.
2/ Go live in a communist country, and you are probably right. Somehow the world is a bit more selfish=kapitalism. People want money for their work, more money then what might be reasonably expected.
3/ You return the book after reading it. You do not have continuing profit from having borrowed this book. If you made a copy of the book (analog or digital), you would have a profit. Hense the name copyright.
If a music file could only be used by one person, the license or ownership of that file should be transferable from one person to another, you could even borrow it for a period of time. Since this is not the case, you are really making a copy, both having profit from it. That is why they call it copyright. Fair use is a totally other case, which might be the case with your book.
Both the RIAA/MPAA and I are talking about the versions were you do not have the right to distribute it.
So instead of going stupidly into a flamebait, just know what RIAA/MPAA are doing in these cases. The alterations demanded by the judge in this case involve materials which need to be paid for, and where the copyrights of the copyrights holders is broken by not paying the licenses. That you distribute your work for free is great for whoever wants to have it.
Slashdot Mirror
The big change that permitted science to flourish was the willingness to share information. Because the information was shared, progress was not limited to what one person could create.
Not really, the big change came mainly out of stealing information & ignoring patents (The last one because of differences in laws between countries and some wars). Those two inspired more companies to license their inventions to others so that they at least would earn some money, and set a minimum productprice which due to the license was hopefully equal or higher to what they sold themselves.
I think reforms in the educational system of basic science (Darwin, math, economics) made the changes possible. At this moment there are still limits on information causing lots of reinventions just to get were a company or country wants to go, for example nuclear technology.
So far the economics of closed standards worked pretty good, but only for companies which license their standards to others. The ones who did not and became to powerful, have been hit by lawsuits (IBM, Microsoft ea). Still those are the ones who set industry standards with their closed products. Licensing it in a more fair way would most likely have prevented the MS lawsuits, while they could (they still can at this moment) control the standards, and stay ahead of the curve.
Hey, the shopping carts in the supermarket have this for several years already!
Oh, I see, Amazon.com is just expecting the patent reform to go through, which makes prior art not relevant, but which just works on a first come, first served basis.
4 step pla to get quick rich in new patent system:
1. Wait in front of patent office on Amazon.com lawyer
2. Steal suitcase with patents from lawyer
3. Submit Amazon patents as own patents
4. Sue Amazon=> profit!
Maybe you should combine your love for karaoke with the Japanese female bot ( http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/ 28/0613233&tid=216&tid=99) post from several weeks ago, then you can do a duet...
Darn, you didn't make it until the conclusion.
You are making this story up! You seriously went over the edge with your parents knowing how to open a PC and know which cable to take out.
LOL
I was trying to make a sarcastic point.
As you probably know, the filters do not only block adult content, in which a kid is not interested in the sameway anyway (blocking adult material is a nice way for parents not to have to explain anything, hence the point you made (-: ), or probably not interested at all. Also some sites with opiniated materials are blocked. A lot of that content is to high level, but what if it gets in fashion to block sites promoting environmental solutions, or politically oriented sites (all democrat sites are blocked for example, all republican sites are not, or vice versa). That will really change the perception of the kids on the world in such a way that it can become harmfull to society as a whole.
Filters are a lazy persons way. The bad part by now is, that if there is no filter, and a kid ends up at a porn site, that the parent could get charged for child abuse if the kid talks about it to his friends, which will tell their parents, which will declare the other parents as freaks, which can get them arrested. I would not be surprised if this already happened.
Overhere in about the most liberal country of the world, there issues do not exist (yet) and will hopefully never exist. If I ever get kids, I rather explain all the things they run into myself, then not to let them see it at all. My youth however is from pre public internet era, so I had to do it with selecting the wrong books in a library (do not underestimate the power of a Dutch writer in being graphical with words), and discover that as a kid you do not like those stories (it was recognized literature about the 2nd world war), and that you rather go back to the other section which is more interesting for a kid.
I think on the internet a kid will behave the same: Fun discoverykids.com site, or graphic pictures of dead iraqi? discoverykids it is after looking at 3 pictures of the iraqi.
There are ofcourse always exceptions, but they already show up now with filters, so what does the filter do anyway?
This argument of the web making kids more creative is I think faulty. The reasoning:
Smart & creative kids use the current environment of social structure to get to the information they want, or the tools they want. A library is one of those tools. The internet only makes it easier to access a lot more less structures information.
What the net probably does, is make it less boring for some kids, and thus giving more creative but without the internet easily bored kids a chance to show their creativity.
Boredom and attentionspan problems will however also take their toll on the internet, so to predict a more creative generation is not justifiable.
Time will tell.
N-American children will most likely be more creative again than W-European children. This is caused by overly worried parents in N-America installing all kinds of filters, which the children have to circumvent to get to where they want to go. In W-Europe this is done a lot less, thus not making the children equally creative.
It will reduce the gene pool in such a case. It will probably not clean it up: Heavy toxins make the abnormal ones survive, probably with nice new additions to the genes to make the gene lottery even more interesting for a next generation.
No personal discount on the PSP for Sony employees? Or sony really pays you little, you happen to be a musician with a new record deal?
Does this also help with my horoscope?
Should have googled for the title.
Anyway: The book is much better than the movie!
The added value of skype is that they have a pretty good working voice protocol compared to others at this moment. The other part in added value is that they can connect to the normal voice networks globally. Just having an opensource chat program is not going to do you a lot of good in the second case.
An internationally recognized test for well load balanced http servers.
Anyway: Philip K Dick in the story Do robots dream of electric sheep, discussess the ways to distinguish androids from humans with some nice tests. They also upgrade the tests all the time. Maybe it is time to upgrade the Turing test too.
Just fill it in with fake info, then the scammer has to go through that too, thus making it more costly.
Anyway: For a $2 micropayment per scammail I can take this burden of you, and fill it in with fake info for you.
You are right: Firefox is an enabler to switch to other platforms, other office applications are a direct hitter on profits. And it is all about making it hard to switch.
Firefox part II?
And compared to the firefox story, which just hurts freely given away IE, and people still use MS windows as platform, so not costing any profits, and uptake of 10% in OpenOffice would really hurt the bottomline of MS. Not that they will lose money because of it, but the profitability goes down, maybe even pricing pressure to keep people away from this free OpenOffice.
Hey, how about a page size add in a newspaper for www.downloadOpenOffice.org (already exists, and is someones attempt to earn some cash, to bad)
Video, audio, javascript etc.. And just extend as you go.
MS Motto: Extend and embrace.
People also tend to use one office set. So Mas. switching to OO, could end up people downloading OO to be able to use the documents (Ok, there are PDF versions). MS will most likely counter that by releasing an update or a plugin to be able to read OO documents in some twisted destructive, or correct later on way, and not being able to save OO documents.
I just think that MS will support OO formats soon enough, because they would really not like to lose customers over such a simple thing as a document format, hey, they even might be able to sell the OO upgrade for MS office to these people!
So instead of stun gunning a burglar, you can also stun a pretty big object like a star? That is one heat resistant stun gun!
Here's my plan: everyone who wants a program to be written pays a share of the cost. Then, once it's written, everyone gets to use it. The ones who pay aren't paying for copies of a program, or even the right to use a program - they're paying programmers to use their time and skill to write a program.
I tried to launch such a method overhere, companies (schools in this case) do not have the basic abilities to cooperate on such a level. That is where software companies come into play: They invest and sell the program to the same group which could have cooperated. Cooperation is apparently very tough to do.
The scarcity does exist: It is the time and money of the developpers being put into the product. That has to be returned to make it a viable business. If the market is big enough, opensource works. For small markets, opensource does not work.
You might have tried this with speeding. It does not work that way. Huge protests against this kind of law might work, but just look at the basics of the law. Those basics are not unfair. The new extensions of 50 years, DRM, not able to resell your CDs legally (not law yet, just wait...) are unfair and showing to much power of the industry representing groups.
1/ It is not about you stealing one object and preventing somebody else by owning that object. What you mention is production/distribution cost. The distribution cost is neglectable in case of digital distribution over P2P networks. The production cost however still exist, so a fee is in order.
2/ Go live in a communist country, and you are probably right. Somehow the world is a bit more selfish=kapitalism. People want money for their work, more money then what might be reasonably expected.
3/ You return the book after reading it. You do not have continuing profit from having borrowed this book. If you made a copy of the book (analog or digital), you would have a profit. Hense the name copyright.
If a music file could only be used by one person, the license or ownership of that file should be transferable from one person to another, you could even borrow it for a period of time. Since this is not the case, you are really making a copy, both having profit from it. That is why they call it copyright. Fair use is a totally other case, which might be the case with your book.
Both the RIAA/MPAA and I are talking about the versions were you do not have the right to distribute it.
So instead of going stupidly into a flamebait, just know what RIAA/MPAA are doing in these cases.
The alterations demanded by the judge in this case involve materials which need to be paid for, and where the copyrights of the copyrights holders is broken by not paying the licenses. That you distribute your work for free is great for whoever wants to have it.