"The paradoxical answer, Gleick suggested, is that there are so many brilliant physicists alive today that it has become harder for any individual to stand apart from the pack. In other words, our perception of Einstein as a towering figure is, well, relative."
There were *many* brilliant physicists in Einstein's time as well.
You've clearly never attempted to migrate a large business from Windows to Linux.
In all fairness, migrating any large business to another Operating System and another set of apps will be a bitch, doesn't matter if its Windows->Linux, or Linux->OSX or OSX->BSD.
This might go against a standard definition of monopoly, but when there are so many alternatives to Windows, to the browser, and to the Office Suite its actually hard to think of Microsoft as having a monopoly. I moved to Linux about 2 years ago and that same day I was as productive under it as I was under Windows. I bought my laptop with no Windows pre-installed and built my desktop, again with no Windows. I can't see this monopoly. My girlfriend loves Excel (and Word) and makes crazy spreadsheets for her work, she thought OpenOffice was ugly. So I have a feeling that a lot of people are staying with MS because its either good enough, or they consider the alternatives better. I know from professional experience that a lot of businesses don't care about spending money on software as long as it does what its supposed to. Hell, I've seen dev houses blow $25k on tools (non-MS) that they ended up not using at all. MS stuff is relatively inexpensive.
And even if Microsoft was a monopoly in 1999. Is it still in 2006? It is so easy to move away from Windows right now. About the only reason for staying is gaming which matters to some but has no impact on others (me for example). In the last few years, Linux has made strides in usability. Pretty much every major distribution is easy to install and comes with 90% of the functionality most people need out of a computer (Internet, Email, Word Processing).
No bugs or crashes. But it looks like something that came out of the mid-90s.
It differentiates itself in no way from the 4 other market leaders out there. In fact it has about 1/3rd the functionality of its competition and noone uses it. It is a total disappointment.
The standard definition is 'evil = big'. You get too successful people will hate you.
The big appeal of Nintendo and Apple is that they are underdogs. The more they get kicked around the better. Truth is both are some of the most arrogant companies out there (iTMS locking out 3rd party mp3 players for example). Thank God neither is in a market leadership position (desktops/consoles).
Does that mean a breast through a frosted glass door of a shower? If that same door was not frosted, but was steamy? How about not steamy and clear? Does the level of zoom matter? What if there was no door? Or does the breast need to be engaged in some activity for it to be "graphic?"
You don't even know what the 'graphic' content is in the movie. Maybe they played a 30 second clip of some random porn film? But who cares. Its just a rating by a private group. Yes, it does mean that most movie theaters will not play it (which is a self-enacted policy as opposed to the law). However I don't think its a big deal since documentaries like this usually play at indie-theaters anyway.
Like the Oscars being sued when the most popular documentary in history wasn't nominated for a single thing, the courts said all that movie stuff is a private industry, and they can do whatever they want and you can't do anything about it. The courts are real good about protecting Goliath from David, as if Goliath needed any more help...
That was a good thing...right? Because having a court-ordered Oscar nomination would have been bad..right? RIGHT????
No, that's not the point. The point is that the less net-savvy people are not listening to the music, since they can't download it to their iPod due to copy protection.
Both my sisters know nothing about computers and apart from MSN, email and Word don't really have any use for it...oh yeah.. they both have a collection of music spanning hundreds of tracks (started with Napster and continued on with Kazaa and Limewire). I haven't seen either buy a cd in a long time, and its not because of DRM.
Point is, I think the article is wrong in this respect. Napster ushered in an era that made it easy for regular folk to download music. If you could check email you could get any song you wanted. Whatever else, I think P2P has affected negatively sales of CDs (although the jury is out how much exactly). And certainly if the people are not listening to the musician in the article its not because of DRM. And yes, he should have known that big labels like Sony or EMI are against P2P sharing.
I do agree with one sentiment though. Customers who do go out and buy a cd are punished for it. They are treated as potential thieves even though they already shelled out money for the CD. They have to deal with DRM and rootkits, while the 'pirates' essentially get a nice DRM-free nohassle mp3 off illegal P2P networks. Thats just bad business.
However, the administration should follow what they preach. As the recent.xxx fiasco has shown ICANN is very much under the thumb of the US government and can't seem to make decisions (especially decisions that are contrary to the ideology of the admininistration or its Christian fundamentalist base) without an 'a-OK' from them. Thats wrong.
To a Linux user, the idea of "only one crash" is bemusing. A modern Linux system, going down so easily?
Am I the only one here that experienced lock-ups with a Linux distros (Ubuntu)? They are sporadic, but they do happen. Occasionally I also have weird Gnome glitches (e.g. a panel crashes). Don't get me wrong, its not often. Maybe 2-3 times this past year.
Sometimes at my school the Linux lab (50 computers) has a non-functional terminal (Red Hat Enterprise Desktop) and I see the admin furiously tapping the keyboard.
Then let the market decides which is the best OS. If it is still windows so be it.
First of all, we both know you won't be satisfyed. Next time Windows get sued for bundling disk-defrag you'll be right there with./ chorus applauding disk-defrag-free Windows.
Second of all, you don't really understand what the phrase "let the market decide which is the best OS". Saying something like "lets put a whole bunch of restrictions on Microsoft and Windows" is not an example of a free market.
The real problem is the legions of lazy users that don't bother downloading alternative software. Everyone I know (even my parents, that are far from tech-savvy) are fully aware that there are alternatives out there. They just don't bother anyway.
I don't follow.. Whats wrong with being lazy? And where is the problem here?
Seriously though, people aren't lazy..they just don't give a f@ck. Its like me and cars, I don't really give a damn what rims or spoiler or other mods I have. Car tech is not something I tinker with nor get excited about. Its strictly for getting from point A to point B. Computers are like that for most people.
Have a movie? Only show it in theatres with metal detectors. Don't release movies on insecure for
So your great idea is to create a state of total paranoia? Metal detectors (and maybe strip searches) to see Harry Potter 7? A writer or artist being absolutely terrified that someone will simply take his work and put his name on it?
Lock everything down in uncrackable DRM that install rootkits to monitor every usage of software?
It's bad enough that even WITH copyrights content creators are already eyeing customer suspiciously, what will happen without any IP?
The question is: is this 'alternative' really better? I don't think so.
BTW, you do realize that Open Source Software is protected by copyrights.
If I sold licenses to skateboards, I'd go out of business.
Usually the design of "real" property is under some form of IP protection. You might be allowed to sell skateboards but if you try to duplicate one you'd be sued. Likewise your customers are allowed to only make use of the board they bought. They are allowed to sell that skateboard but they are not allowed to reproduce it and sell the copy (they can certainly build a skateboard but they cannot build it exactly - ie wheel design might be patented and the kickass graphic might be copyrighted).
Tell me, what is the incentive to create a $100 million movie when on completion you don't even own it? What about a $10 million game (like half-life2 or World of Warcraft).
Why not just dump ALL property rights. Why not have your customers help themselves to anything they want in your store?
Create a product. If it's copied easily, find a way to make yours better.
Thats the thing about IP, its pathetically easy to duplicate, whether we're talking about software, music, books, or movies. The costs are not in the duplication or distribution but creation (as opposed to retail where profit and costs come from distribution and creation costs $0). It takes months or years to create (or research) most IP, and might involve many people, each of which needs to eat and provide for his family.
Yeah..your way is dumb.
Why is my time (or my managers' time) building my product different than a song writer or a book writer?
At heart is the concept of property. You own your sporting merchandise and you choose to give it away for profit. A song writer owns his song and he chooses to do with it what he will (usually sell out to Sony or something). Yes IP is a little bit different which is why it is treated differently, copyright and patents expire and trademarks could be lost. So both you and the song writer own what you create (or build up) and you are given rights to do with what you will. Not that different.
Yes these $100 are for school children to write reports. Not to evangelize free software.
You'd think so, wouldn't you.
Judging from some of the responses, it seems like people here are expecting kids in Africa to start re-compiling their kernels and building custom linux distros (hence the absolute need for everything Open Source on these laptops). If these laptops are going to some of the more ravaged third-world countries then teaching these kids to read, write and operate a Word-processor would be a huge success.
These laptops are not a charitable act but evangelizing and indoctrination. How else do you explain OSX dismissal on grounds that it is not fully open source?
Slashdot Mirror
If this was Linux, zealots would be praising the quick community response =)
"The paradoxical answer, Gleick suggested, is that there are so many brilliant physicists alive today that it has become harder for any individual to stand apart from the pack. In other words, our perception of Einstein as a towering figure is, well, relative."
There were *many* brilliant physicists in Einstein's time as well.
no text.
You've clearly never attempted to migrate a large business from Windows to Linux.
In all fairness, migrating any large business to another Operating System and another set of apps will be a bitch, doesn't matter if its Windows->Linux, or Linux->OSX or OSX->BSD.
This might go against a standard definition of monopoly, but when there are so many alternatives to Windows, to the browser, and to the Office Suite its actually hard to think of Microsoft as having a monopoly. I moved to Linux about 2 years ago and that same day I was as productive under it as I was under Windows. I bought my laptop with no Windows pre-installed and built my desktop, again with no Windows. I can't see this monopoly. My girlfriend loves Excel (and Word) and makes crazy spreadsheets for her work, she thought OpenOffice was ugly. So I have a feeling that a lot of people are staying with MS because its either good enough, or they consider the alternatives better. I know from professional experience that a lot of businesses don't care about spending money on software as long as it does what its supposed to. Hell, I've seen dev houses blow $25k on tools (non-MS) that they ended up not using at all. MS stuff is relatively inexpensive.
And even if Microsoft was a monopoly in 1999. Is it still in 2006? It is so easy to move away from Windows right now. About the only reason for staying is gaming which matters to some but has no impact on others (me for example). In the last few years, Linux has made strides in usability. Pretty much every major distribution is easy to install and comes with 90% of the functionality most people need out of a computer (Internet, Email, Word Processing).
No bugs or crashes. But it looks like something that came out of the mid-90s.
It differentiates itself in no way from the 4 other market leaders out there. In fact it has about 1/3rd the functionality of its competition and noone uses it. It is a total disappointment.
Oh yeah.
The standard definition is 'evil = big'. You get too successful people will hate you.
The big appeal of Nintendo and Apple is that they are underdogs. The more they get kicked around the better. Truth is both are some of the most arrogant companies out there (iTMS locking out 3rd party mp3 players for example). Thank God neither is in a market leadership position (desktops/consoles).
With Google's ability to throw together amazing software (look at Gmail)
Not always. Google Talk stinks, or can't we say that because its in 'beta' (Desktop Search ain't too hot either).
Instead of competing with companies on merit, they buy them out or pay them off.
Just being the Devil's Advocate.
Holy crap you're an idiot.
Does that mean a breast through a frosted glass door of a shower? If that same door was not frosted, but was steamy? How about not steamy and clear? Does the level of zoom matter? What if there was no door? Or does the breast need to be engaged in some activity for it to be "graphic?"
You don't even know what the 'graphic' content is in the movie. Maybe they played a 30 second clip of some random porn film? But who cares. Its just a rating by a private group. Yes, it does mean that most movie theaters will not play it (which is a self-enacted policy as opposed to the law). However I don't think its a big deal since documentaries like this usually play at indie-theaters anyway.
Like the Oscars being sued when the most popular documentary in history wasn't nominated for a single thing, the courts said all that movie stuff is a private industry, and they can do whatever they want and you can't do anything about it. The courts are real good about protecting Goliath from David, as if Goliath needed any more help...
That was a good thing...right? Because having a court-ordered Oscar nomination would have been bad..right? RIGHT????
No, that's not the point. The point is that the less net-savvy people are not listening to the music, since they can't download it to their iPod due to copy protection.
Both my sisters know nothing about computers and apart from MSN, email and Word don't really have any use for it...oh yeah.. they both have a collection of music spanning hundreds of tracks (started with Napster and continued on with Kazaa and Limewire). I haven't seen either buy a cd in a long time, and its not because of DRM.
Point is, I think the article is wrong in this respect. Napster ushered in an era that made it easy for regular folk to download music. If you could check email you could get any song you wanted. Whatever else, I think P2P has affected negatively sales of CDs (although the jury is out how much exactly). And certainly if the people are not listening to the musician in the article its not because of DRM. And yes, he should have known that big labels like Sony or EMI are against P2P sharing.
I do agree with one sentiment though. Customers who do go out and buy a cd are punished for it. They are treated as potential thieves even though they already shelled out money for the CD. They have to deal with DRM and rootkits, while the 'pirates' essentially get a nice DRM-free nohassle mp3 off illegal P2P networks. Thats just bad business.
two independant bodies coming to the same conclusion that .xxx is worse than useless is not a case of one being under the others thumb.
That may be, however this was not the reason why ICANN scrapped the tld. I thought it was clear that they did so at the request of the government.
I like the letter. Rice has a point.
.xxx fiasco has shown ICANN is very much under the thumb of the US government and can't seem to make decisions (especially decisions that are contrary to the ideology of the admininistration or its Christian fundamentalist base) without an 'a-OK' from them. Thats wrong.
However, the administration should follow what they preach. As the recent
To a Linux user, the idea of "only one crash" is bemusing. A modern Linux system, going down so easily?
Am I the only one here that experienced lock-ups with a Linux distros (Ubuntu)? They are sporadic, but they do happen. Occasionally I also have weird Gnome glitches (e.g. a panel crashes). Don't get me wrong, its not often. Maybe 2-3 times this past year.
Sometimes at my school the Linux lab (50 computers) has a non-functional terminal (Red Hat Enterprise Desktop) and I see the admin furiously tapping the keyboard.
They took our Jeeeeeeeeeeeeobs!!
you are confusing OS count with installed base
heh.. because OS count is irrelevant.
Besides, any distro or OS that positions itself for the consumer desktop market will come with things like a browser, or media player built-in.
Then let the market decides which is the best OS. If it is still windows so be it.
./ chorus applauding disk-defrag-free Windows.
First of all, we both know you won't be satisfyed. Next time Windows get sued for bundling disk-defrag you'll be right there with
Second of all, you don't really understand what the phrase "let the market decide which is the best OS". Saying something like "lets put a whole bunch of restrictions on Microsoft and Windows" is not an example of a free market.
Mac & Windows have them built in, but they are a minority.
This 'minority' (coupled with some desktop-friendly Linux distros) account for nearly 100% of desktop usage in the world.
I think bare-bones OSes are the real minority here.
The real problem is the legions of lazy users that don't bother downloading alternative software. Everyone I know (even my parents, that are far from tech-savvy) are fully aware that there are alternatives out there. They just don't bother anyway.
I don't follow..
Whats wrong with being lazy? And where is the problem here?
Seriously though, people aren't lazy..they just don't give a f@ck. Its like me and cars, I don't really give a damn what rims or spoiler or other mods I have. Car tech is not something I tinker with nor get excited about. Its strictly for getting from point A to point B. Computers are like that for most people.
Have a movie? Only show it in theatres with metal detectors. Don't release movies on insecure for
So your great idea is to create a state of total paranoia? Metal detectors (and maybe strip searches) to see Harry Potter 7? A writer or artist being absolutely terrified that someone will simply take his work and put his name on it?
Lock everything down in uncrackable DRM that install rootkits to monitor every usage of software?
It's bad enough that even WITH copyrights content creators are already eyeing customer suspiciously, what will happen without any IP?
The question is: is this 'alternative' really better? I don't think so.
BTW, you do realize that Open Source Software is protected by copyrights.
If I sold licenses to skateboards, I'd go out of business.
Usually the design of "real" property is under some form of IP protection. You might be allowed to sell skateboards but if you try to duplicate one you'd be sued. Likewise your customers are allowed to only make use of the board they bought. They are allowed to sell that skateboard but they are not allowed to reproduce it and sell the copy (they can certainly build a skateboard but they cannot build it exactly - ie wheel design might be patented and the kickass graphic might be copyrighted).
So yeah, in a way you are selling licenses.
Dump all intellectual property rights?
Tell me, what is the incentive to create a $100 million movie when on completion you don't even own it? What about a $10 million game (like half-life2 or World of Warcraft).
Why not just dump ALL property rights. Why not have your customers help themselves to anything they want in your store?
Create a product. If it's copied easily, find a way to make yours better.
Thats the thing about IP, its pathetically easy to duplicate, whether we're talking about software, music, books, or movies. The costs are not in the duplication or distribution but creation (as opposed to retail where profit and costs come from distribution and creation costs $0). It takes months or years to create (or research) most IP, and might involve many people, each of which needs to eat and provide for his family.
Yeah..your way is dumb.
Why is my time (or my managers' time) building my product different than a song writer or a book writer?
At heart is the concept of property. You own your sporting merchandise and you choose to give it away for profit. A song writer owns his song and he chooses to do with it what he will (usually sell out to Sony or something). Yes IP is a little bit different which is why it is treated differently, copyright and patents expire and trademarks could be lost. So both you and the song writer own what you create (or build up) and you are given rights to do with what you will. Not that different.
but the fact that not all people can afford to spend over $100 on proprietary software for a proprietary format that is _FORCED_ by a government
.doc files via OpenOffice (which 90% of the time does the job) or they can downloaded the doc viewer from Microsoft. =)
They don't have to.
They can either view
Besides, most of the time, documentation is used internally anyway.
Yes these $100 are for school children to write reports. Not to evangelize free software.
You'd think so, wouldn't you.
Judging from some of the responses, it seems like people here are expecting kids in Africa to start re-compiling their kernels and building custom linux distros (hence the absolute need for everything Open Source on these laptops). If these laptops are going to some of the more ravaged third-world countries then teaching these kids to read, write and operate a Word-processor would be a huge success.
These laptops are not a charitable act but evangelizing and indoctrination. How else do you explain OSX dismissal on grounds that it is not fully open source?