If I already have an Apple TV, I can watch Netflix directly in the Apple TV Netflix App. If I already have Netflix on my smart-tv I can watch it on that App.
But, If I have a TV that supports Airplay 2, but doesn't already have a Netflix app then... I... have to buy an Apple TV?
So... When my kids wake up crying and hurting with ear infections at 2:00am on the weekend and the pediatricians office is closed until Monday, I can't just walk down to the CVS and pickup a jar of pink-stuff. Even though that will be the correct treatment almost every time, and has a very low chance of complications; ---but I can't because of the AMA and FDA worrying about over prescribing of amoxicillin?
Then, they turn around and let any farmer with 50 acres of chickens, pigs or now TREES just spray thousands of gallons even more powerful antibiotics with impunity???
by W. Richard Stevens.
Fully understanding how modern UNIX OS works is a fantastic start to approach other program problems; and this book is simply the best I've ever read on this topic.
I love those. When I see something I know is impossible... I know I've just about nailed it.
My debugging litany:
Socratic Method (I presume that everything I thought I new know COULD be wrong)
Penn and Teller (There is trickery and a truth here...)
Sherlock Holmes (Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left --- is the answer)
Just FYI:
Standard time is in effect during the winter. DST is in the summer. Kids don't go to school in the summer. You're arguing against the natural time.
Planet or not a planet. When we discovered the first 9, we thought we had it figured out. Within the limits of our instruments and understanding we had a good definition. Then... we started finding all sorts of things that didn't fit the model. So they came up with a new definition. But... they blew that too. But, now they're just messing with definitions of classification to get the answer they want. Ok, it's not science any more.
So. Here's how I'm going to view it. Our solar system contains 9 orbiting bodies I call planets, and a bunch of other stuff that isn't. I say this with the full knowledge that if we(people) knew then, what we know now, we would probably have not have made the same call. --But it's too late for that. It's done. I'm moving on. Pluto is a planet. Please tell Neil to get over it.:-)
But, a little more seriously, there's some precedent: Newton's laws of motion are still called laws, even though we know they're not (thanks Einstein). And, you don't get stripped of your PhD if somebody comes along two years later and completely disproves your thesis. We can do the same for the planets. I mean, really, it's just an arbitrary naming convention. It does'nt help us infer new understandings about the subject mater. It's a just a silly argument.
Which I guess, just goes to show how human scientists are.
The Flixtape feature will let you build a "playlist" of up to six titles. Even include "cover art" for the list. It's not automated, you'll have to build the list yourself first... but at least it would play through up to six episodes of whatever you want in the right order.
I like the idea of a virtual channel too. Pick the shows I want, in the order I want... each day they just "advance" by one episode per show.
Pacemaker and implanted device procedures aren't that dumb. They're actually pretty well thought out.
All implanted pacemaker devices require near-proximity access(1-2 centimeters) to access, the communication is completely encrypted between the programmer unit and the device being implanted. Once it's implanted it can ONLY be "tuned, modified" with your cardiac surgeon present, and in an operating theater environment. Changing anything in the device is treated exactly the same as a "new surgery." They expect that any change could potentially brick the device... so they have to be ready to go in.
And, no the "manufacturer" does not retain any ownership of the device once it has been implanted. The laws upheld by the Supreme Court state anything implanted in a persons body becomes the property of the person. Period. That's just the law.
The answer to the "nightmare scenario" as envisioned by techies, there is no universal "standard diagnostic port" in case you're wheeled into an emergency room and the doctors need to "access your device to save your life!" No. They can't. There's no expectation that they would, could, or should. That's not the medical procedure. If your pacemaker is malfunctioning and causing a threat to your life, then it *is* the problem, and they would remove it. They don't try to "fix" it... or reboot it, or read the diagnostic logs... not while you're dying on the table. They just remove it and stabilize you without one and get you prepped for a new one.
I suspect the problem was as much architectural as it was with the license. ZFS is considerably dependent on assumptions in memory management that were designed with Solaris in mind. Solaris and BSD (and Linux for that matter) have very different approaches to memory allocation and deallocation. Much of the work done in the ZFS on Linux (ZoL) project has focused on re-optimizing the direct-memory functions of ZFS. So that might have factored in their decisions.
Yes, but a laptop, 3d printer, diesel generator, or solar panel and some batteries, and dozen or so rolls of resin can be hauled out to... well anywhere... and you can make whatever you need, where ever you are in just a few hours. That's the appeal. ---Remember, there are some places on Earth where there's no way to get in or out for months at a time and you can't always "bring everything" with you. Why do you think there's a 3d printer on the space station? Same reason. Besides, poor quality doesn't really apply here... Is it ugly? Maybe. Is it less durable? Maybe. Can a doctor hear and diagnose a patient as well as the top-of-line instrument he doesn’t have access to? Yes. Then, I'd say it's "quality" is equal, and it's utility (being delivered on-site in a few hours anywhere on Earth) is far greater. We can argue about sunk costs in the printer, resin, 3d model development etc., but that’s getting a little away from the point don’t you think?
Normally, in order to solicit a project of any appreciable size, (over 100K) the government is required to produce a detailed SOW (Statement of Work) that defines the scope and goals. As projects get bigger (over 100M) the SOW begins to get more and more generic, but the accompaning Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) gets more detailed, and much much longer (five, six, sometimes as deep as eight or nine sub-sections) Each sub-section may generate dozens of Task Orders (TOs). Task Orders are what get assigned to contractors to work. If the upper document is vauge, or poorly thought out, or poorly defined, then the individual TO may be nonsensical.
Okay... so who is writing this nonsense? Well, the Government can't have the contractors who will be doing the work come up with the work they will do. (That's putting a fox in the henhouse.) So the Government will sometimes turn to a special type of contractor called a SETA (Scientific Engineering Technical Adisor) or FFRDC employee (Federally Funded Resarch Development Center) to develop the approach and SOW, WBS, and sometimes even write the TO. A SETA or FFRDC is specially recognised in that, they (and their respective employer) are expressly forbidden from bidding on or performing work on ANY project for which they have acted as a SETA or FFRDC. It's a classic case of conflict of interest. And, usually these guys are pretty good. There was no SETA or for the Healthcare.gov website. It wasn't considered a "technical" project (like building a moon-lander) so... that was probably the first mistake.
The second mistake is that the people in Government who normally get tasked with writing the RFPs SOWs and evaulating them are usually the same people who aren't um... "smart enough" to figure out how to get out of it. (LIke the jury-duty joke) They's also the same folks who get tasked with evaulating the proposals that come back... again... not the sharpest tools in the shed. So... there's plenty of blame to go round.
The absense of personal accountability in Government encourages irresponsible behavior. But, too much accountability encourages paralysis. (I'm not signing off on that!) So until we figure out how to fix that too... well... this is just going to keep happening.
Software professionals aren't deterred by software processes; some may B&M that writing test cases for a UI is a PITA and a waste of time, but a professional software engineer doesn't mind this extra work, because it's just part of the job. Architects, Doctors, and structural engineers have processes that they need to follow, and so should software engineers. Software engineering has only really been coming into its own in the last 30 years, so it's still a young engineering discipline, and the entire field is still struggling to come up with a guide-book.
From the stakeholder's perspective: software is crushingly expensive. It takes many man-hours to develop quality software. Project management processes used by "metal-benders" who actually produce a tangible product didn't always map well to software development practices; but 30 years ago that's all anybody had. The last 15 years has seen a huge improvement in software design processes. Much of what was thought to be the last word on the subject (SEI/CMMI, and ISO-9000) turned out to be impractical, inappropriate and/or counterproductive in the real world. Newer mentalities like Agile, and XP are much better suited, but are usually snubbed by middle management tiers because the control gates require qualitative decisions not quantitative. Any idiot can sign off on a status report if X-many bugs per Y-lines of code is met. ---But when decisions need to be made solely on subjective opinion and experience, then suddenly nobody wants to sign off on anything; requests are denied, decisions are postponed, and the project suffers. That's not a problem with processes, that's a problem of ineffective leadership, and it's endemic in the software industry. --But that's the subject of an entire other essay...
When in fact, they're tools; and, tools eventually wear out or become obsolete. You wouldn't expect a chef to never sharpen his knife, how can anybody expect that computers will continue to "stay sharp" as the day they were installed? We've got over 30 years of evidence that this is not the case. As the OS accumulates service packs and additional add-ons (read: Enterprise malware) eventually everything slows down and makes the machine clunky and awkward. The hardware doesn't change, but the software loads continue to become more demanding; factor in all the new idiot security policies most IT departments dream up, (full disk virus scans in the middle of the workday, password changes every 30 days, emails older than 90 days are deleted, no personal flashdrives, firewall monitoring, 180-day new software approval processes, requiring a "code" to use the color printer, etc.) ---The end result: Frustration, annoyance, anger... like road-rage; we feel that the computer, (like a slow guy blocking the fast lane) is holding us up, and keeping us from accomplishing our goals, and that leads to "keyboard rage." If people are breaking their machines to get upgrades, that's a sure-sign that the organization is failing to provide a suitable IT environment.
Okay, I'm not condoning drunk driving. It's deadly dangerous full stop.
However, the state has no right to prevent me from knowing the locations of DUI checkpoints, or patrol cars that are camping behind billboards, or in unlit parking lots, etc. I find it completely unacceptable that US Senators would suggest we begin employing secret police tactics like those used by the STASI in cold-war era East Germany.
iPhone app, Android, whatever, that doesn't matter guys. Next they'll tell you can't text the location of a speed trap to somebody else, or talk on the phone about it. That's what this is really all about; restricting free communication of the citizens. The app is just the medium, it's not important.
Please remember to vote these Senators out of office next election.
I don't understand why this is so complicated for the businesspeople who are trying to develop eBooks to grasp. The strength of eBooks, are (primarily): The lack of size and weight restrictions on the library a person can take with them, and (for all practical purposes) instantaneous content delivery. That's it. Everything else about the experience is completely sub-par to dead-tree editions. Instead on simply capitalizing on those strengths, they expound the weaknesses by adding on these ridiculous usability restrictions. Really? The *last* thing I want to worry about if I have a book I want to share with somebody is whether or not I've shared it before, or who is "share-worthy" or... being the receiver, that there is now a ticking time-bomb attached to when I have to read this book. Seriously? Libraries lend books for longer than that; and I have books as both a lender and lendee that have been out for over 2 YEARS! What is going to happen is the lendee is going to tell the lender, "Oh, don't send it to me yet, I won't have time until after the holidays." ---Great, that throws the burden back on me, the lender, to get back with them in order to lend them a book that I've already read! What's far more likely is eBooks just won't get lent, full stop.
Things they should have focused on were the things that the technology makes possible, for example let me as the owner "pull back" my eBook from a lendee. Instead, they've just made more aggravation for me. Now, I didn't major in business, but I'm pretty sure there's a class called Don't_Annoy_Your_Customers_101 that's required for graduation. It's ironic but, everything Kindle has done has made the old paper editions look just that much more attractive. So, I'll keep buying them too.
Just follow the money, anybody's who's making money from illegal advertisements should be rounded up and charged. And, it's not that hard because somebody is making money somewhere or they wouldn't be doing it. And if money is changing hands from one person to the next then there's a trail, and they can follow it.
Aside from using a technological tracker, this doesn't seem like it's any more an infringement of privacy than simply having the police follow you everywhere you go. Which they also do not need a warrant to do. Now, to attach a tracker to a car sitting in a driveway would be trespassing... unless the car was parked on a public street, or inside a garage.
Feature updates (or upgrades) aside, how can they produce a fix to a known problem and then demand that the customer pay to get the fix? In the midst of Toyota's recall PR disaster you would think that maybe somebody at Oracle would have a clue that maybe this is a bad idea.
As for comparisons to Linux distro's those arguments don't apply because you're paying for the convienience of the distro in collecting all the updates and packaging them for their OS. In Linux, you can always go out and get the updates yourself directly from the package maintainers directly. --That's simply not possible with Solaris security patches. The only place to get them is from Sun.
If they want to charge for "feature" upgrades, fine. But to deliberately withhold security patches is irresponsible and bad business.
Actually all that the GPL does is provide a mechanism that cannot be exploited by anyone.
If you release code to the public domain, then anybody can come along, improve it, sell it, claim it's their own. The GPL allows everybody to share, with the condition that any "improvements" be returned to the source.
This is no different than the signs you find in break-rooms and laundromats the world over. "Please leave this area cleaner than when you found it".
It doesn't really prevent a company from doing anything. They have the same rights to use, modify, and change as anybody else. They just renounce their claim to their improvements same as anyone else. That doesn't always do companies a lot of good because they're trying to "sell" that value-added. If the "value-added" was available for free, then why would anybody pay them any money?
Without money, then there can't be innovation and R&D etc,etc,etc. I mean, the GNU guys are good, but I don't think they could have brought off the moon-landing, or the Hoover damn, or the Panama canal, or the golden-gate bridge, Those projects took GOBS of money, and not all of it came from Uncle Sam. A lot of companies threw in to make those projects happen. Partly because of altruism, but also because they knew that anything they developed on their own, might be of use (and thus) be able to sell to somebody else.
Private companies aren't all bad. When they become monopolies... then you can have problems, --But not all monopolies are bad, as any Econ 201 book will tell you.
"but that", to qoute Mako, "is another story..."
--Christopher A. Shamis
Slashdot Mirror
If I already have an Apple TV, I can watch Netflix directly in the Apple TV Netflix App. If I already have Netflix on my smart-tv I can watch it on that App. But, If I have a TV that supports Airplay 2, but doesn't already have a Netflix app then... I... have to buy an Apple TV?
Then, they turn around and let any farmer with 50 acres of chickens, pigs or now TREES just spray thousands of gallons even more powerful antibiotics with impunity???
Guys, This. Has. To. Stop.
by W. Richard Stevens. Fully understanding how modern UNIX OS works is a fantastic start to approach other program problems; and this book is simply the best I've ever read on this topic.
I love those. When I see something I know is impossible... I know I've just about nailed it. My debugging litany: Socratic Method (I presume that everything I thought I new know COULD be wrong) Penn and Teller (There is trickery and a truth here...) Sherlock Holmes (Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left --- is the answer)
Just FYI: Standard time is in effect during the winter. DST is in the summer. Kids don't go to school in the summer. You're arguing against the natural time.
Well said.
So. Here's how I'm going to view it. Our solar system contains 9 orbiting bodies I call planets, and a bunch of other stuff that isn't. I say this with the full knowledge that if we(people) knew then, what we know now, we would probably have not have made the same call. --But it's too late for that. It's done. I'm moving on. Pluto is a planet. Please tell Neil to get over it. :-)
But, a little more seriously, there's some precedent: Newton's laws of motion are still called laws, even though we know they're not (thanks Einstein). And, you don't get stripped of your PhD if somebody comes along two years later and completely disproves your thesis. We can do the same for the planets. I mean, really, it's just an arbitrary naming convention. It does'nt help us infer new understandings about the subject mater. It's a just a silly argument.
Which I guess, just goes to show how human scientists are.
The Flixtape feature will let you build a "playlist" of up to six titles. Even include "cover art" for the list. It's not automated, you'll have to build the list yourself first... but at least it would play through up to six episodes of whatever you want in the right order. I like the idea of a virtual channel too. Pick the shows I want, in the order I want... each day they just "advance" by one episode per show.
Pacemaker and implanted device procedures aren't that dumb. They're actually pretty well thought out. All implanted pacemaker devices require near-proximity access(1-2 centimeters) to access, the communication is completely encrypted between the programmer unit and the device being implanted. Once it's implanted it can ONLY be "tuned, modified" with your cardiac surgeon present, and in an operating theater environment. Changing anything in the device is treated exactly the same as a "new surgery." They expect that any change could potentially brick the device... so they have to be ready to go in. And, no the "manufacturer" does not retain any ownership of the device once it has been implanted. The laws upheld by the Supreme Court state anything implanted in a persons body becomes the property of the person. Period. That's just the law. The answer to the "nightmare scenario" as envisioned by techies, there is no universal "standard diagnostic port" in case you're wheeled into an emergency room and the doctors need to "access your device to save your life!" No. They can't. There's no expectation that they would, could, or should. That's not the medical procedure. If your pacemaker is malfunctioning and causing a threat to your life, then it *is* the problem, and they would remove it. They don't try to "fix" it... or reboot it, or read the diagnostic logs... not while you're dying on the table. They just remove it and stabilize you without one and get you prepped for a new one.
I suspect the problem was as much architectural as it was with the license. ZFS is considerably dependent on assumptions in memory management that were designed with Solaris in mind. Solaris and BSD (and Linux for that matter) have very different approaches to memory allocation and deallocation. Much of the work done in the ZFS on Linux (ZoL) project has focused on re-optimizing the direct-memory functions of ZFS. So that might have factored in their decisions.
Yes, but a laptop, 3d printer, diesel generator, or solar panel and some batteries, and dozen or so rolls of resin can be hauled out to ... well anywhere... and you can make whatever you need, where ever you are in just a few hours. That's the appeal. ---Remember, there are some places on Earth where there's no way to get in or out for months at a time and you can't always "bring everything" with you. Why do you think there's a 3d printer on the space station? Same reason. Besides, poor quality doesn't really apply here... Is it ugly? Maybe. Is it less durable? Maybe. Can a doctor hear and diagnose a patient as well as the top-of-line instrument he doesn’t have access to? Yes. Then, I'd say it's "quality" is equal, and it's utility (being delivered on-site in a few hours anywhere on Earth) is far greater. We can argue about sunk costs in the printer, resin, 3d model development etc., but that’s getting a little away from the point don’t you think?
Normally, in order to solicit a project of any appreciable size, (over 100K) the government is required to produce a detailed SOW (Statement of Work) that defines the scope and goals. As projects get bigger (over 100M) the SOW begins to get more and more generic, but the accompaning Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) gets more detailed, and much much longer (five, six, sometimes as deep as eight or nine sub-sections) Each sub-section may generate dozens of Task Orders (TOs). Task Orders are what get assigned to contractors to work. If the upper document is vauge, or poorly thought out, or poorly defined, then the individual TO may be nonsensical.
Okay... so who is writing this nonsense? Well, the Government can't have the contractors who will be doing the work come up with the work they will do. (That's putting a fox in the henhouse.) So the Government will sometimes turn to a special type of contractor called a SETA (Scientific Engineering Technical Adisor) or FFRDC employee (Federally Funded Resarch Development Center) to develop the approach and SOW, WBS, and sometimes even write the TO. A SETA or FFRDC is specially recognised in that, they (and their respective employer) are expressly forbidden from bidding on or performing work on ANY project for which they have acted as a SETA or FFRDC. It's a classic case of conflict of interest. And, usually these guys are pretty good. There was no SETA or for the Healthcare.gov website. It wasn't considered a "technical" project (like building a moon-lander) so... that was probably the first mistake.
The second mistake is that the people in Government who normally get tasked with writing the RFPs SOWs and evaulating them are usually the same people who aren't um... "smart enough" to figure out how to get out of it. (LIke the jury-duty joke) They's also the same folks who get tasked with evaulating the proposals that come back... again... not the sharpest tools in the shed. So... there's plenty of blame to go round.
The absense of personal accountability in Government encourages irresponsible behavior. But, too much accountability encourages paralysis. (I'm not signing off on that!) So until we figure out how to fix that too... well... this is just going to keep happening.
Software professionals aren't deterred by software processes; some may B&M that writing test cases for a UI is a PITA and a waste of time, but a professional software engineer doesn't mind this extra work, because it's just part of the job. Architects, Doctors, and structural engineers have processes that they need to follow, and so should software engineers. Software engineering has only really been coming into its own in the last 30 years, so it's still a young engineering discipline, and the entire field is still struggling to come up with a guide-book. From the stakeholder's perspective: software is crushingly expensive. It takes many man-hours to develop quality software. Project management processes used by "metal-benders" who actually produce a tangible product didn't always map well to software development practices; but 30 years ago that's all anybody had. The last 15 years has seen a huge improvement in software design processes. Much of what was thought to be the last word on the subject (SEI/CMMI, and ISO-9000) turned out to be impractical, inappropriate and/or counterproductive in the real world. Newer mentalities like Agile, and XP are much better suited, but are usually snubbed by middle management tiers because the control gates require qualitative decisions not quantitative. Any idiot can sign off on a status report if X-many bugs per Y-lines of code is met. ---But when decisions need to be made solely on subjective opinion and experience, then suddenly nobody wants to sign off on anything; requests are denied, decisions are postponed, and the project suffers. That's not a problem with processes, that's a problem of ineffective leadership, and it's endemic in the software industry. --But that's the subject of an entire other essay...
When in fact, they're tools; and, tools eventually wear out or become obsolete. You wouldn't expect a chef to never sharpen his knife, how can anybody expect that computers will continue to "stay sharp" as the day they were installed? We've got over 30 years of evidence that this is not the case. As the OS accumulates service packs and additional add-ons (read: Enterprise malware) eventually everything slows down and makes the machine clunky and awkward. The hardware doesn't change, but the software loads continue to become more demanding; factor in all the new idiot security policies most IT departments dream up, (full disk virus scans in the middle of the workday, password changes every 30 days, emails older than 90 days are deleted, no personal flashdrives, firewall monitoring, 180-day new software approval processes, requiring a "code" to use the color printer, etc.) ---The end result: Frustration, annoyance, anger... like road-rage; we feel that the computer, (like a slow guy blocking the fast lane) is holding us up, and keeping us from accomplishing our goals, and that leads to "keyboard rage." If people are breaking their machines to get upgrades, that's a sure-sign that the organization is failing to provide a suitable IT environment.
Okay, I'm not condoning drunk driving. It's deadly dangerous full stop. However, the state has no right to prevent me from knowing the locations of DUI checkpoints, or patrol cars that are camping behind billboards, or in unlit parking lots, etc. I find it completely unacceptable that US Senators would suggest we begin employing secret police tactics like those used by the STASI in cold-war era East Germany. iPhone app, Android, whatever, that doesn't matter guys. Next they'll tell you can't text the location of a speed trap to somebody else, or talk on the phone about it. That's what this is really all about; restricting free communication of the citizens. The app is just the medium, it's not important. Please remember to vote these Senators out of office next election.
I don't understand why this is so complicated for the businesspeople who are trying to develop eBooks to grasp. The strength of eBooks, are (primarily): The lack of size and weight restrictions on the library a person can take with them, and (for all practical purposes) instantaneous content delivery. That's it. Everything else about the experience is completely sub-par to dead-tree editions. Instead on simply capitalizing on those strengths, they expound the weaknesses by adding on these ridiculous usability restrictions. Really? The *last* thing I want to worry about if I have a book I want to share with somebody is whether or not I've shared it before, or who is "share-worthy" or... being the receiver, that there is now a ticking time-bomb attached to when I have to read this book. Seriously? Libraries lend books for longer than that; and I have books as both a lender and lendee that have been out for over 2 YEARS! What is going to happen is the lendee is going to tell the lender, "Oh, don't send it to me yet, I won't have time until after the holidays." ---Great, that throws the burden back on me, the lender, to get back with them in order to lend them a book that I've already read! What's far more likely is eBooks just won't get lent, full stop. Things they should have focused on were the things that the technology makes possible, for example let me as the owner "pull back" my eBook from a lendee. Instead, they've just made more aggravation for me. Now, I didn't major in business, but I'm pretty sure there's a class called Don't_Annoy_Your_Customers_101 that's required for graduation. It's ironic but, everything Kindle has done has made the old paper editions look just that much more attractive. So, I'll keep buying them too.
Just follow the money, anybody's who's making money from illegal advertisements should be rounded up and charged. And, it's not that hard because somebody is making money somewhere or they wouldn't be doing it. And if money is changing hands from one person to the next then there's a trail, and they can follow it.
Aside from using a technological tracker, this doesn't seem like it's any more an infringement of privacy than simply having the police follow you everywhere you go. Which they also do not need a warrant to do. Now, to attach a tracker to a car sitting in a driveway would be trespassing... unless the car was parked on a public street, or inside a garage.
Feature updates (or upgrades) aside, how can they produce a fix to a known problem and then demand that the customer pay to get the fix? In the midst of Toyota's recall PR disaster you would think that maybe somebody at Oracle would have a clue that maybe this is a bad idea. As for comparisons to Linux distro's those arguments don't apply because you're paying for the convienience of the distro in collecting all the updates and packaging them for their OS. In Linux, you can always go out and get the updates yourself directly from the package maintainers directly. --That's simply not possible with Solaris security patches. The only place to get them is from Sun. If they want to charge for "feature" upgrades, fine. But to deliberately withhold security patches is irresponsible and bad business.
Personally, I find the term "women monkeys" far more disturbing...
Seriously, I would have thought trolling to be beneath Microsoft. :)
Actually all that the GPL does is provide a mechanism that cannot be exploited by anyone. If you release code to the public domain, then anybody can come along, improve it, sell it, claim it's their own. The GPL allows everybody to share, with the condition that any "improvements" be returned to the source. This is no different than the signs you find in break-rooms and laundromats the world over. "Please leave this area cleaner than when you found it". It doesn't really prevent a company from doing anything. They have the same rights to use, modify, and change as anybody else. They just renounce their claim to their improvements same as anyone else. That doesn't always do companies a lot of good because they're trying to "sell" that value-added. If the "value-added" was available for free, then why would anybody pay them any money? Without money, then there can't be innovation and R&D etc,etc,etc. I mean, the GNU guys are good, but I don't think they could have brought off the moon-landing, or the Hoover damn, or the Panama canal, or the golden-gate bridge, Those projects took GOBS of money, and not all of it came from Uncle Sam. A lot of companies threw in to make those projects happen. Partly because of altruism, but also because they knew that anything they developed on their own, might be of use (and thus) be able to sell to somebody else. Private companies aren't all bad. When they become monopolies... then you can have problems, --But not all monopolies are bad, as any Econ 201 book will tell you. "but that", to qoute Mako, "is another story..." --Christopher A. Shamis