Sure, it is nice to know a President's stance on Stem Cell Research and the accelerating rate at which National Science Foundation budgets are being cut...
But equally important would be having a president who understands basic internet technology and whether they have intelligent opinions regarding the regulation thereof. It seems like there are a shortage of ladies and gentlemen in Washington who understand the latest technology. This would be helpful in Congress, too... because the aging Senators don't seem to be able to keep up with the time and young "with it" 20-30 year old candidates would help with adding much needed diversity in that branch of government.
A man jumps into bed, the scene fades, you see the morning light come in and the man wakes up. In reality, a few seconds passed, but the movie gave you the illusion of a night passing.
In my dreams, I actually just sit tight during the interludes where I need to take a nap and recover some energy. Dreaming of sleeping is the most awesome dream ever.
$2M for a working rocket spaceship
$2B for a half-assed video hosting site Youtube
I am the only one saddened by this?
I feel the same, but for a different reason. A Hummer that could drive 70 miles autonomously was worth $1 or 2 million. Landing a rocket on the Moon has GOT to pull in at least 8-figures. NASA/DARPA/Science is getting cheap these days.
WTF are you even talking about? I was talking about Google being a proprietary software company.
Google should release its source code because it runs on open source platforms? It would be nice...
Google makes a few changes to actual OSS, like this article is talking about, and they do release that code back to the community (they open source some internal projects, like GWT). But that's not the same as what runs on top of it. Yes, they fix bugs and minor other issues. Good for them. In addition to the base OSS products they use... there is a ton of proprietary code (which the GPP referenced).
By your logic, nobody should sell commercial software for Linux - it runs on an open platform, so it should be open! Who sells Open Source Software? Tell me! Most companies make their money selling support... Do you think anybody PAYS for a RHEL or Suse license WITHOUT getting the support contract?!?!?
Because development is free and companies should be able to make money off of work done by others! It is, and Google is. The initial development that went into MySQL didn't cost Google a penny. They spend a marginal amount now and "give" some of that back (gee, thanks). And yet, the advertising giant is making BILLIONS.
And anyway, what's a "meaningful competitor" who just uses code Google open sourced? Wouldn't they just be another Google running in separate datacenters? Would it be? Or would they be... better? It seems to me that creating a perfect clone of Google's global network wouldn't be worth it unless some additional improvement was added to the base product (i.e. search). Thus... "meaningful competition" and maybe some innovation in the search/advertising arena. Keep in mind... Google started out as a second fiddle to Yahoo and succeeded because their search algorithms were BETTER. These days, a "meaningful competitor" would need a whole suite of applications to be able to offer a competing product to Google. In the Operating System business, which is currently controlled (poorly) by a company who will remain nameless, the proprietary nature of this has lead to stagnation and backwards progress in recent years. Do you understand now, or were you trolling all along?
We don't distribute it, so we aren't required to submit the changes back.
We of course, try to contribute back all the changes we possibly can.
Ahh, the Google workaround for the GPL. Selling web-services that RUN Free Open Source Software and NOT selling software. You get to keep the really good changes to yourself. =P
Personally, I'd like to see Google put there code out there as GPL and risk having a meaningful competitor. The benefit of having some really useful software available for high school and college aged kids to learn from would be immeasurable. Also, the transparency and openness of this would be reminiscent of some of the advances made by Bell Labs in the 1970s.
There are no showers at my workplace, and you see where I'm going.:-(
I know a few friends who have showers at work, and if that is your biggest complaint it might be worth it to talk to HR and see if they can accommodate you. Of course, there are probably others in your office who would also benefit and you can try to rally a group of employees to request this rare benefit.
Who knows... the government might even offer a tax incentive to a business who encourages this to cut down on the social costs of high traffic, environmental harm, and the health costs that result from a population of lazy, automobile-reliant citizens (I am from America, where "fat" is a big problem).
Personally.. I like cables for hooking up video. Wireless is buggy, snoopable, power hungry, and hard to set up (with 4 transmitters and 4 receivers, how to you configure what displays where?)
Well said. Last Gen is better than Next Gen because it is easier to use, more reliable, more secure, and costs less in power consumption.
Pretty much the only advantage I see for this high bandwidth, line-of-sight 60 GHz protocol is situational awareness and communication for an army of infiltrating Terminator robots who might need to be able to receive and process gobs of data to kill us more efficiently.
Because of the limited availability and price, I have never been able to go see a professional football game (and I've lived within 20 minutes of my team's stadium all my life). It is the team's job to set reasonable prices so they can continue their business at a reasonable profit. If the New England Patriots maintained profit margins that were out of whack, then there would be an outcry (if not from the government, then from the media). That's part of free market... the business cannot treat customers unfairly, because the customers won't put up with it.
But the market for football tickets is a special case in certain markets where every game is always sold out. In these areas, the demand curve has a higher price than the supply curve. Scalpers can operate businesses from the differences in these curves, to their own benefit and to the benefit of the super-rich. These practices suck for fans who aren't super-rich. Meanwhile, the scalpers have a monopoly on season tickets which they hold. Year-after-year they reinforce their business by purchasing their seats and selling them. They have no intention of going to the games that they buy tickets for. They do it selfishly for their own economic gains. Meanwhile, fans who want to see the team they love are SOL. Note the word I used. Monopoly. It is illegal. The team has the right to disrupt after-market sales so that real fans can get the "supply" priced tickets.
Is it a perfect free-market? No. But it never is when the supply (60,000 seats per game) is so limited. Maybe economic theory needs qualifications for "fairness" to compliment these situations where a free-market necessitates a black market.
I think the goal of this patent is to provide protection for small, innovative organizations. IBM's bread-and-butter right now is selling its servers and software to these small companies and it would stand to reason that it is in IBM's best interest to protect a small company who is their customer.
Consider an example: A small player is developing technologies to enable the commercialization of space-flight. They hire IBM to provide technological support and services, but after two or three years of successful innovation this small company gets sued by a patent troll organization. Their ability to innovate would be stifled as management is forced to deal with the nasty legal issues. IBM could handle the case by using this patent to say STFU to the troll company (or at the very least by forcing them to identify real areas where innovative ideas have been stolen). Meanwhile, if the small company continues to innovate their business will grow and they will be able to afford more support and services from IBM.
Thus, IBM grows because their business is supporting other businesses. After all, they are the 'International Business Machine'.
I would love to see an online archive of Babylon 5, Star Trek:TNG, Law & Order, 24, or any of the other TV shows that I watch.
Babylon 5 is owned by Warner Bros. Star Trek is syndicated by Gene Roddenberry. Law & Order is owned by NBC whose parent company is General Electric Corporation. 24 is owned by Fox whose parent company is News Corporation.
Having established who owns what... write these fine organizations letters to let them know they should be like Viacom (who is the parent company of Paramount and CBS Broadcasting (among others)).
Frankly, I would love to see a Who's Who of who owns what. With mega-corporations these days, it is so hard to keep track of all the brands.
The first part of you post is absolutely correct. This exists because of competition and an evolving market. Good for Google. Good for Viacom.
The second part of you post is selfish, and overlooks the value of what Viacom is doing (emphasis mine).
I realize they want to control the content they own and all, but seriously, isn't it just easier to have someone else foot the bandwidth bills and to have your viewership get it the way they want? They will never learn:(
Your first observation was brilliant. They own it. They paid for it. They created it. It is *theirs* to do what they want. Google, NBC, and yourself have the rights of fair use. Beyond fair use, nobody can do anything without a contract from the creators.
This is how it should be. If you have a problem with creators who hoard their rights, that's another issue (I do, too). In my opinion, Viacom has been an evil company in the past. Because of this move, I think they just bought their way into my good graces. As it turns out, the Daily Show is one of the only shows that I watch on television. Because of this move, I can be very happy about a future decision not to pay Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner, DirectTV, or Dish. And *that* is good news.
As far as your point at "getting it my way", I have two issues. (A) is that you are suggesting that Google should be entitled to ad revenue for Viacom's property, and (B) the effort of digitizing the content should fall into the hands of the commons. In regard to issue (A), I want Viacom to earn a profit on the production of the Daily Show so they can renew it year after year because it is a great show. For issue (B), I would prefer that they flex their creative and professional muscle by handling their content in their way. I don't want to login to YouTube to see 6 different clips of the same segment from the Daily Show (and have each one be a different length).
If this is a sign of things to come from Viacom (CBS), then let them evolve. Their internet distribution methods will improve as they gain more experience. And soon you'll been able to stream through the internet straight to your TV in full HD while your cable company is still trying to fit 200 HD channels that nobody wants in their pipes.
If Linux achieves ~20% or so it will be much harder for Microsoft to push its proprietary standards, and everyone benefits.
If 1 in 5 computers is Linux, it will be a matter of time before 4 in 5 are. In the last ten years there have been a TON of Microsoft dependent sucker companies who run web servers with shit like IIS who will continue to support Redmond, but everybody else will gladly migrate once all their friends are using it because people, schools, companies, and governments like things that are free (why else would MySpace be popular?).
Of course, Microsoft knows this and they almost certainly have some kind of devious plan for it.
I'm now in a position where I want to install subversion and tomcat, and it's really not easy.
Good luck! I'm sure you'll figure it out.
but for it to ever be accepted in the mainstream by your average Joe, things like that need to "just work".
When Joe Sixpack needs to install Tomcat is the day I'll eat my hat. Little Joey wants to be able to use the internet to play embedded movies, check his e-mail, and listen to music. Occasionally he wants to be able to edit pictures that he downloaded from his digital camera, word process, create presentation, make spreadsheets, and manage his finances easily.
Also, sometimes Joe Sixpach wants to play games like Halflife or Madden or World of Warcraft... and as market share grows the support for these on Linux will become expected from the software game companies. Meanwhile, the free simple games on Linux blow away the free simple games on other platforms... and awesome companies like id Software have released there source code under the GPL for the benefit of the development community.
The only other thing support for drivers for specific devices. Wifi, plug-and-play digital cameras, external devices, extra monitors/projectors, and phone-sync should "just work".
Joe Sixpack isn't running a webserver or storing his files in a versioned repository... but when it becomes trivial to do the things mentioned above in Linux then Joe will happily start using it.
By promising firmware fixes, aren't the player manufacturers both diminishing their brand value in the eyes of consumers and also opening themselves up to a lot of headaches when other discs don't play a month or a year from now due to even more envelope-pushing protection?
I agree, if I was Samsung or LG I would say "Fuck 'em, this is Sony's problem." Unfortunately, this would make consumers mad at all three companies. Samsung and LG have to try to address the problems Sony is causing.
One can only hope that the lesson will hit home and companies will learn, "Don't put up with Sony's shit." In the meantime, they are left supporting consumer products and they want to make those consumers happy so they maintain their brand.
40 hours, and it is only Wednesday? You should cut back on the unproductive OT.;)
Besides, unless (a) you are your companies bottleneck, or (b) your company is uber-efficient, there are definitely periods of down-time during a typical month where you can "pursue educational activities related to your business/industry". That's what reading/. is... staying informed about the world of "News for Nerds".
However I know of at least one author that does feel that he is being ripped off.
Who is the author, and what has he written?
If his stuff is any good, I'd love to check it out and send him my money.
But pirates are NOT a an amazing distribution stream. The Internet is, bit torrent is, pirates are thieves.
If I make a video, write a book, or compose a song my main goal is to be creative and there is nothing that I want more than for people to see/read/listen to my artwork. At this end, I am satisfied if a pirate makes a copy of my work (using Sony's definition: "steals it") and then exposes himself to it. If this happens, I have accomplished my goal of spreading my art.
Now... here is where economics and market-conditions come in. If, after consuming my art, the pirate feels that it wasn't worthy of any future consideration and it wasted his time... then he can go about his life ignoring me. If everybody who is exposed to my art feels this way, then the message that I will get is "don't quit your day job". But when a pirate finds value in what I've done, then he can transcend piracy and pay me. This is a little different from Radiohead who are asking for $0.90-20.00 up front to download their album, but it puts choice in the hands of the consumer. Consumer choice will drive worthy artists to "quit their day jobs" and spend more of their time doing what they enjoy (whether it be sky-diving, or creating more art for public consumption).
Granted, this is a bit of a naive view... that artists can gain an audience who can support them. But I think you will see Radiohead earn millions on their current album and channel that money into promoting artists who they enjoy so that these other talented artists can "quit their days jobs". And then it grows and grows from there...
So, admittedly, while naive... it is certainly plausible to eliminate the middleman (a.k.a. the distributor, a.k.a. the industry) because that service doesn't really add any value in the 21st Century where the internet is ubiquitous.
We have the artists and the authors. They are getting ripped off by both the media companies and the pirates.
I agree with you halfway. Authors/artists get ripped off by companies, but they SIGN UP for the abuse. I disagree that pirates are ripping off artists. I think pirates are aiming to rip of the media companies (and rightly so).
For an artist who hasn't SIGNED UP to be abused by the industry, pirates are an amazing distribution stream. They are free advertising. The help get the word out, which attracts customers and ultimately improves business for the artists/authors.
And once the audience is there, it is trivial for an artist to give his audience a method to PAY HIM DIRECTLY using methods that virtually eliminates the middleman (hooray!). As an example, look at Radiohead or look at the link in my sig.
Essentially, every second of my life was consumed without time for a break.
I don't know how many times in the last 4 or 5 years I've killed an hour "reading a story on/." And even though time is the most precious resource, the hours of reading were generally worth it. *Much* more enjoyable than work.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, it is nice to know a President's stance on Stem Cell Research and the accelerating rate at which National Science Foundation budgets are being cut...
But equally important would be having a president who understands basic internet technology and whether they have intelligent opinions regarding the regulation thereof. It seems like there are a shortage of ladies and gentlemen in Washington who understand the latest technology. This would be helpful in Congress, too... because the aging Senators don't seem to be able to keep up with the time and young "with it" 20-30 year old candidates would help with adding much needed diversity in that branch of government.
English speakers to! Maybe it is because the American school systems suck, but I've never heard Lagniappe either.
In my dreams, I actually just sit tight during the interludes where I need to take a nap and recover some energy. Dreaming of sleeping is the most awesome dream ever.
I feel the same, but for a different reason. A Hummer that could drive 70 miles autonomously was worth $1 or 2 million. Landing a rocket on the Moon has GOT to pull in at least 8-figures. NASA/DARPA/Science is getting cheap these days.
Ahh, the Google workaround for the GPL. Selling web-services that RUN Free Open Source Software and NOT selling software. You get to keep the really good changes to yourself. =P
Personally, I'd like to see Google put there code out there as GPL and risk having a meaningful competitor. The benefit of having some really useful software available for high school and college aged kids to learn from would be immeasurable. Also, the transparency and openness of this would be reminiscent of some of the advances made by Bell Labs in the 1970s.
Give him a break. He's got 7 digits in his userid.
I know a few friends who have showers at work, and if that is your biggest complaint it might be worth it to talk to HR and see if they can accommodate you. Of course, there are probably others in your office who would also benefit and you can try to rally a group of employees to request this rare benefit.
Who knows... the government might even offer a tax incentive to a business who encourages this to cut down on the social costs of high traffic, environmental harm, and the health costs that result from a population of lazy, automobile-reliant citizens (I am from America, where "fat" is a big problem).
Well said. Last Gen is better than Next Gen because it is easier to use, more reliable, more secure, and costs less in power consumption.
Pretty much the only advantage I see for this high bandwidth, line-of-sight 60 GHz protocol is situational awareness and communication for an army of infiltrating Terminator robots who might need to be able to receive and process gobs of data to kill us more efficiently.
Because of the limited availability and price, I have never been able to go see a professional football game (and I've lived within 20 minutes of my team's stadium all my life). It is the team's job to set reasonable prices so they can continue their business at a reasonable profit. If the New England Patriots maintained profit margins that were out of whack, then there would be an outcry (if not from the government, then from the media). That's part of free market... the business cannot treat customers unfairly, because the customers won't put up with it.
But the market for football tickets is a special case in certain markets where every game is always sold out. In these areas, the demand curve has a higher price than the supply curve. Scalpers can operate businesses from the differences in these curves, to their own benefit and to the benefit of the super-rich. These practices suck for fans who aren't super-rich. Meanwhile, the scalpers have a monopoly on season tickets which they hold. Year-after-year they reinforce their business by purchasing their seats and selling them. They have no intention of going to the games that they buy tickets for. They do it selfishly for their own economic gains. Meanwhile, fans who want to see the team they love are SOL. Note the word I used. Monopoly. It is illegal. The team has the right to disrupt after-market sales so that real fans can get the "supply" priced tickets.
Is it a perfect free-market? No. But it never is when the supply (60,000 seats per game) is so limited. Maybe economic theory needs qualifications for "fairness" to compliment these situations where a free-market necessitates a black market.
I think the goal of this patent is to provide protection for small, innovative organizations. IBM's bread-and-butter right now is selling its servers and software to these small companies and it would stand to reason that it is in IBM's best interest to protect a small company who is their customer.
Consider an example: A small player is developing technologies to enable the commercialization of space-flight. They hire IBM to provide technological support and services, but after two or three years of successful innovation this small company gets sued by a patent troll organization. Their ability to innovate would be stifled as management is forced to deal with the nasty legal issues. IBM could handle the case by using this patent to say STFU to the troll company (or at the very least by forcing them to identify real areas where innovative ideas have been stolen). Meanwhile, if the small company continues to innovate their business will grow and they will be able to afford more support and services from IBM.
Thus, IBM grows because their business is supporting other businesses. After all, they are the 'International Business Machine'.
Aren't there several instances which would demonstrate prior art?
Babylon 5 is owned by Warner Bros. Star Trek is syndicated by Gene Roddenberry. Law & Order is owned by NBC whose parent company is General Electric Corporation. 24 is owned by Fox whose parent company is News Corporation.
Having established who owns what... write these fine organizations letters to let them know they should be like Viacom (who is the parent company of Paramount and CBS Broadcasting (among others)).
Frankly, I would love to see a Who's Who of who owns what. With mega-corporations these days, it is so hard to keep track of all the brands.
The first part of you post is absolutely correct. This exists because of competition and an evolving market. Good for Google. Good for Viacom.
The second part of you post is selfish, and overlooks the value of what Viacom is doing (emphasis mine).
I realize they want to control the content they own and all, but seriously, isn't it just easier to have someone else foot the bandwidth bills and to have your viewership get it the way they want? They will never learnYour first observation was brilliant. They own it. They paid for it. They created it. It is *theirs* to do what they want. Google, NBC, and yourself have the rights of fair use. Beyond fair use, nobody can do anything without a contract from the creators.
This is how it should be. If you have a problem with creators who hoard their rights, that's another issue (I do, too). In my opinion, Viacom has been an evil company in the past. Because of this move, I think they just bought their way into my good graces. As it turns out, the Daily Show is one of the only shows that I watch on television. Because of this move, I can be very happy about a future decision not to pay Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner, DirectTV, or Dish. And *that* is good news.
As far as your point at "getting it my way", I have two issues. (A) is that you are suggesting that Google should be entitled to ad revenue for Viacom's property, and (B) the effort of digitizing the content should fall into the hands of the commons. In regard to issue (A), I want Viacom to earn a profit on the production of the Daily Show so they can renew it year after year because it is a great show. For issue (B), I would prefer that they flex their creative and professional muscle by handling their content in their way. I don't want to login to YouTube to see 6 different clips of the same segment from the Daily Show (and have each one be a different length).
If this is a sign of things to come from Viacom (CBS), then let them evolve. Their internet distribution methods will improve as they gain more experience. And soon you'll been able to stream through the internet straight to your TV in full HD while your cable company is still trying to fit 200 HD channels that nobody wants in their pipes.
I like it. "Daily journey to work" sounds a lot better than "commute".
If 1 in 5 computers is Linux, it will be a matter of time before 4 in 5 are. In the last ten years there have been a TON of Microsoft dependent sucker companies who run web servers with shit like IIS who will continue to support Redmond, but everybody else will gladly migrate once all their friends are using it because people, schools, companies, and governments like things that are free (why else would MySpace be popular?).
Of course, Microsoft knows this and they almost certainly have some kind of devious plan for it.
Good luck! I'm sure you'll figure it out.
but for it to ever be accepted in the mainstream by your average Joe, things like that need to "just work".When Joe Sixpack needs to install Tomcat is the day I'll eat my hat. Little Joey wants to be able to use the internet to play embedded movies, check his e-mail, and listen to music. Occasionally he wants to be able to edit pictures that he downloaded from his digital camera, word process, create presentation, make spreadsheets, and manage his finances easily.
Also, sometimes Joe Sixpach wants to play games like Halflife or Madden or World of Warcraft... and as market share grows the support for these on Linux will become expected from the software game companies. Meanwhile, the free simple games on Linux blow away the free simple games on other platforms... and awesome companies like id Software have released there source code under the GPL for the benefit of the development community.
The only other thing support for drivers for specific devices. Wifi, plug-and-play digital cameras, external devices, extra monitors/projectors, and phone-sync should "just work".
Joe Sixpack isn't running a webserver or storing his files in a versioned repository... but when it becomes trivial to do the things mentioned above in Linux then Joe will happily start using it.
Can I ask why you think PayPal sucks, and if there is an easier/better way to process transactions online from a seller's perspective?
I agree, if I was Samsung or LG I would say "Fuck 'em, this is Sony's problem." Unfortunately, this would make consumers mad at all three companies. Samsung and LG have to try to address the problems Sony is causing.
One can only hope that the lesson will hit home and companies will learn, "Don't put up with Sony's shit." In the meantime, they are left supporting consumer products and they want to make those consumers happy so they maintain their brand.
What about the vendors who have business models which rely on insecurity to sell you their "secure" software? Should I trust them?
Nevermind, I am in your first group... the one where the users know what the fuck is going on.
40 hours, and it is only Wednesday? You should cut back on the unproductive OT. ;)
Besides, unless (a) you are your companies bottleneck, or (b) your company is uber-efficient, there are definitely periods of down-time during a typical month where you can "pursue educational activities related to your business/industry". That's what reading /. is... staying informed about the world of "News for Nerds".
Who is the author, and what has he written?
If his stuff is any good, I'd love to check it out and send him my money.
But pirates are NOT a an amazing distribution stream. The Internet is, bit torrent is, pirates are thieves.If I make a video, write a book, or compose a song my main goal is to be creative and there is nothing that I want more than for people to see/read/listen to my artwork. At this end, I am satisfied if a pirate makes a copy of my work (using Sony's definition: "steals it") and then exposes himself to it. If this happens, I have accomplished my goal of spreading my art.
Now... here is where economics and market-conditions come in. If, after consuming my art, the pirate feels that it wasn't worthy of any future consideration and it wasted his time... then he can go about his life ignoring me. If everybody who is exposed to my art feels this way, then the message that I will get is "don't quit your day job". But when a pirate finds value in what I've done, then he can transcend piracy and pay me. This is a little different from Radiohead who are asking for $0.90-20.00 up front to download their album, but it puts choice in the hands of the consumer. Consumer choice will drive worthy artists to "quit their day jobs" and spend more of their time doing what they enjoy (whether it be sky-diving, or creating more art for public consumption).
Granted, this is a bit of a naive view... that artists can gain an audience who can support them. But I think you will see Radiohead earn millions on their current album and channel that money into promoting artists who they enjoy so that these other talented artists can "quit their days jobs". And then it grows and grows from there...
So, admittedly, while naive... it is certainly plausible to eliminate the middleman (a.k.a. the distributor, a.k.a. the industry) because that service doesn't really add any value in the 21st Century where the internet is ubiquitous.
I agree with you halfway. Authors/artists get ripped off by companies, but they SIGN UP for the abuse. I disagree that pirates are ripping off artists. I think pirates are aiming to rip of the media companies (and rightly so).
For an artist who hasn't SIGNED UP to be abused by the industry, pirates are an amazing distribution stream. They are free advertising. The help get the word out, which attracts customers and ultimately improves business for the artists/authors.
And once the audience is there, it is trivial for an artist to give his audience a method to PAY HIM DIRECTLY using methods that virtually eliminates the middleman (hooray!). As an example, look at Radiohead or look at the link in my sig.
I don't know how many times in the last 4 or 5 years I've killed an hour "reading a story on /." And even though time is the most precious resource, the hours of reading were generally worth it. *Much* more enjoyable than work. :)
I believe that is the first step