Your next TV might come with a Linux OS inside, does cable, Internet, TV including HDTV, 500 GB storage with NFS/IPSec/Wireless, stereo with 30" wide flat panel for under $999. No Microsoft here... not needed.
I would buy it.
Sounds like a very good idea. I would pay for it too... Only I would prefer an Aqua OS X.
Is that by default the search box kept pinging Google's server for suggestions when you typed something in the search box. (I haven't seen where it pings for suggestions when the default search engine is not Google's). I can't understand why Firefox developers would leave it turned on by default.
Any way browser.search.suggest.enabled is where this can be turned off. Just search for Filter: "suggest" in about:config tab.
Now my (conspiracy) theory is that the suggestion redirect to Google is paid for by Google. Like it is (publicly known) for the searches in the Search box.
I wonder how Novell's stock price will respond. I guess it will probably go up since stock traders are pretty clueless and probably eat up everything Jaffe says.
If something was falsely GPL'd, for instance someone actually stole code from a company and put it on GPL (like what SCO was trying to prove about some Linux header files), would that product be under copyright or patent infringement? I think it would be.
I don't think the Linux community at large would be foolish enough to incorporate Suse tech that wasn't under the GPL, so I don't think MS could make that stick.
And I don't think all of code in the whole of the Linux system as is currently sold (or distributed) is not infringing on any mickey mouse patents that people like Nathan Myhrvold would aggregate.
And, really, if the Linux community at large did make that mistake, the only people they'd have to blame would be themselves, just like they would if they started incorporating other non-GPL code.
You mean I must now get used to patent violations like I have gotten to the bugs too?
I suppose it's not beyond reason that MS might want to try something like this and hope for the best in the courts, but it seems like really shaky ground, even for them.
I suppose the smart ass lawyers that M$ has accumulated have to show something for the dog biscuits that Bill throws at them.
I guess a measure of who and how many chickens would take the patent infringement bait.
I recall some Mr. Lawrence Lessig, (or is he a Dr. ?) that there is a huge sucking sound coming out of Mordor for most smart asses that he can generate. The rest go to Google.:-)
The music distribution industry has a problem with the CD format. And it is spelled R-I-P. I have heard of people who borrow music CDs from friends or libraries and steal content by RIPPING.
Nefarious DRM methods has bought Sony a lot of trouble and a deserved acid response from the media and public. ( I still think Sony got away lightly. Imagine an art gallery selling paintings which can leave a hole in your wall to allow the whole wide world to come in and out as they please into your house. )
So iTunes etc. enabled DRM protected music is a convenient means for the distribution companies to protect their copyrights.
A market economy where the government's only function is to protect the individual rights of its citizen and nothing else is the best form of governance. This is the only way to bring about the greatest innovations, in the shortest time. This brings about fastest progress and hence benefits all the members of such a society the most.
A monopoly by definition has no competition. Anti-trust laws prevent monopolies. Furthermore monopolies often use unfair and anti-competitive practices to squash competition that have absolutely no benefit to the consumer. For example, Standard Oil used train agreements and other unfair business practices against competitors. Microsoft specifically putin instructions to prevent DR-DOS from being used with Windows 3.1. Both practices relied on the dominance of Standard Oil and Microsoft in their respective markets.
Wrong. In a market economy there can never be a monopoly "by definition". There can only be very very good competitors who have deservedly got a very high proportion of market. Do you think if Microsoft prices its Windows software at 2000$, that any customer would still not get Ubuntu on their machines? If they can do that then it is not a monopoly.
If I were to sell you something, should I be dictated that I not be trying things to sell you more value for the same price? If so then such situations enforce anti-competitiveness for me and force me to become less competitive. And this is generally bad for the market economy and human progress and growth. May be a boon for my competitors though, as they don't have to play harder.
A horrible argument. If I'm competing with you in creating a product in market A, why should your standing in market B influence this? This is anti-competitive. To make an analogy, suppose we are to run a race (100 meter dash), but the condition is that I have to do a series of sommersaults and cartwheels before I can leave the starting line. The relative merit of our products (our ability to complete the 100 meter dash) is obscured by the fact you have an unfair advantage. My product may be superior and of better benefit to the customers, but you still "win".
The argument is may be horrible to Netscape but it is the reality, and beneficial to everyone. Markets are not islands or in a perfect vacuum, they exist along with all the products and interlinked. Let me give another analogy to yours about the race. Should olympic sprinters be crippled in order to race against handicapped people, so that the race is not "anti-competitve"?? Or should we rather give the sprinters (even if there is only one) to run full steam ahead towards the ribbon, and let other people who are cannot compete in sprinting with Olympic sprinters, to do whatever they can do best.
About why subjectivity of any law, let alone anti-competitive law, is a house of horrors, read the history on any dictatorship nation.
>>Owners of property have a right under our Constitution to sell thier property to another consenting party for whatever price they choose
>Wrong. Apparently you've never heard of eminent domain. Or of the history and rationale behind anti-trust laws. Both limit property rights in the United States.
Anti-trust laws are the biggest impediment to the growth of progress, on the basis that they stifle competition, and create unnecessary burden on companies and the judicial system.
If a default monopoly like Microsoft gives away browsers free in competition to a Netscape who charges for it, then it is good for consumers who use Windows, because it them gives more bang for their buck. This argument holds for long term as well, and the proof is the browser (Firefox) that I am using to post this.
There is and was no-one stopping Netscape to giveaway a whole operating system (Linux - Suse?) in competition to MS giving away only a browser for free.
A melt down of market(e.g. where a default monopoly gave something for free and got nothing for return (search engine ads?) ), or a default monopoly market (Windows operating system) are corrected by itself in a market system by more complex market players with advanced offerings (cost per action instead of cost per click???), and more innovative players (Apple Mac OSX). This way a market moves rapidly towards advanced offerings. Which is very good for consumers and for human progress as well.
A man would not compete against a bear with bare hands fully well knowing that he would lose. Then why should humans create unrealistic market conditions by means of highly subjective laws like Anti-trust, to enable a Netscape to poke a Microsoft without developing market potential for what it can compete for?
Re:Seems an obvious patent
on
Talking iPods
·
· Score: 1
That doesn't let off our dear patent office scot free for blatantly obvious techniques granted as "patents". Does it?
No one would do it now. But what if in a few years robots could digitize print content in a jiffy? Primitive search websites can already be built NOW using digital content easily.
Anyway my question is not regarding who does what and how but what reason justifies the original copy authorization, as in Google's case? And what mechanism can ensure that such vastly overriding permit(?) is not misused ??
Since posting this, I have received a reply from Mr. Lessig and his view is "fair use depends upon the use, not upon what is stored where. So in your example, if someone stores everything to read, that's more than the use Google is offering. If they store it to do the search google does. Then that's fine. "
Problem with that is how can this be monitored, once the original copy has been digitied and indexed without content creator's authorization? I think this angle has to be carefully considered before allowing Google or anybody else to make a copy without an explicit authorization from the content creator.
I saw your presentation on Google Book Search and Fair use on Google Video website. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5100194058 815018708 First I would like to say that the presentation was impressive and you have put across your points very well.
But I have one question about the Fair use argument that you put forth. This question is about the "Original copy authorization" argument to Google caching a digital version of huge number of in-copyright books from libraries. Tell me this, if Google today is permitted to cache digital copies of books from libraries for their reasons, what stops the general public from doing the same? After all it is not very hard to setup such a digital index for a few books. And if an individual sets-up a public website like Google for those few books then he would never need to buy any books as long as they can be cached from libraries for their "public" websites.
Now how is the scenario of individuals setting up public websites from cached books from libraries essentially different from Google doing the same in terms of fair use? Meanwhile in the guise of this fair use everybody would scan their favourite books, setup dummy Book search fronts and enjoy their digital content from libraries for free. What protection would Authors and content producers have from such misuse? Remember the rate at which technology is advancing would make such tasks effortless, as in most probability they already are.
I would love to hear your response to my question.
Another example of the Mac Cult, are the people who buy the Apple cinema views, when Dell is selling the same basic model for much cheaper. Why? Again, style and name.
Get some perspective here. 30 " Apple cinema displays come today for $2499, whereas the Dell ones are $2298. This is only about 8% or 200 bucks cheaper for a 2 grand piece of equipment. Moreover the Dell displays do not come with 2 firewire ports or compatibility with Apple systems. I would choose a Mac display anyday over DELL.
Was it 12 inches. Thats a lot to expand 1 million pixels to. See the specs in the faq page "Its current specifications are: 500MHz, 1GB, 1 Megapixel."
http://laptop.media.mit.edu/faq.html
Aim: To test the reader loyalty to slashdot. And or its method of business.
Method: Send in a dupe (A particularly noticeable one) and see if people remember and comment about it. Analyse the response for status and modify system accordingly.
Benefits: Yeilds a very good idea about reader loyalty trends.
Risks: Disgruntled users get bored and move over to other Discussion forums.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, you can connect even the iPods of today to a TV and get a beautiful real size playback.
Is that by default the search box kept pinging Google's server for suggestions when you typed something in the search box. (I haven't seen where it pings for suggestions when the default search engine is not Google's). I can't understand why Firefox developers would leave it turned on by default.
Any way browser.search.suggest.enabled is where this can be turned off. Just search for Filter: "suggest" in about:config tab.
Now my (conspiracy) theory is that the suggestion redirect to Google is paid for by Google. Like it is (publicly known) for the searches in the Search box.
I really like Paul Graham's view about great hackers and their aversion towards cubicles. Google may be a great company to work in with all their star hackers and what not, but it has not got its offices done right. For instance look at the Google's Australia office with the long rows of tables for their programmers.
Compare with the plush private offices that Microsoft provides to its developers developers developers.
As a side note, I had posted the links on this same topic some time ago, but can't seem to find it on slashdot now.
And lose 10% on your maximum query size?
--
Free software is great, and I really am a programmer who gets paid salary for my mortagage.
And I don't think all of code in the whole of the Linux system as is currently sold (or distributed) is not infringing on any mickey mouse patents that people like Nathan Myhrvold would aggregate.
You mean I must now get used to patent violations like I have gotten to the bugs too?
I suppose the smart ass lawyers that M$ has accumulated have to show something for the dog biscuits that Bill throws at them.
I guess a measure of who and how many chickens would take the patent infringement bait.
:-)
I recall some Mr. Lawrence Lessig, (or is he a Dr. ?) that there is a huge sucking sound coming out of Mordor for most smart asses that he can generate. The rest go to Google.
The music distribution industry has a problem with the CD format. And it is spelled R-I-P. I have heard of people who borrow music CDs from friends or libraries and steal content by RIPPING.
Nefarious DRM methods has bought Sony a lot of trouble and a deserved acid response from the media and public. ( I still think Sony got away lightly. Imagine an art gallery selling paintings which can leave a hole in your wall to allow the whole wide world to come in and out as they please into your house. )
So iTunes etc. enabled DRM protected music is a convenient means for the distribution companies to protect their copyrights.
I wonder if the Googleplex machines and its distributed systems have a throughput near this and if so, does it qualify for a supercomputer?
Here is an English translation of the page from Google. http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F %2Fwww.presence-pc.com%2Factualite%2Fftth-experien ce-18331%2F&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF -8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools
A democracy neither ensures that citizen are given only individual rights, nor that they are ensured. Also democracies allow inferior candidates to become presidents. And even worse, allows them to make spurious laws, and even more spurious laws setting back Amreican and human progress by many years.
Wrong. In a market economy there can never be a monopoly "by definition". There can only be very very good competitors who have deservedly got a very high proportion of market. Do you think if Microsoft prices its Windows software at 2000$, that any customer would still not get Ubuntu on their machines? If they can do that then it is not a monopoly. If I were to sell you something, should I be dictated that I not be trying things to sell you more value for the same price? If so then such situations enforce anti-competitiveness for me and force me to become less competitive. And this is generally bad for the market economy and human progress and growth. May be a boon for my competitors though, as they don't have to play harder.
The argument is may be horrible to Netscape but it is the reality, and beneficial to everyone. Markets are not islands or in a perfect vacuum, they exist along with all the products and interlinked. Let me give another analogy to yours about the race. Should olympic sprinters be crippled in order to race against handicapped people, so that the race is not "anti-competitve"?? Or should we rather give the sprinters (even if there is only one) to run full steam ahead towards the ribbon, and let other people who are cannot compete in sprinting with Olympic sprinters, to do whatever they can do best.
About why subjectivity of any law, let alone anti-competitive law, is a house of horrors, read the history on any dictatorship nation.
>>Owners of property have a right under our Constitution to sell thier property to another consenting party for whatever price they choose
>Wrong. Apparently you've never heard of eminent domain. Or of the history and rationale behind anti-trust laws. Both limit property rights in the United States.
Anti-trust laws are the biggest impediment to the growth of progress, on the basis that they stifle competition, and create unnecessary burden on companies and the judicial system.
If a default monopoly like Microsoft gives away browsers free in competition to a Netscape who charges for it, then it is good for consumers who use Windows, because it them gives more bang for their buck. This argument holds for long term as well, and the proof is the browser (Firefox) that I am using to post this.
There is and was no-one stopping Netscape to giveaway a whole operating system (Linux - Suse?) in competition to MS giving away only a browser for free.
A melt down of market(e.g. where a default monopoly gave something for free and got nothing for return (search engine ads?) ), or a default monopoly market (Windows operating system) are corrected by itself in a market system by more complex market players with advanced offerings (cost per action instead of cost per click???), and more innovative players (Apple Mac OSX). This way a market moves rapidly towards advanced offerings. Which is very good for consumers and for human progress as well.
A man would not compete against a bear with bare hands fully well knowing that he would lose. Then why should humans create unrealistic market conditions by means of highly subjective laws like Anti-trust, to enable a Netscape to poke a Microsoft without developing market potential for what it can compete for?
That doesn't let off our dear patent office scot free for blatantly obvious techniques granted as "patents". Does it?
What is more interesting is that I get a count of the number of google page users that have been allocated from the Google Index.
http://google.com/search?q=site%3Agooglepages.com "Results 1 - 100 of about 21,400 from googlepages.com for . (0.17 seconds)" just a few seconds back.
so about 21,400 users = about 21,400 user * 100 MB/user MBs = about 2140 GBs = about 2.14 TB
And a heck a lot of bandwidth too. Wonder what would happen when the AD goldrush trickles or dies down
No one would do it now. But what if in a few years robots could digitize print content in a jiffy? Primitive search websites can already be built NOW using digital content easily.
Anyway my question is not regarding who does what and how but what reason justifies the original copy authorization, as in Google's case? And what mechanism can ensure that such vastly overriding permit(?) is not misused ??
Since posting this, I have received a reply from Mr. Lessig and his view is "fair use depends upon the use, not upon what is stored where. So in your example, if someone stores everything to read, that's more than the use Google is offering. If they store it to do the search google does. Then that's fine. "
Problem with that is how can this be monitored, once the original copy has been digitied and indexed without content creator's authorization? I think this angle has to be carefully considered before allowing Google or anybody else to make a copy without an explicit authorization from the content creator.
Dear Mr Lessig,
8 815018708 First I would like to say that the presentation was impressive and you have put across your points very well.
I saw your presentation on Google Book Search and Fair use on Google Video website. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=510019405
But I have one question about the Fair use argument that you put forth. This question is about the "Original copy authorization" argument to Google caching a digital version of huge number of in-copyright books from libraries. Tell me this, if Google today is permitted to cache digital copies of books from libraries for their reasons, what stops the general public from doing the same? After all it is not very hard to setup such a digital index for a few books. And if an individual sets-up a public website like Google for those few books then he would never need to buy any books as long as they can be cached from libraries for their "public" websites.
Now how is the scenario of individuals setting up public websites from cached books from libraries essentially different from Google doing the same in terms of fair use? Meanwhile in the guise of this fair use everybody would scan their favourite books, setup dummy Book search fronts and enjoy their digital content from libraries for free. What protection would Authors and content producers have from such misuse? Remember the rate at which technology is advancing would make such tasks effortless, as in most probability they already are.
I would love to hear your response to my question.
wtih best regards,
Google Inc. reported revenues of $1.919 billion for the quarter ended Dec. 31 and $6.139 billion for the whole year according to Information Week
How much does 10M+ affect that one way or the other, I wonder?
30 " Apple cinema displays come today for $2499, whereas the Dell ones are $2298. This is only about 8% or 200 bucks cheaper for a 2 grand piece of equipment. Moreover the Dell displays do not come with 2 firewire ports or compatibility with Apple systems. I would choose a Mac display anyday over DELL.
http://thegooglist.blogspot.com/2005/12/opera-cfo- denies-google-acquisition.html
t tp%3A%2F%2Fchappaz.blogspot.com%2F2005%2F12%2Frume ur-google-achterait-opera.html&btnG=Search+Blogs
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=h
Was it 12 inches. Thats a lot to expand 1 million pixels to. See the specs in the faq page "Its current specifications are: 500MHz, 1GB, 1 Megapixel."
http://laptop.media.mit.edu/faq.html
they rented it for a ridiculously low amount like 99 cents?
I would be more than happy to view more than a few movies every month. Especially Red Mars and many other Sci fi flicks that I want to see again.
This was entered in Wikipedia only a few hours back.
Aim: To test the reader loyalty to slashdot. And or its method of business.
Method: Send in a dupe (A particularly noticeable one) and see if people remember and comment about it. Analyse the response for status and modify system accordingly.
Benefits: Yeilds a very good idea about reader loyalty trends.
Risks: Disgruntled users get bored and move over to other Discussion forums.