One time someone answered "because people would buy an imported copy of Windows and pay less for it". Yeah, right. I'd love to see an american with their brand-new cheap copy of Windows, in Spanish. Or some indic language even.
That isn't a problem. You can customize the languages in Windows (and lots of people use English Windows in non-English-speaking countries, like my own). Now, Microsoft might prevent this sort of 'problem' (a problem only for Microsoft) by technical means, that is, somewhat like DVDs. However, DVDs have hardware suited for the task (different hardware in different regions), PCs don't, so you need to do something more complex. Which leaves the door open to circumvention, for example, telling the computer that you are in the US when you aren't. Furthermore, for Microsoft to prevent selling Windows across borders may violate free-trade laws (but IANAL).
So, there are reasons why Microsoft don't just sell the same product for cheap. It would hurt their bottom line. And as a monopolist, there is really nothing to prevent them from doing so in the harshest way possible.
By definition identical circumstances are identical.
You didn't respond to what I said about this. To reiterate: does identical imply the same composition, at the same time, at the same location? If so, then 'identical' is only possible between one object and itself. This is a tricky point.
I agree with you that determinism appears to govern the physical world (ignoring QM). Indeed, any world-view should not ignore that. Most modern-day philosophers don't, in fact.
"Free will" means at some level you have a choice and can make a decision of your own volition. As if somehow your thought process is not the result of the physical state of your brain
As I said, this is only one possible way to define 'free will', and furthermore, needs clarification. What does 'choice' mean? 'Own volition'? Perhaps to you it seems that these cannot be the result of a physical brain; to some philosophers, there is no such problem at all (see, for example, Spinoza, Leibniz).
Perhaps some layperson might commit the fallacy you mention. But I didn't see anyone doing it in this thread, and as I say, most serious philosophers don't either.
Anyone with who is physically identical to you in an identical situation (with the requisite identical past experiences) would do exactly the same thing as you are doing right now and at every moment from now until you're dead.
That assumes that it is possible to have two separate physically identical systems, and that identical systems behave the same way. Many assumptions are made in that sentence. For example,
Perhaps the laws of physics are not translation-invariant? That is, perhaps just by being in two different locations means the systems are different enough to behave differently. (This means that two truly identical systems must be in the same location, i.e., to be the same system.) Now, most physicists assume physics is in fact translation-invariant - but this is a working hypothesis, which might be altered by observations. (Note: everything here is also true for time-invariance.)
Identical systems might behave differently if nature is governed (in part) by random processes. This, in fact, is implied by quantum mechanics. While quantum effects are virtually negligible for large systems, they can still have an effect.
Free will, even if it were relevant anywhere outside of philosophy, does not exist.
'Free will' is a concept human beings have discussed for thousands of years; much of that discussion was how to define free will. You seem to go by the "Free will = capability of identical systems to do something different in the same situation" definition, which some scientists seem to like. And that is fine. But there are other ways to define it (Hume, for example, had a popular definition. Look on Wikipedia if you are curious). This then becomes a discussion about definitions, which is to say, philosophy.
When you want to determine the motion of a 2-body system, you need physics. When you want to discuss definitions of terms thousands of years old, you need philosophy (once you settle on a definition, physics might then be of help, of course).
We're currently eating every day food additives many claim cause cancer. But there's no way to prove it, since causing cancer in test human subjects is illegal.
Just consider: since testing those substances is illegal, thousands upon thousands probably die from cancer eating basically poisonous food we distribute in our food chains.
Why is testing these substances illegal? Of course it's legal, and of course it is possible to prove whether these substances are carcinogenic or not.
For example, you can conduct a double-blind study on people, where you give them a few meals a week, some of which contain the substance and some of which don't. Then you can compare cancer rates for the two populations. Simple. All it requires is time and money.
Deliberately causing cancer in humans is unethical, yes. But if a substance is not known to cause cancer, then testing it can't be unethical, can it? And that is in fact how medical research works.
The XBOX is indeed much easier to find a 'cult' in, but I actually do see Microsoft 'cultists'.
For example, on Ars Technica you can find them on the message boards. They swear by anything out of Redmond, they consider all Microsoft competitors (Apple, Linux, etc.) to be pathetic and hopeless, and they justify every business decision made by billg and steveb as sheer genius. You see these people arguing the merits of OOXML and the detriments of ODF, for example.
But naturally you don't see them on sites like Slashdot.
it would be cheaper to pay them off than to go to court and defeat them there
What? Paying them off would invite every other DRM-wannabee startup to sue them as well. That's the worst solution. Far better to take them to court, demolish them, and avoid future problems.
But since they know that, perhaps their claim isn't as unwinnable as it seems. I admit at first glance I thought it must be some kind of joke, but there might be some details that we are unaware of (the Forbes article is very brief). Perhaps there were negotiations to use their product, and those were abandoned in bad faith in some manner? Or perhaps they did find a legal loophole to sue about? Who knows. Should be interesting to watch.
If you are implying Wine always requires tweaking, then I completely disagree. I run (sadly, I have to) two Windows apps on Linux: utorrent and Internet Explorer. Both run great on Wine, and I have not tweaked anything at all.
I hear that Wine needs some fiddling with for certain apps. But certainly not all. Kudos to the Wine devs!
Under the current system big companies wait for smaller companies to become profitable and then they pounce. If one company sues another for patent infringement they should be obligated to sue all infringers.
Sure you thought that one through? By what you're suggesting, only the very largest corporations would be able to assert patents, because small players couldn't afford it. This would make the patent system even worse: in essence, only really big companies could own patents (smaller companies could own them, but not use them, so they may as well not own them at all).
The patent system is bad enough as it is, please don't give them any ideas how to make it worse.
I am also curious about Solaris's desire to go GPL. If that ever happened, Solaris will most likely be cannibalized into Linux - and Solaris will die a slow death.
Actually the opposite is true. If OpenSolaris goes GPL3, then they can use some Linux code (the "GPL 2 or above" code, which is quite a lot), but not vice versa. So only OpenSolaris would gain from going GPL3, not Linux, unless Linux goes GPL3 as well - which may happen in the more distant future. But meanwhile OpenSolaris will be able to utilize a lot of Linux code to get ahead.
I mean, they do a lot of development, and they are the OSS company most trusted by Fortune 500's, but I think they lost their leadership position to Mark Shuttleworth and Ubuntu.
You're joking, right? I mean, I'm using Ubuntu right now to post this, but Ubuntu are still getting action mostly with enthusiasts like me (and perhaps you). Corporate/enterprise users are virtually all using Red Hat, and Red Hat give them an excellent product (with a quite recent release full of new features).
How do they compare? Sun's system is running on the OpenMoko hardware (FIC Neo 1973), i.e., they are one and the same. You can see it clearly from the pictures: OpenMoko Neo 1973 vs. new Sun offering. Plainly this is the exact same hardware.
It's not the number - it's the context of the number. Yes, I can use this number for my WEP key. I can print it on my T-shirt, print it on toilet paper and wipe my ass with it. I can do whatever you want with this number so long as I don't identify it as the decryption key for YOUR encrypted data.
Absolutely wrong. Context is not important at all here. According to what you say, I can post the DeCSS code, so long as I don't say what it is? (DeCSS and the AACS key are both treated the same under the DMCA's non-circumvention clauses.)
Of course I can't. What you say sounds reasonable in theory, but the letter of the law mentions no 'context' requirement.
"Proprietary solutions and vendor lock-in are also dead ends"
Or... not.
Using Java solutions over.NET because you have a stick up your ass is a little silly.
That's all good and well until you get shafted by Microsoft. Somewhere along the line you may want to have your app work/be served by a different platform. With.Net, that may be impossible, and you may end up (1) paying more than you should while (2) reaching fewer potential customers.
I do have a problem with Microsoft getting something for every PC sold with Linux.
Well, me too. But the problem is the US legal system, really - note that Fraunhofer, Alcatel and likely Novell and IBM make money from every Windows PC sold. Merely as a simple consequence of the current patent system. Blame the legislators and those that lobbied for it (which includes Microsoft, of course).
Anyhow, the real issue is that Microsoft see Linux as a rising force in the industry. They are therefore moving to profit from Linux as best they can; they want 'in' on every big Linux deal. Ironic, in a way, but really quite simple.
Ok, I agree to your correction, but do note that I said he violated copyright because he was willing to admit it. That is, there is no disagreement on the facts; the issue is only whether to extradite him or not.
I don't know much about Australian internal politics, but in the overall picture I think you are right: the Australian government is at fault here. Why give him up?
Now, the guy violated copyright law - Australian copyright law, as mentioned in TFA,
[Griffiths] indicated that he would be willing to plead guilty to a breach of Australian copyright law
However, since the unlawful act was carried out in Australia, I have no idea why he can't be sentenced there. The US argument is presumably that the copyright owners are in the US, but so what? If I injure a German person while he visits France, should I be extradited to Germany from France? This whole issue just seems bizarre.
I think he's trying to push the internet into a bittorrent/usenet type of model.
Yeah, this was sort of my reaction as I watched the talk - it does sound like Bittorrent. Basically instead of everyone fetching a page from a server, the server acts like a sort of 'permanent seed', while the data can be had from any location on the 'net where the data is located. Then it is hash-checked, and so forth. Quite like Bittorrent, but with a single worldwide tracker for everything... ok, perhaps I'm taking the analogy too far. Anyhow, an interesting talk.
P.S. Am I the only one annoyed by the quality of subtitles? Not that I need to read them, but when people talk at normal speed I tend to read them anyhow out of boredom. Anyhow, the subtitles were apparently written by an uneducated nongeek, judging by the errors.
The Brazilian government could have done this in good faith and entered into negotiations to drive down the prize.
Which they of course did. (This isn't mentioned in TFA, but then TFA isn't the best summary; check out other news sources. If you can't find it, reply to this and I'll find it for you.)
I'm not saying who is right here, perhaps the negotiations were in bad faith on one of the sides, perhaps not. I don't know. But Brazil did negotiate first.
Indeed, TFA says something completely different than the Slashdot summary. It says that.Mac and Google datahosting are basically the same as a 'home server' solution. Furthermore, it is quickly obvious that the opposite of what TFA says is true: in 10 years, everyone will use a.Mac/Google datahosting solution, and not a home server, since
1. The functionality is essentially the same, given broadband, the only difference being problems when the connection is down. Paying for a physical home server and maintaining it more than offsets that cost.
2. Home users don't have the same misgivings that corporations have with hosting their data remotely, especially if the remote hosting solution is more convenient. And it will be. So essentially the only argument against remote hosting is eliminated for home users.
Google's got the right approach, Microsoft with Home Server will be proven wrong. My 2 cents.
Rape is literally penetration. If there is none, it's battery, harassment or assault. So no, there is no online rape.
Yep, you've pretty much got it right. But there might be nuances, for example some jurisdictions may consider non-penetrative sex (oral sex, say) as rape. Yet, to my knowledge, rape always involves physical action, and therefore I think you are correct here.
TFA, btw, is really wrong about the issue. He finishes with "It's a shitty thing to do to someone. But it's not a crime." Well of course it is a crime - just not rape! I presume most legal systems would see forced sexual activity online as some form of sexual harassment, especially if it was towards a minor. (Of course, 'forced' is somewhat limited, since a person can shut off the computer, etc. Still, there is plenty of potential for trauma before the person can hit the off switch, so this doesn't completely change things.)
Now, this got me to thinking. How about if a person - call him/her X - posts the AACS number, but encrypted with some new key K. Then replicating that key, K, is an offense, as it circumvents a digital lock, meant to protect X's encrypted data. So if K is published, person X can sue, just like the AACS can sue right now. Now we get to the tricky part.
Let's say that it is public knowledge that the encrypted data is, in fact, the AACS key. No-one can legally (in the US) test if that is true! Now, person X won't go around suing people, of course. But the AACS-LA can't sue person X for publishing the AACS key, since if they do that, in order to prove that the encrypted data is, in fact, the AACS key, they need to break the law, i.e. violate the DMCA, which is exactly what they would want to sue person X for doing...
Make sense? Possibly there is some loophole I am missing...
What do the legal issues with AOL have to do with not having Jingle support yet? Sure, the AOL debacle prevented releases, but no reason not to develop meanwhile...
Slashdot Mirror
So, there are reasons why Microsoft don't just sell the same product for cheap. It would hurt their bottom line. And as a monopolist, there is really nothing to prevent them from doing so in the harshest way possible.
I agree with you that determinism appears to govern the physical world (ignoring QM). Indeed, any world-view should not ignore that. Most modern-day philosophers don't, in fact. As I said, this is only one possible way to define 'free will', and furthermore, needs clarification. What does 'choice' mean? 'Own volition'? Perhaps to you it seems that these cannot be the result of a physical brain; to some philosophers, there is no such problem at all (see, for example, Spinoza, Leibniz).
Perhaps some layperson might commit the fallacy you mention. But I didn't see anyone doing it in this thread, and as I say, most serious philosophers don't either.
- Perhaps the laws of physics are not translation-invariant? That is, perhaps just by being in two different locations means the systems are different enough to behave differently. (This means that two truly identical systems must be in the same location, i.e., to be the same system.) Now, most physicists assume physics is in fact translation-invariant - but this is a working hypothesis, which might be altered by observations. (Note: everything here is also true for time-invariance.)
-
Identical systems might behave differently if nature is governed (in part) by random processes. This, in fact, is implied by quantum mechanics. While quantum effects are virtually negligible for large systems, they can still have an effect.
'Free will' is a concept human beings have discussed for thousands of years; much of that discussion was how to define free will. You seem to go by the "Free will = capability of identical systems to do something different in the same situation" definition, which some scientists seem to like. And that is fine. But there are other ways to define it (Hume, for example, had a popular definition. Look on Wikipedia if you are curious). This then becomes a discussion about definitions, which is to say, philosophy.When you want to determine the motion of a 2-body system, you need physics. When you want to discuss definitions of terms thousands of years old, you need philosophy (once you settle on a definition, physics might then be of help, of course).
For example, you can conduct a double-blind study on people, where you give them a few meals a week, some of which contain the substance and some of which don't. Then you can compare cancer rates for the two populations. Simple. All it requires is time and money.
Deliberately causing cancer in humans is unethical, yes. But if a substance is not known to cause cancer, then testing it can't be unethical, can it? And that is in fact how medical research works.
The XBOX is indeed much easier to find a 'cult' in, but I actually do see Microsoft 'cultists'.
For example, on Ars Technica you can find them on the message boards. They swear by anything out of Redmond, they consider all Microsoft competitors (Apple, Linux, etc.) to be pathetic and hopeless, and they justify every business decision made by billg and steveb as sheer genius. You see these people arguing the merits of OOXML and the detriments of ODF, for example.
But naturally you don't see them on sites like Slashdot.
But since they know that, perhaps their claim isn't as unwinnable as it seems. I admit at first glance I thought it must be some kind of joke, but there might be some details that we are unaware of (the Forbes article is very brief). Perhaps there were negotiations to use their product, and those were abandoned in bad faith in some manner? Or perhaps they did find a legal loophole to sue about? Who knows. Should be interesting to watch.
If you are implying Wine always requires tweaking, then I completely disagree. I run (sadly, I have to) two Windows apps on Linux: utorrent and Internet Explorer. Both run great on Wine, and I have not tweaked anything at all.
I hear that Wine needs some fiddling with for certain apps. But certainly not all. Kudos to the Wine devs!
The patent system is bad enough as it is, please don't give them any ideas how to make it worse.
How do they compare? Sun's system is running on the OpenMoko hardware (FIC Neo 1973), i.e., they are one and the same. You can see it clearly from the pictures: OpenMoko Neo 1973 vs. new Sun offering. Plainly this is the exact same hardware.
I wonder why that wasn't in the Summary.
Of course I can't. What you say sounds reasonable in theory, but the letter of the law mentions no 'context' requirement.
Anyhow, the real issue is that Microsoft see Linux as a rising force in the industry. They are therefore moving to profit from Linux as best they can; they want 'in' on every big Linux deal. Ironic, in a way, but really quite simple.
Ok, I agree to your correction, but do note that I said he violated copyright because he was willing to admit it. That is, there is no disagreement on the facts; the issue is only whether to extradite him or not.
Now, the guy violated copyright law - Australian copyright law, as mentioned in TFA, However, since the unlawful act was carried out in Australia, I have no idea why he can't be sentenced there. The US argument is presumably that the copyright owners are in the US, but so what? If I injure a German person while he visits France, should I be extradited to Germany from France? This whole issue just seems bizarre.
P.S. Am I the only one annoyed by the quality of subtitles? Not that I need to read them, but when people talk at normal speed I tend to read them anyhow out of boredom. Anyhow, the subtitles were apparently written by an uneducated nongeek, judging by the errors.
I'm not saying who is right here, perhaps the negotiations were in bad faith on one of the sides, perhaps not. I don't know. But Brazil did negotiate first.
Indeed, TFA says something completely different than the Slashdot summary. It says that .Mac and Google datahosting are basically the same as a 'home server' solution. Furthermore, it is quickly obvious that the opposite of what TFA says is true: in 10 years, everyone will use a .Mac/Google datahosting solution, and not a home server, since
1. The functionality is essentially the same, given broadband, the only difference being problems when the connection is down. Paying for a physical home server and maintaining it more than offsets that cost.
2. Home users don't have the same misgivings that corporations have with hosting their data remotely, especially if the remote hosting solution is more convenient. And it will be. So essentially the only argument against remote hosting is eliminated for home users.
Google's got the right approach, Microsoft with Home Server will be proven wrong. My 2 cents.
Ok, glad to know I'm in good company. Thanks for the links, interesting stuff.
TFA, btw, is really wrong about the issue. He finishes with "It's a shitty thing to do to someone. But it's not a crime." Well of course it is a crime - just not rape! I presume most legal systems would see forced sexual activity online as some form of sexual harassment, especially if it was towards a minor. (Of course, 'forced' is somewhat limited, since a person can shut off the computer, etc. Still, there is plenty of potential for trauma before the person can hit the off switch, so this doesn't completely change things.)
That was very clever, I take my hat off to you.
Now, this got me to thinking. How about if a person - call him/her X - posts the AACS number, but encrypted with some new key K. Then replicating that key, K, is an offense, as it circumvents a digital lock, meant to protect X's encrypted data. So if K is published, person X can sue, just like the AACS can sue right now. Now we get to the tricky part.
Let's say that it is public knowledge that the encrypted data is, in fact, the AACS key. No-one can legally (in the US) test if that is true! Now, person X won't go around suing people, of course. But the AACS-LA can't sue person X for publishing the AACS key, since if they do that, in order to prove that the encrypted data is, in fact, the AACS key, they need to break the law, i.e. violate the DMCA, which is exactly what they would want to sue person X for doing...
Make sense? Possibly there is some loophole I am missing...
What do the legal issues with AOL have to do with not having Jingle support yet? Sure, the AOL debacle prevented releases, but no reason not to develop meanwhile...