Presumably they are not obligated to do upgrades; however, I would imagine that if they choose to do so that they can build that into the "cost based rate", just so long as the cost is amortized across all the customers, not just the 3rd party's customers.
3 students, a couple of all-nighters, and a case of mountain dew do not land you good deals with publishers. That requires time and wooing and people that the publishers will find credible (i.e., someone fairly senior with experience in the publishing industry). It'd be lovely if the world would always just bow down for a good idea, but that's just not how it works. So if you figure that they probably had to invest on servers and demo hardware, some credible publishing relations team (figure 2 or 3 people at ~100-150k per year) and probably some other management (lawyer, accounting/finance), etc., office space, travel to publishers and/or book fairs...you start to see where the money goes. I don't know anything about their specific company, but I was in another company doing work in the electronic library space another life ago, so I would not be surprised if the money went towards exactly the sorts of things I mention. And it's not even being spent wantonly, it's just sometimes it takes money to make money.
I'm certain, nonetheless, that there are bound to be details of the system as a whole (not just the flight-oriented parts) where someone might say, "Oh, that's kind of an ingenious way of fitting X into Y, that can be useful for my [some other project, very possibly not aircraft related]". Certainly nothing "needs" to be open-sourced, but if it saves a few people reinventing a wheel, that's valuable. And I can't see what substantial downside there is to doing it (since no one is trying to capitalize on the design any more), so really any value at all derived from doing it is a good argument for doing it.
That's taking a rather narrow view of what benefits can result from open-source. If they open sourced the whole design, who's to say what aspect of the design someone might learn something useful from in doing some other project. I'm quite certain there are parts of the design where engineers solved a particular problem in a way which could be applicable or instructive to any number of other engineers, not just aircraft engineers working on a supersonic civil aircraft. The value of open source isn't merely that it's a pre-built solution to a problem; but that you can examine and learn from all the aspects of how the problem is solved.
which would also be a funny result...look at all these books that only cost 1 penny! The charge more competitor isn't really that strange...they're probably not maintaining any stock and need to go buy the book when ever they make a sale...so they have to charge more to provide room for buying the book elsewhere + some profit. Isn't going to get very many savvy shoppers who, say, price compare, but it could rope in some buyers who are in a hurry or aren't paying attention (of course, that's all assuming the prices stay at reasonable levels).
I'd say it's often more the fault of science reporters than scientists themselves. Nuances like "this is one possible answer based on the data we have" or "this could be an implication of this theory" don't make for nice, simple science articles and tv shows. So that nuance gets elided and what your left with is the true statement that "scientists say x" without the "but they also say that's just an educated guess".
The truth is that most scientists (there are of course exceptions) don't claim to have answers. They can say that the data points to this, or this is one possible explanation for why things are this way, etc. And then they adjust those statements when more data comes along which indicates things are not, in fact, that way. Faith, on the other hand, isn't predicated on data, it's sort of independent of data, by definition.
That's just idiotic. By that rubric, they should also be liable if something comes up in the search results that someone deems offensive. Because they're "publishing" the search results and the titles of all the pages found. Your logic means search engines can't exist. Congratulations on finding a way to ruin the internet.
Terms of Service almost certainly prohibit it. That, and evidence that they'll cut you off if they catch you violating those TOS would probably be enough "something in place" for the courts.
I think they still love the radio stations. They're just trying to open up new revenue streams. They're too foolish to realize that the blood their draining is ultimately their own, the just believe that they're hitting up the consumer....
My...favourite? laughable bit about that movie was how you knew a virus was working because the picture on the computer screen slowly defocused and dissolved. To be fair, a number of films have had ridiculous visuals for virus activity, but I think that is probably about at the top of the list for me.
Yes. Everything is potentially infringing by that rubric. If you can demonstrate a public-domain source for the information, I'd say you've done a lot more legwork than most submitters do to prove that the information they're adding to the site isn't infringing a copyright, so if they're going to delete that out of potential infringement, literally nothing is safe from that protectionist red-herring.
I dunno, while on the one hand I do believe you have a point for someone who writes a great novel at 20 and lives to 90...I view it as helping the family of an author who, say, publishes a book at age 30, with young kids, and then dies tragically, soon after, before the work has gained popularity. I don't think it's unreasonable that those kids should get some of the benefit they would have gotten if their parent had not died at a young age.
Of course, I don't know how either scheme would deal with a posthumous work (particularly a one-off like A Confederacy of Dunces).
We don't really know who all will be culled. But, lets suppose they bet the farm on Android. Is their current stable of Symbian with some Meego developers going to all make that transition? Probably not. They'd be gutting their software division and replacing it with new people. And they'd keep ones they identified as valuable that were able and ready to make a transition. Any major OS change is going to result in gutting their current staff of developers. In this case, they need fewer hires to move forward b/c they're not having to fully replace the organization up front. They *could* hire what they need, and reorganize and prepare a new organization for the future. And from what I've read, their current organization needed that anyway, it sounds like it was very badly organized...even if they were going to make no changes at all in OS strategy, they still sound like they needed to drastically reorganize the software house. So...yes, it sucks for the developers. And I wouldn't want to have to make that decision. But the similarity is there, the similarity being that Apple used that money and commitment from MS as a lifeline to get through a difficult stretch after the company had been badly managed and then they got back to a stronger position where they didn't need MS. I don't know what's in Elop's head, but I wouldn't be surprised if he, or at least members of the board, view this as a similar lifeline to get through a difficult stretch and get back to a healthier, stronger position.
and HTC and Motorola and Samsung...I think the other players are either playing for the whole market, or a niche, but it's not like there's a non-crowded segment that I see. And you can't exactly bet your entire firm on just making high-end Android handsets. They're not a Japanese conglomerate with 18 other product divisions to fall back on if they make a bad bet and need a year or two to regroup and go in a different direction....
No, (giving the benefit of the doubt) Elop decided, along with the board, to use MS as a bridge to their future. You may recall that Steve Jobs did something very similar once upon a time....
Except that I'm not arguing that their competitors have some losing position. Dell argued that Apple was, essentially, a sideshow. I'm arguing that Nokia has painted themselves into sideshow box, and that they need to regroup and then come out of it. And that this is a reasonable stopgap between now and then. In essence, I'm arguing this is much more akin to Steve Jobs inking a deal with Microsoft to help save the company. Or did you forget that part of the story?
- margin - can be higher b/c the market is less crowded. And b/c the market will skew business rather than consumer. - wp7 will have more of a developer community than a more proprietary solution. what they really need is breadth of support. of COURSE android would have even more of a community, but...i think it's a tradeoff for getting to be the dominant player on the lower tier os. maybe i'm smoking something to believe that there will be some people who will choose to develop for microsoft's os, but i never would have expected.NET to be much of a player, and i learned a few things from watching that play out.
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably they are not obligated to do upgrades; however, I would imagine that if they choose to do so that they can build that into the "cost based rate", just so long as the cost is amortized across all the customers, not just the 3rd party's customers.
There are *non* fanboi's who own 'em?
It's got to be the most valuable and sought-after certification I can think of.
3 students, a couple of all-nighters, and a case of mountain dew do not land you good deals with publishers. That requires time and wooing and people that the publishers will find credible (i.e., someone fairly senior with experience in the publishing industry). It'd be lovely if the world would always just bow down for a good idea, but that's just not how it works. So if you figure that they probably had to invest on servers and demo hardware, some credible publishing relations team (figure 2 or 3 people at ~100-150k per year) and probably some other management (lawyer, accounting/finance), etc., office space, travel to publishers and/or book fairs...you start to see where the money goes. I don't know anything about their specific company, but I was in another company doing work in the electronic library space another life ago, so I would not be surprised if the money went towards exactly the sorts of things I mention. And it's not even being spent wantonly, it's just sometimes it takes money to make money.
I'm certain, nonetheless, that there are bound to be details of the system as a whole (not just the flight-oriented parts) where someone might say, "Oh, that's kind of an ingenious way of fitting X into Y, that can be useful for my [some other project, very possibly not aircraft related]". Certainly nothing "needs" to be open-sourced, but if it saves a few people reinventing a wheel, that's valuable. And I can't see what substantial downside there is to doing it (since no one is trying to capitalize on the design any more), so really any value at all derived from doing it is a good argument for doing it.
That's taking a rather narrow view of what benefits can result from open-source. If they open sourced the whole design, who's to say what aspect of the design someone might learn something useful from in doing some other project. I'm quite certain there are parts of the design where engineers solved a particular problem in a way which could be applicable or instructive to any number of other engineers, not just aircraft engineers working on a supersonic civil aircraft. The value of open source isn't merely that it's a pre-built solution to a problem; but that you can examine and learn from all the aspects of how the problem is solved.
which would also be a funny result...look at all these books that only cost 1 penny! The charge more competitor isn't really that strange...they're probably not maintaining any stock and need to go buy the book when ever they make a sale...so they have to charge more to provide room for buying the book elsewhere + some profit. Isn't going to get very many savvy shoppers who, say, price compare, but it could rope in some buyers who are in a hurry or aren't paying attention (of course, that's all assuming the prices stay at reasonable levels).
You mean the ones where people enjoy each other's company without discussing just how big their iq-peen is? Mayhap you're correct, sir.
I bet you're a real treat at parties, so full of bonhomie and fraternal good will towards your fellow man.
I'd say it's often more the fault of science reporters than scientists themselves. Nuances like "this is one possible answer based on the data we have" or "this could be an implication of this theory" don't make for nice, simple science articles and tv shows. So that nuance gets elided and what your left with is the true statement that "scientists say x" without the "but they also say that's just an educated guess".
The truth is that most scientists (there are of course exceptions) don't claim to have answers. They can say that the data points to this, or this is one possible explanation for why things are this way, etc. And then they adjust those statements when more data comes along which indicates things are not, in fact, that way. Faith, on the other hand, isn't predicated on data, it's sort of independent of data, by definition.
That's just idiotic. By that rubric, they should also be liable if something comes up in the search results that someone deems offensive. Because they're "publishing" the search results and the titles of all the pages found. Your logic means search engines can't exist. Congratulations on finding a way to ruin the internet.
Terms of Service almost certainly prohibit it. That, and evidence that they'll cut you off if they catch you violating those TOS would probably be enough "something in place" for the courts.
Well, at least they've got the Japanese Miracle to help clean up the radiation?
I think they still love the radio stations. They're just trying to open up new revenue streams. They're too foolish to realize that the blood their draining is ultimately their own, the just believe that they're hitting up the consumer....
My...favourite? laughable bit about that movie was how you knew a virus was working because the picture on the computer screen slowly defocused and dissolved. To be fair, a number of films have had ridiculous visuals for virus activity, but I think that is probably about at the top of the list for me.
Being a grammar 'natzi' apparently being distinct from being a spelling nazi... ;)
Yes. Everything is potentially infringing by that rubric. If you can demonstrate a public-domain source for the information, I'd say you've done a lot more legwork than most submitters do to prove that the information they're adding to the site isn't infringing a copyright, so if they're going to delete that out of potential infringement, literally nothing is safe from that protectionist red-herring.
I dunno, while on the one hand I do believe you have a point for someone who writes a great novel at 20 and lives to 90...I view it as helping the family of an author who, say, publishes a book at age 30, with young kids, and then dies tragically, soon after, before the work has gained popularity. I don't think it's unreasonable that those kids should get some of the benefit they would have gotten if their parent had not died at a young age.
Of course, I don't know how either scheme would deal with a posthumous work (particularly a one-off like A Confederacy of Dunces).
We don't really know who all will be culled. But, lets suppose they bet the farm on Android. Is their current stable of Symbian with some Meego developers going to all make that transition? Probably not. They'd be gutting their software division and replacing it with new people. And they'd keep ones they identified as valuable that were able and ready to make a transition. Any major OS change is going to result in gutting their current staff of developers. In this case, they need fewer hires to move forward b/c they're not having to fully replace the organization up front. They *could* hire what they need, and reorganize and prepare a new organization for the future. And from what I've read, their current organization needed that anyway, it sounds like it was very badly organized...even if they were going to make no changes at all in OS strategy, they still sound like they needed to drastically reorganize the software house. So...yes, it sucks for the developers. And I wouldn't want to have to make that decision. But the similarity is there, the similarity being that Apple used that money and commitment from MS as a lifeline to get through a difficult stretch after the company had been badly managed and then they got back to a stronger position where they didn't need MS. I don't know what's in Elop's head, but I wouldn't be surprised if he, or at least members of the board, view this as a similar lifeline to get through a difficult stretch and get back to a healthier, stronger position.
and HTC and Motorola and Samsung...I think the other players are either playing for the whole market, or a niche, but it's not like there's a non-crowded segment that I see. And you can't exactly bet your entire firm on just making high-end Android handsets. They're not a Japanese conglomerate with 18 other product divisions to fall back on if they make a bad bet and need a year or two to regroup and go in a different direction....
No, (giving the benefit of the doubt) Elop decided, along with the board, to use MS as a bridge to their future. You may recall that Steve Jobs did something very similar once upon a time....
Except that I'm not arguing that their competitors have some losing position. Dell argued that Apple was, essentially, a sideshow. I'm arguing that Nokia has painted themselves into sideshow box, and that they need to regroup and then come out of it. And that this is a reasonable stopgap between now and then. In essence, I'm arguing this is much more akin to Steve Jobs inking a deal with Microsoft to help save the company. Or did you forget that part of the story?
Even if you're right, FOX News is the most popular news station in the US. Don't underestimate the market value of fear.
- margin - can be higher b/c the market is less crowded. And b/c the market will skew business rather than consumer. .NET to be much of a player, and i learned a few things from watching that play out.
- wp7 will have more of a developer community than a more proprietary solution. what they really need is breadth of support. of COURSE android would have even more of a community, but...i think it's a tradeoff for getting to be the dominant player on the lower tier os. maybe i'm smoking something to believe that there will be some people who will choose to develop for microsoft's os, but i never would have expected
My first reaction was that it was rather unseemly...but I really think there is more to it, that it's a well-reasoned decision.