'' Well, the OSX on generic hardware is actually about EULA's, as that is where Apple tries to stick in the "You can only run this software on an Apple Macintosh" clause. ''
How many people do you think will buy a Macintosh, remove MacOS X from the Macintosh, buy a cheap Dell, install MacOS X on the Dell, and install say Linux on the Macintosh?
As soon as the copy of MacOS X on the Macintosh is not deleted, you are in copyright infringement / DMCA violation territory.
'' Just FYI, one of the new Acer 5672 lwmi can be bought today for 1399 euros in any Saturn shop in Germany. To make it a short post: ''
A search for Acer on www.saturn.de shows five monitors, one projector, no computers.
A search on acernotebooks.co.uk finds it for $1119 incl. VAT. The MacBook is faster (there is no 1.67 GHz MacBook), has a better screen, a better operating system (the quoted price is with XP Home Edition), comes with useful software (the acer includes highly recommended software like Acrobat Reader and Application Launcher. Wow. No antivirus software included, apparently), and generally comes from a reputable company. Do you seriously think Apple should try to compete with all third rate manufacturers on price?
Re:Both nuisance and blessing... mostly nuisance.
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 1
'' Only while the price of that Apple stays constant for the year(s) that it is produced with no meaningful upgrades, the PC (Dell or other) will come down in price and become faster. I like the design of macs, but unless you are buying hardware when it's bleeding edge, the price is anything but similar. ''
That's funny. Apple upgraded the hardware before it even shipped! Everyone who has already ordered will get a faster computer than they ordered, at no extra cost at all!
'' Why should apple bother with "security measures" that actively prevent users from running OSX on regular (non-apple) PCs in the first place? ''
Because it turns using an illegal copy of MacOS X on a non-apple PC from just copyright infringement into a criminal offense. It means if you are caught, Apple doesn't even have to spend money to get you into court, the police will do that for them. It means you will most definitely NOT call them for support:-)
Re:The retail boxes are technically upgrades
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 1
'' That's not relevant. A lot of software lists hardware requirements. However, nowhere on the retail OS X box does it say that it is being sold as an upgrade. ''
Apple never had to write "sold as an upgrade" on the box, because MacOS X used to have that enormously expensive hardware dongle called a Macintosh PowerPC computer. In the MacOS X 10.5 version for Intel, they cannot rely on that hardware dongle anymore, so they will write "upgrade only" on the box. They may sell full versions as well, for say $499, just to make the situation clear.
'' I found the benchmarks pretty impressive given that the 2.0GHz Intel part was compared to a 2.4GHz AMD part (as per the test systems specs. And it wasn't even the latest version of the Intel parts (it wasn't a Yonah based part). ''
The comparison 2.0 vs. 2.4 was done because the price of the AMD chip was quite exactly in the middle between a 2.0 GHz and a 2.13 GHz Intel chip. Since we shouldn't really care about GHz, but about price, a fair comparison would have been Intel 2.07 GHz vs. AMD 2.4 GHz; in other words in _this_ comparison the AMD chip would have to be slightly better to draw even. If they had compared Intel 2.13 vs AMD 2.4 then the AMD chip would draw even if it was slightly slower.
But a comparison between Core Duo and AMD would have been much more useful; especially as there doesn't seem much price difference between Core Duo and Pentium M.
'' My main reasoning, though, is that people have a primary task, which they want to get done as quickly as possible. If you're doing extensive video encoding or playback, encryption, etc., you'll get a speed PENALTY with those dual core system (or a quality reduction if you do eg. multi-threaded video encoding). ''
Using Handbrake on MacOS X runs quite exactly twice as fast on a dual core system than on a single processor. That's not exactly what I would call a penalty. And I would really like to know how multi-threaded video encoding would give you a quality reduction.
'' What I'm trying to say is, that AFAIK, Apple will not allow Creative to develop a direct iPod comptetitor (because it won't allow them to play the music they purchse on ITunes) -- which is a monopoly. ''
Apple has absolutely no control over AAC. AAC is the industry standard. Everybody can get a license for AAC, and there is nothing that Apple could do about it. 90+ percent of my music is stored in unencrypted AAC format (the rest in unencrypted MP3 format, plus a few lossless things). Whoever wants to compete with the iPod first has to support AAC.
'' I think what is at question is whether it is possible to create a viable music store without access to iPods. If not, then Apple's would be competitors might have a case. ''
There is no need at all to give up access to iPods. Just sell your music in the good old MP3 format, and every music player except for a few made by Sony will be able to play it. Actually, I think you could outsell the iTunes Music Store quite easily.
'' That's true, but does Apple effectively have a monopoly on the market for digital music? I can't answer that question since I really don't buy digital music. The existance of competition doesn't mean Apple doesn't have a monopoly. Linux is an alternative OS for x86 computers, but that doesn't mean Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on Windows. ''
When you discuss monopolies, you have to check how the fact that one company has a large marketshare influences your decision.
If you decide which music player to buy, does the fact that the iPod has a large marketshare in any way make it more useful or less useful, or will you make your buying decision solely on factors like value for money, design and fashion?
Please note that reported suicide rates very much depend on how the information is collected.
For example: Medical doctor examines a corpse. There are indications that make a suicide more likely than natural depth. Relatives would be devastated if this is reported as a suicide. They may suffer financial hardship, because a life insurance won't pay. What the medical doctor will write into his report will very much depend on the culture he is living in, and the reported suicide rates will change accordingly.
'' Yeah, until just one person out of the millions with PCs cracks an HDCP disc and uploads it. Is there any cost:benefit*risk analysis for this copy protection that isn't produced by the DRM industry and the CYA execs who promote it? ''
There is no such thing as an HDCP disc.
HDCP encrypts the signal between the connector of your video card and the connector on your monitor or TV. It has nothing whatsoever to do with DVD encryption.
'' This ain't going to happen more than once. I can just think about what happens when people like my father, who's got quite a temper, are told that his Blu-Ray player has turned into a brick because some guy in Taiwan used the key for that model to steal movies. ''
It is not the key for that model. If you go to a shop and buy two identical TVs with HDCP, they will have different HDCP keys. If your dad has a TV with the same HDCP key as some guy in Taiwan, then the manufacturer will be in deep deep shit.
'' What I dont get is how is this possible from the cryptographic point of view. The contents of the disk is encrypted with a key, which has to be only done once, otherwise you would need to duplicate the contents on the disk as many times as you have keys. ''
Massive misunderstanding of what HDCP does.
HDCP has nothing to do whatsoever with encryption of the DVD. The graphics card produces an image in whatever way, completely independent of HDCP. At some point this signal has to be converted into a signal that your monitor understands, and _that_ is the point where HDCP encryption is added. Your monitor receives the encrypted signal and decrypts it. Usually encryption will be turned on permanently once it is turned on, so if you watch a Blue-Ray DVD and then go on Slashdot, all your Slashdot pages will be encrypted as well.
All this has nothing to do with the encryption of the DVD; HDCP is just a means to stop one very specific method of circumventing the DVD encryption: By grabbing the signal that is sent from the graphics card to the monitor. That would have been one of the two most obvious methods of circumventing DVD copy protection, by playing the DVD and recording the signal that comes out of the graphics card; the other obvious method would be to find a way to make bit-identical copies of DVDs without bothering to crack the encryption at all.
'' If a company with any patent rights had asserted its right in the first place, then maybe they would be in the right here, but to allow a technology to grow for a number of years and then assert your claim to large amounts of money is immoral and should be illegal. ''
The problem with these patents here seems to be that a standard compression format (MPEG-4) cannot be used without infringing these patents, not for technical reasons but for reasons of compatibility.
My suggestion would be "enforced reverse licensing": If company A has a patent that must be used for compatibility reasons, and company B has a patent for something that is just as good, but cannot be used for compatibility reasons, then company B can offer their patent to A for free use and aquires the right to use the patent of A that way.
In other words, the MPEG-LA group just has to take a very close look at each of the patents, then develop for each of those patents an alternative technique that is at least as good (but not necessarily compatible with MPEG-4), and offer those techniques to AT&T for free use.
Not only would this get rid of patent trolls and submarine patents, it also would work exactly in the spirit of patent law: Patents are granted to encourage the advance of the state of art in technology, and exactly that would be achieved if companies were actually forced to develop new methods.
'' Are there any cases of patents actually helping people/companies? ''
In the case of MPEG 4, there are dozens and dozens of patents that all the parties involved have thrown together to create that standard, and they all license them to each other. You can get a license for that whole patent pool relatively cheaply, and I guess for free if you supplied patents to the pool.
The problem here is that AT & T is not in the pool, and that they don't have any MPEG 4 products. Apple or Microsoft couldn't do this kind of thing because they are members of that pool, and by making patent claims they would lose the right to use the other two dozen patents. AT&T has nothing to lose here as they have no MPEG 4 product.
Companies like Apple and Microsoft mostly benefit because the system allows standards to develop _without_ everyone having to check that there are no patents violated. Specialist companies that concentrate on producing that kind of intellectual property benefit because they have a much better chance to get paid; on the other hand, they can't demand extortionate fees because otherwise their stuff will not be made part of the standard. Companies like Nero benefit first because there is a standard, which makes life easier, and second, because they can get licenses for everything quite cheaply.
The whole system suffers if there are any outsiders involved who don't play by the rules.
'' He doesn't agree or disagree with the lawsuit; a judge simply asserts that the plaintiff has met the grounds for filing a valid lawsuit. ''
The first requirement of a lawsuit is that if everything that the plaintiff claims were true, and everything that the defendant claims were false, then there would be a case. So basically the court said that Apple has been accused of something that would actually be illegal if they had done it.
(In the infamous SCO vs. Novell case, where SCO sued Novell for "slander of title", it turns out that there are four requirements for some action to be "slander of title", and SCO accused Novell only of three of those four actions! )
'' Deutsch committed a fraud and should be required to repay his salary to the US Treasury, with interest and penalties. Never happen, of course.
I'd favor a few months in prison too, but he's already cost us enough. Maybe a few hundred hours of community service... say, picking up litter in the NASA parking lots. I imagine that there's a proportion of scientists there - just as there are a proportion of any profession - who would be more than happy to help keep him busy. ''
I can very much understand your anger about the man. However, I think that having no degree should be no reason to fire someone who does his job well, and having a degree should be no reason to keep someone who does a bad job.
I would have been much much happier if Mr. Deutsch had been fired for being the anti-scientific slimebag that he is.
'' Has the Big Bang been established as scientific fact? Not saying it isn't, just would like some more info. ''
No, it is a Scientific Theory. In other words, it is the state of the art of scientific knowledge. As there is always hope that we will understand the origins of the universe better next year, or in ten years, or in hundred years, it cannot be called a fact.
'' Yes, but do the designers of new drugs EVER look at the patents of the old ones? If not, then nothing useful is being revealed.
I'm not totally certain about the case of drug patents (though I'm dubious), but in the case of software patents no developer ever looks at a patent. In the first place it's potentially quite dangerous legally (triples the cost if you're found to be infringing) and in the second place nothing of any use is ever revealed. Drug patents might be different, but I sure wouldn't bet on it. ''
The difference between drug patents and software patents is that a company developing drugs spends gazillions of money on things that don't work, and then gets lucky and finds one thing that works. Without patents, I could set up a company that just waits for others to be successful, then copy the successful things. I could always undercut them in price, because I didn't spent money investigating all the paths that didn't work.
With software, it is much easier to create things that you know are going to work. You don't try ten thousand different ways to solve a problem until you find one that works.
With drugs, it costs X dollars to develop Viagra, but it cost that company 100 x X dollars to investigate all the things that didn't work. A competitor developing _only_ Viagra would only have to spend the same X dollars, whether they read the patent or not. That is a huge advantage. In software, if you invented it it will cost you X dollars to make it work; it will cost me the same X dollars to reinvent it or to take your idea and make it work, and I have no unfair advantage at all.
That is why big hardware and software companies have contracts that allow them to use each others patents: This basically disables the patent system between them, which is good because they know life is just much easier without having to worry what everyone else does.
'' I guess that is the big differences. Just to make the point again:
1. The big bang is a theory based on observations that tries to explain the genesis of our univers 2. The evolution is a theory, that tries to explain the origin of species.
Both scientific theories can be tested and maybe proven wrong, but they can be tested experimentally
3. Intelligent design can be called a theory, but than a religious or philosophical theory.
This theory can neither been proven wrong nor right, therefore it is called BELIEF ''
I think we should stop using the word "theory" in these two meanings, because it just confuses people. We should use "state of the art of scientific knowledge" instead of "scientific theory" when we are talking about Big Bang and evolution, and "incoherent ramblings of a confused mind" instead of "religious theory" when we are talking about Intelligent Design.
'' As far as knowing a lot of Christians who want to push religion on others...I know of quite a few Atheists and Agnostics who do the same. Atheists in my opinion have tried to take away the idea of a Merry Christmas from me for years. ''
To my best knowledge, atheists spend lots of money on christmas presents, christmas trees and decorations, good food, and having a good time with their families and friends, just like most everybody else.
Are you maybe confusing atheists with politically correct idiots?
What Google has been doing there seems to me very highly unreasonable. As a search engine, Google should return what I am looking for, as best as it can. Now if I type in "BMW Germany", what do you think I am looking for? For that search, BMW's German webpage should come first, no matter what points some stupid ranking algorithm gives them.
Where this is getting completely bizarre, making Google useless, is when you try to search for a specific hotel. If I type in the name of a hotel and the town, Google should first of all give me the webpage of that hotel. It doesn't. It gives me thirty different links to agencies trying to flog off hotels at cheaper prices, even if they cannot even offer that specific hotel! This is complete madness.
'' He's trashing the game he's working on. What boss would put up with that?
The kind of boss that is open to negative opinions -- a rare, but very powerful beast. ''
When you look at your companies products, you have to realise: It is not your job to praise them or to damn them (in public), that is what you have marketing people for. They can take anything, and talk it up to be the best invention since sliced bread. Your competitor's marketing people can do the same thing.
Often you compare your view of your own product with what your competitor's marketing people say about their product. Your own product is never, ever as good as what your competitor's marketing says about their product! That doesn't mean your product isn't better than theirs, just that you haven't done the proper comparison.
Many developers have to suffer through alpha and beta versions that are not nearly as good as the final product, they suffer through bugfixes that expose them to the worst side of the product, that many customers will never notice. So as a developer, you should never tell your opinion to the public. Not only are you not very good at selling it, because that isn't your job, you also have a much too negative view of it.
Slashdot Mirror
'' Well, the OSX on generic hardware is actually about EULA's, as that is where Apple tries to stick in the "You can only run this software on an Apple Macintosh" clause. ''
How many people do you think will buy a Macintosh, remove MacOS X from the Macintosh, buy a cheap Dell, install MacOS X on the Dell, and install say Linux on the Macintosh?
As soon as the copy of MacOS X on the Macintosh is not deleted, you are in copyright infringement / DMCA violation territory.
'' Just FYI, one of the new Acer 5672 lwmi can be bought today for 1399 euros in any Saturn shop in Germany. To make it a short post: ''
A search for Acer on www.saturn.de shows five monitors, one projector, no computers.
A search on acernotebooks.co.uk finds it for $1119 incl. VAT. The MacBook is faster (there is no 1.67 GHz MacBook), has a better screen, a better operating system (the quoted price is with XP Home Edition), comes with useful software (the acer includes highly recommended software like Acrobat Reader and Application Launcher. Wow. No antivirus software included, apparently), and generally comes from a reputable company. Do you seriously think Apple should try to compete with all third rate manufacturers on price?
'' Only while the price of that Apple stays constant for the year(s) that it is produced with no meaningful upgrades, the PC (Dell or other) will come down in price and become faster. I like the design of macs, but unless you are buying hardware when it's bleeding edge, the price is anything but similar. ''
That's funny. Apple upgraded the hardware before it even shipped! Everyone who has already ordered will get a faster computer than they ordered, at no extra cost at all!
'' Why should apple bother with "security measures" that actively prevent users from running OSX on regular (non-apple) PCs in the first place? ''
:-)
Because it turns using an illegal copy of MacOS X on a non-apple PC from just copyright infringement into a criminal offense. It means if you are caught, Apple doesn't even have to spend money to get you into court, the police will do that for them. It means you will most definitely NOT call them for support
'' That's not relevant. A lot of software lists hardware requirements. However, nowhere on the retail OS X box does it say that it is being sold as an upgrade. ''
Apple never had to write "sold as an upgrade" on the box, because MacOS X used to have that enormously expensive hardware dongle called a Macintosh PowerPC computer. In the MacOS X 10.5 version for Intel, they cannot rely on that hardware dongle anymore, so they will write "upgrade only" on the box. They may sell full versions as well, for say $499, just to make the situation clear.
'' I found the benchmarks pretty impressive given that the 2.0GHz Intel part was compared to a 2.4GHz AMD part (as per the test systems specs. And it wasn't even the latest version of the Intel parts (it wasn't a Yonah based part). ''
The comparison 2.0 vs. 2.4 was done because the price of the AMD chip was quite exactly in the middle between a 2.0 GHz and a 2.13 GHz Intel chip. Since we shouldn't really care about GHz, but about price, a fair comparison would have been Intel 2.07 GHz vs. AMD 2.4 GHz; in other words in _this_ comparison the AMD chip would have to be slightly better to draw even. If they had compared Intel 2.13 vs AMD 2.4 then the AMD chip would draw even if it was slightly slower.
But a comparison between Core Duo and AMD would have been much more useful; especially as there doesn't seem much price difference between Core Duo and Pentium M.
'' My main reasoning, though, is that people have a primary task, which they want to get done as quickly as possible. If you're doing extensive video encoding or playback, encryption, etc., you'll get a speed PENALTY with those dual core system (or a quality reduction if you do eg. multi-threaded video encoding). ''
Using Handbrake on MacOS X runs quite exactly twice as fast on a dual core system than on a single processor. That's not exactly what I would call a penalty. And I would really like to know how multi-threaded video encoding would give you a quality reduction.
'' What I'm trying to say is, that AFAIK, Apple will not allow Creative to develop a direct iPod comptetitor (because it won't allow them to play the music they purchse on ITunes) -- which is a monopoly. ''
Apple has absolutely no control over AAC. AAC is the industry standard. Everybody can get a license for AAC, and there is nothing that Apple could do about it. 90+ percent of my music is stored in unencrypted AAC format (the rest in unencrypted MP3 format, plus a few lossless things). Whoever wants to compete with the iPod first has to support AAC.
'' I think what is at question is whether it is possible to create a viable music store without access to iPods. If not, then Apple's would be competitors might have a case. ''
There is no need at all to give up access to iPods. Just sell your music in the good old MP3 format, and every music player except for a few made by Sony will be able to play it. Actually, I think you could outsell the iTunes Music Store quite easily.
'' That's true, but does Apple effectively have a monopoly on the market for digital music? I can't answer that question since I really don't buy digital music. The existance of competition doesn't mean Apple doesn't have a monopoly. Linux is an alternative OS for x86 computers, but that doesn't mean Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on Windows. ''
When you discuss monopolies, you have to check how the fact that one company has a large marketshare influences your decision.
If you decide which music player to buy, does the fact that the iPod has a large marketshare in any way make it more useful or less useful, or will you make your buying decision solely on factors like value for money, design and fashion?
Please note that reported suicide rates very much depend on how the information is collected.
For example: Medical doctor examines a corpse. There are indications that make a suicide more likely than natural depth. Relatives would be devastated if this is reported as a suicide. They may suffer financial hardship, because a life insurance won't pay. What the medical doctor will write into his report will very much depend on the culture he is living in, and the reported suicide rates will change accordingly.
'' Yeah, until just one person out of the millions with PCs cracks an HDCP disc and uploads it. Is there any cost:benefit*risk analysis for this copy protection that isn't produced by the DRM industry and the CYA execs who promote it? ''
There is no such thing as an HDCP disc.
HDCP encrypts the signal between the connector of your video card and the connector on your monitor or TV. It has nothing whatsoever to do with DVD encryption.
'' This ain't going to happen more than once. I can just think about what happens when people like my father, who's got quite a temper, are told that his Blu-Ray player has turned into a brick because some guy in Taiwan used the key for that model to steal movies. ''
It is not the key for that model. If you go to a shop and buy two identical TVs with HDCP, they will have different HDCP keys. If your dad has a TV with the same HDCP key as some guy in Taiwan, then the manufacturer will be in deep deep shit.
'' What I dont get is how is this possible from the cryptographic point of view. The contents of the disk is encrypted with a key, which has to be only done once, otherwise you would need to duplicate the contents on the disk as many times as you have keys. ''
Massive misunderstanding of what HDCP does.
HDCP has nothing to do whatsoever with encryption of the DVD. The graphics card produces an image in whatever way, completely independent of HDCP. At some point this signal has to be converted into a signal that your monitor understands, and _that_ is the point where HDCP encryption is added. Your monitor receives the encrypted signal and decrypts it. Usually encryption will be turned on permanently once it is turned on, so if you watch a Blue-Ray DVD and then go on Slashdot, all your Slashdot pages will be encrypted as well.
All this has nothing to do with the encryption of the DVD; HDCP is just a means to stop one very specific method of circumventing the DVD encryption: By grabbing the signal that is sent from the graphics card to the monitor. That would have been one of the two most obvious methods of circumventing DVD copy protection, by playing the DVD and recording the signal that comes out of the graphics card; the other obvious method would be to find a way to make bit-identical copies of DVDs without bothering to crack the encryption at all.
'' Actually I'd expect a working solution from DVD Jon within a few weeks of the first Bluray or HDDVD releases. ''
I should recommend that he consult a really good lawyer before releasing anything.
'' If a company with any patent rights had asserted its right in the first place, then maybe they would be in the right here, but to allow a technology to grow for a number of years and then assert your claim to large amounts of money is immoral and should be illegal. ''
The problem with these patents here seems to be that a standard compression format (MPEG-4) cannot be used without infringing these patents, not for technical reasons but for reasons of compatibility.
My suggestion would be "enforced reverse licensing": If company A has a patent that must be used for compatibility reasons, and company B has a patent for something that is just as good, but cannot be used for compatibility reasons, then company B can offer their patent to A for free use and aquires the right to use the patent of A that way.
In other words, the MPEG-LA group just has to take a very close look at each of the patents, then develop for each of those patents an alternative technique that is at least as good (but not necessarily compatible with MPEG-4), and offer those techniques to AT&T for free use.
Not only would this get rid of patent trolls and submarine patents, it also would work exactly in the spirit of patent law: Patents are granted to encourage the advance of the state of art in technology, and exactly that would be achieved if companies were actually forced to develop new methods.
'' Are there any cases of patents actually helping people/companies? ''
In the case of MPEG 4, there are dozens and dozens of patents that all the parties involved have thrown together to create that standard, and they all license them to each other. You can get a license for that whole patent pool relatively cheaply, and I guess for free if you supplied patents to the pool.
The problem here is that AT & T is not in the pool, and that they don't have any MPEG 4 products. Apple or Microsoft couldn't do this kind of thing because they are members of that pool, and by making patent claims they would lose the right to use the other two dozen patents. AT&T has nothing to lose here as they have no MPEG 4 product.
Companies like Apple and Microsoft mostly benefit because the system allows standards to develop _without_ everyone having to check that there are no patents violated. Specialist companies that concentrate on producing that kind of intellectual property benefit because they have a much better chance to get paid; on the other hand, they can't demand extortionate fees because otherwise their stuff will not be made part of the standard. Companies like Nero benefit first because there is a standard, which makes life easier, and second, because they can get licenses for everything quite cheaply.
The whole system suffers if there are any outsiders involved who don't play by the rules.
'' He doesn't agree or disagree with the lawsuit; a judge simply asserts that the plaintiff has met the grounds for filing a valid lawsuit. ''
The first requirement of a lawsuit is that if everything that the plaintiff claims were true, and everything that the defendant claims were false, then there would be a case. So basically the court said that Apple has been accused of something that would actually be illegal if they had done it.
(In the infamous SCO vs. Novell case, where SCO sued Novell for "slander of title", it turns out that there are four requirements for some action to be "slander of title", and SCO accused Novell only of three of those four actions! )
'' Deutsch committed a fraud and should be required to repay his salary to the US Treasury, with interest and penalties. Never happen, of course.
I'd favor a few months in prison too, but he's already cost us enough. Maybe a few hundred hours of community service... say, picking up litter in the NASA parking lots. I imagine that there's a proportion of scientists there - just as there are a proportion of any profession - who would be more than happy to help keep him busy. ''
I can very much understand your anger about the man. However, I think that having no degree should be no reason to fire someone who does his job well, and having a degree should be no reason to keep someone who does a bad job.
I would have been much much happier if Mr. Deutsch had been fired for being the anti-scientific slimebag that he is.
'' Has the Big Bang been established as scientific fact? Not saying it isn't, just would like some more info. ''
No, it is a Scientific Theory. In other words, it is the state of the art of scientific knowledge. As there is always hope that we will understand the origins of the universe better next year, or in ten years, or in hundred years, it cannot be called a fact.
'' Yes, but do the designers of new drugs EVER look at the patents of the old ones? If not, then nothing useful is being revealed.
I'm not totally certain about the case of drug patents (though I'm dubious), but in the case of software patents no developer ever looks at a patent. In the first place it's potentially quite dangerous legally (triples the cost if you're found to be infringing) and in the second place nothing of any use is ever revealed. Drug patents might be different, but I sure wouldn't bet on it. ''
The difference between drug patents and software patents is that a company developing drugs spends gazillions of money on things that don't work, and then gets lucky and finds one thing that works. Without patents, I could set up a company that just waits for others to be successful, then copy the successful things. I could always undercut them in price, because I didn't spent money investigating all the paths that didn't work.
With software, it is much easier to create things that you know are going to work. You don't try ten thousand different ways to solve a problem until you find one that works.
With drugs, it costs X dollars to develop Viagra, but it cost that company 100 x X dollars to investigate all the things that didn't work. A competitor developing _only_ Viagra would only have to spend the same X dollars, whether they read the patent or not. That is a huge advantage. In software, if you invented it it will cost you X dollars to make it work; it will cost me the same X dollars to reinvent it or to take your idea and make it work, and I have no unfair advantage at all.
That is why big hardware and software companies have contracts that allow them to use each others patents: This basically disables the patent system between them, which is good because they know life is just much easier without having to worry what everyone else does.
'' I guess that is the big differences. Just to make the point again:
1. The big bang is a theory based on observations that tries to explain the genesis of our univers
2. The evolution is a theory, that tries to explain the origin of species.
Both scientific theories can be tested and maybe proven wrong, but they can be tested experimentally
3. Intelligent design can be called a theory, but than a religious or philosophical theory.
This theory can neither been proven wrong nor right, therefore it is called BELIEF ''
I think we should stop using the word "theory" in these two meanings, because it just confuses people. We should use "state of the art of scientific knowledge" instead of "scientific theory" when we are talking about Big Bang and evolution, and "incoherent ramblings of a confused mind" instead of "religious theory" when we are talking about Intelligent Design.
'' As far as knowing a lot of Christians who want to push religion on others...I know of quite a few Atheists and Agnostics who do the same. Atheists in my opinion have tried to take away the idea of a Merry Christmas from me for years. ''
To my best knowledge, atheists spend lots of money on christmas presents, christmas trees and decorations, good food, and having a good time with their families and friends, just like most everybody else.
Are you maybe confusing atheists with politically correct idiots?
What Google has been doing there seems to me very highly unreasonable. As a search engine, Google should return what I am looking for, as best as it can. Now if I type in "BMW Germany", what do you think I am looking for? For that search, BMW's German webpage should come first, no matter what points some stupid ranking algorithm gives them.
Where this is getting completely bizarre, making Google useless, is when you try to search for a specific hotel. If I type in the name of a hotel and the town, Google should first of all give me the webpage of that hotel. It doesn't. It gives me thirty different links to agencies trying to flog off hotels at cheaper prices, even if they cannot even offer that specific hotel! This is complete madness.
'' He's trashing the game he's working on. What boss would put up with that?
The kind of boss that is open to negative opinions -- a rare, but very powerful beast. ''
When you look at your companies products, you have to realise: It is not your job to praise them or to damn them (in public), that is what you have marketing people for. They can take anything, and talk it up to be the best invention since sliced bread. Your competitor's marketing people can do the same thing.
Often you compare your view of your own product with what your competitor's marketing people say about their product. Your own product is never, ever as good as what your competitor's marketing says about their product! That doesn't mean your product isn't better than theirs, just that you haven't done the proper comparison.
Many developers have to suffer through alpha and beta versions that are not nearly as good as the final product, they suffer through bugfixes that expose them to the worst side of the product, that many customers will never notice. So as a developer, you should never tell your opinion to the public. Not only are you not very good at selling it, because that isn't your job, you also have a much too negative view of it.