If it's not distributed, then the source code must be available unless you accidentally lost it or deleted it or something
Why? What if it's a binary algorith created by an Artificial Intelligence engine? Software can be created without any human ever even seeing the source code.
they're called business class because they're designed for businesses to get a lot of use out of them. businesses want less downtime, so they buy better hardware, designed to last longer than consumer-class hardware.
See, that's the thing - iot flies in the face of reality. If businesses want little downtime, then why are they using Windows? And you are obviously have a different view of "good hardware" - go into nearly any large business, and the hardware is generic crap, not quality stuff.
but that's usually easy to get with contracts with the big vendors (dell, HP, etc). and most vendors don't offer those kinds of deals with their crappy consumer lines.
Well, then business class must just be slightly less crappy versions of their consumer gear. Which is my point. It's a bad selling point, because most people don't have good experiences with the computers used in the workplace.
I'm talking about the terminology. As far as I can see, most businesses use the cheapestm shittiest hardware they can get away with. Some businesses might use good stuff. I'd say that "Pro" gear lasts a lot better, but that has totally different connotations. "Business class" is just a meaningless term. That's all I was trying to say.
Computers do math fast. This enables to optimization from construction, through transportation, to agriculture
No shit. But what has Richard Stallman specifically done to advance this? What does some kid who only uses his computer to play games have to do with this?
If you think the world could support 6.5 billion people who each looked after themselves then you are even dumber than I thought.
I never said anything of the sort. But again, what does this have to do with Richard Stallman owning a computer? Even if he did not own a computer, they would still be used to optimize things like construction or transportation. But then there's also the fact that most computers are not used to optimize our efficiency.
By the way, "proprietism" is not a recognized word, either. Nor it is a political philosophy that I know of. And if it is based on "proprietism", then shouldn't it be spelled "proprietise"? Why change the "s" to a "z"?
Because the political philosophy it's based on is "proprietism", not "proprietarism".
But the English language has never been particularly logical or consistent. I'd ask why use that root word anyway? Why not look for a more elegant word, or use a simple word like "close"?
But I still can only imagine a non-clone PC market as being similar to today's console market, eventually only coming down to two or three competitors while relying on "killer software" to make sales. If you have another prediction I would love to hear it.
Well, "clone" implies a copy of an existing product. I think it's entirely plausible that an original, open hardware platform could have evolved. Much like Open Source Software, only with hardware. It's also possible that some other proprietary system got "cloned" - and instead of IBM-PC clones, the world would be running Amiga clones or somesuch.
Thanks for your reply. I think your speculations are fine - but like you said, they were worded a bit too much like it was the only possible way. I think that's one of the things that bugs me about the near-worship of individuals in tech culture. Sure, there are lots of people who have made historical contributions, but I think in their absence that someone else would have done it instead. There are too many smart people for technology and society to be held back so easily.
I'm sure if he thought that him not having a computer would make the world a better place, he'd get rid of it.
He obviously thinks that he can make it better by having one.
But what does any of that have to do with increasing the population of the Earth? Perhaps Stallman believes the world would be better with fewer people? More people doesn't necessarily mean the world is a "better" place.
That aside, how is Stallman owning a computer directly linked to the planet being able to sustain a greater population, as the great-grandparent post implies?
The big reason I like Linux with the right codecs, is the player just plays the movie. No legal player can make that claim.
Sure they can. It's pretty much only in the USA that such players are considered "illegal". And by your logic, wouldn't that make Linux "an illegal player"?
Sure, as long as you're OK with being stuck on a planet that can only support a few billion people
Wait a minute, how does Stallman owning a computer help the planet sustain more people? Given the amount of resources it takes to make a computer, it seems more logical that his owning one would reduce the capacity of the planet for human population.
If IBM wasn't so lax about their PC design the microcomputer market would be much like the console market, with some programs being exclusively made for certain vendors in an attempt to force the consumer to buy the expensive hardware possibly just to enjoy that one piece of software. Household adoption would never have happened on the scale that it has today because it would just be too costly to have to own two or three different machines to get access to all of the software you would want or need.
Sounds like you are reading tea leaves. You, nor I, nor anybody else know what would have happened if the "IBM clone" platform had never achieved dominance. There's no reason that something similar (or much better) wouldn't have happened if not for IBM. What reason do you have for thinking that history would have followed this linear path you laid out for it if IBM had've successfully maintained a "closed" platform?
There are so many other possibilities. IBM's closed platform could have led to a different open platform, one that didn't end up dominated by Microsoft. We might be using architectures and software that we haven't even dreamed of.
but they are business class, so they're a bit more robust than the consumer line
Given the inefficient and non-robust way that most businesses are run, "business class" doesn't really inspire confidence. It sounds like something to avoid. Like something a PHB would force on you for cost-cutting reasons, rather than something good.
You will never see "The Daily Show" DVDs or year old "The Daily Show" reruns on late night TV because no one would buy/watch.
I would, if they were a reasonable price. I love watching old episodes of The Daily Show. I guess what you are hinting at is one of the biggest problems of modern culture - stuff gets forgotten immediately. How are we supposed to learn from the past if everybody wants to forget it immediately, and move on to the next shiny distraction? No wonder people keep getting screwed over and falling for the same old tricks. No wonder it's so easy for politicians to make people forget what they actually did in the past.
Apple knows that the labels do have a point, and that they are using drm as a method to maintain their monopoly. They know they can't win that one in the courts, so they start this whole campaign of, "we really don't want DRM at all, but they're forcing us to do it."
The idiot public thinks that Apple really does dislike DRM. What apple is betting on instead is that the labels will be unwilling to sell music without DRM, so it's not going to be an issue. They do need to sell their bluff though, so they hook up with MGM. "You wanted higher prices for your songs, right? Well, we'll give you the higher prices if you sell no-DRM songs with us." They believe this will accomplish two goals: The first is to show that they are serious about disliking DRM, the second is that with the higher prices, few people would get the no-drm / higher bitrate songs. Few people even know what drm is, they're just going to get the lower priced version of the song.
This basically fails Occam's Razor. A shadowy conspiracy theory that this is some sort of elaborate ruse on Apple's behalf is just not plausible or probable. The simplest explanation is that Apple actually did not actively push for DRM, and that Jobs actually argued against it with the labels, but failed to get what he wanted.
After all, DRM costs Apple money. It eats into their profits, and is a significant overhead to maintain. It adds complexity to the devices and software. So, it was never in Apple's interests top pursue DRM. But in the beginning, the labels had all the power, and Apple had none. So they had to compromise and use the weakest DRM the labels would let them get away with.
When iTuynes became #1 in online sales, and the iPod had immense consumer pull, Apple had the power to publicly speak out against the DRM.
I think you're the one on crack. Apple gets more criticism than just about any company. What makes it so strange is that the criticism is mostly unfounded, or about bizarre, irrelevant things. Microsoft commits crimes and largely gets a free pass in the press, while Apple gets miles of press criticism for something insignificant like a "non-replaceable battery" in the iPod. Yet Microsoft has been releasing shoddy products for years, and you barely hear a peep out of the media.
Yes, Apple gets a lot of praise, too. But they also get way more negativity than anyone. I think you may have a short memory. Only ten years ago, Apple was considered a joke - and the only coverage they got was FUD about how they were going out of business and nobody uses Apple products anymore. There were even articles in the mainstream media about how Apple computers are "for girls" with undertones of homo[phobia thrown in.
We will be closer to the nadir when people, on reading this, think "well, why wouldn't the corporations help the government in any way they can?" and closer yet when the media no longer reports on such things.
But the US has never been like that before. So, it wouldn't have to get that bad for the US to reach its lowest point.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? What if it's a binary algorith created by an Artificial Intelligence engine? Software can be created without any human ever even seeing the source code.
See, that's the thing - iot flies in the face of reality. If businesses want little downtime, then why are they using Windows? And you are obviously have a different view of "good hardware" - go into nearly any large business, and the hardware is generic crap, not quality stuff.
but that's usually easy to get with contracts with the big vendors (dell, HP, etc). and most vendors don't offer those kinds of deals with their crappy consumer lines.Well, then business class must just be slightly less crappy versions of their consumer gear. Which is my point. It's a bad selling point, because most people don't have good experiences with the computers used in the workplace.
I'm talking about the terminology. As far as I can see, most businesses use the cheapestm shittiest hardware they can get away with. Some businesses might use good stuff. I'd say that "Pro" gear lasts a lot better, but that has totally different connotations. "Business class" is just a meaningless term. That's all I was trying to say.
No shit. But what has Richard Stallman specifically done to advance this? What does some kid who only uses his computer to play games have to do with this?
If you think the world could support 6.5 billion people who each looked after themselves then you are even dumber than I thought.I never said anything of the sort. But again, what does this have to do with Richard Stallman owning a computer? Even if he did not own a computer, they would still be used to optimize things like construction or transportation. But then there's also the fact that most computers are not used to optimize our efficiency.
Nonsense. There's truckoads of stuff in the public domain.
This comment is copyrighted to me the instant I hit "submit" and "publish" it.But you can always renounce your copyright.
By the way, "proprietism" is not a recognized word, either. Nor it is a political philosophy that I know of. And if it is based on "proprietism", then shouldn't it be spelled "proprietise"? Why change the "s" to a "z"?
But the English language has never been particularly logical or consistent. I'd ask why use that root word anyway? Why not look for a more elegant word, or use a simple word like "close"?
Well, "clone" implies a copy of an existing product. I think it's entirely plausible that an original, open hardware platform could have evolved. Much like Open Source Software, only with hardware. It's also possible that some other proprietary system got "cloned" - and instead of IBM-PC clones, the world would be running Amiga clones or somesuch.
Thanks for your reply. I think your speculations are fine - but like you said, they were worded a bit too much like it was the only possible way. I think that's one of the things that bugs me about the near-worship of individuals in tech culture. Sure, there are lots of people who have made historical contributions, but I think in their absence that someone else would have done it instead. There are too many smart people for technology and society to be held back so easily.
Gee, thanks for spelling something out that was already spelled out in the post you were replying to, Captain Obvious. Where would we be without you?
No.
But what does any of that have to do with increasing the population of the Earth? Perhaps Stallman believes the world would be better with fewer people? More people doesn't necessarily mean the world is a "better" place.
That aside, how is Stallman owning a computer directly linked to the planet being able to sustain a greater population, as the great-grandparent post implies?
Sure they can. It's pretty much only in the USA that such players are considered "illegal". And by your logic, wouldn't that make Linux "an illegal player"?
Wait a minute, how does Stallman owning a computer help the planet sustain more people? Given the amount of resources it takes to make a computer, it seems more logical that his owning one would reduce the capacity of the planet for human population.
I don't think "proprietize" is an actual word (as in officially recognized) yet, so how could it be spelled incorrectly?
Not all software, only software that is distributed.
Sounds like you are reading tea leaves. You, nor I, nor anybody else know what would have happened if the "IBM clone" platform had never achieved dominance. There's no reason that something similar (or much better) wouldn't have happened if not for IBM. What reason do you have for thinking that history would have followed this linear path you laid out for it if IBM had've successfully maintained a "closed" platform?
There are so many other possibilities. IBM's closed platform could have led to a different open platform, one that didn't end up dominated by Microsoft. We might be using architectures and software that we haven't even dreamed of.
What is it that you have been computing all these years? Are you any closer to finding an answer?
Given the inefficient and non-robust way that most businesses are run, "business class" doesn't really inspire confidence. It sounds like something to avoid. Like something a PHB would force on you for cost-cutting reasons, rather than something good.
I would, if they were a reasonable price. I love watching old episodes of The Daily Show. I guess what you are hinting at is one of the biggest problems of modern culture - stuff gets forgotten immediately. How are we supposed to learn from the past if everybody wants to forget it immediately, and move on to the next shiny distraction? No wonder people keep getting screwed over and falling for the same old tricks. No wonder it's so easy for politicians to make people forget what they actually did in the past.
Why would I want to watch HD video in my browser? I'd rather watch it full-screen with software designed for playing back video.
This basically fails Occam's Razor. A shadowy conspiracy theory that this is some sort of elaborate ruse on Apple's behalf is just not plausible or probable. The simplest explanation is that Apple actually did not actively push for DRM, and that Jobs actually argued against it with the labels, but failed to get what he wanted.
After all, DRM costs Apple money. It eats into their profits, and is a significant overhead to maintain. It adds complexity to the devices and software. So, it was never in Apple's interests top pursue DRM. But in the beginning, the labels had all the power, and Apple had none. So they had to compromise and use the weakest DRM the labels would let them get away with.
When iTuynes became #1 in online sales, and the iPod had immense consumer pull, Apple had the power to publicly speak out against the DRM.
I think you're the one on crack. Apple gets more criticism than just about any company. What makes it so strange is that the criticism is mostly unfounded, or about bizarre, irrelevant things. Microsoft commits crimes and largely gets a free pass in the press, while Apple gets miles of press criticism for something insignificant like a "non-replaceable battery" in the iPod. Yet Microsoft has been releasing shoddy products for years, and you barely hear a peep out of the media.
Yes, Apple gets a lot of praise, too. But they also get way more negativity than anyone. I think you may have a short memory. Only ten years ago, Apple was considered a joke - and the only coverage they got was FUD about how they were going out of business and nobody uses Apple products anymore. There were even articles in the mainstream media about how Apple computers are "for girls" with undertones of homo[phobia thrown in.
I didn't realize that the Clintons were the only ones with the technology. Surely the Bush administration could have done that too?
But the US has never been like that before. So, it wouldn't have to get that bad for the US to reach its lowest point.
Pffft. Xkill was my dock.