Is it? People think this is so unlikely, but I don't think it is. Really, having the kernel source of a Microsoft OS available as free software wouldn't hurt them at all. They could pile proprietary software on top of it, and people would still be forced to buy their OS.
Don't try to blame this on Dijkstra or Bellman and Ford. This is very clearly the fault of the guy who called his mother. He should have cut off all connections to people (his mum) who had connections to people (his mum's hairdresser) who had connections to people (Mexican family) who had connections to Islamic extremists.
It is an interesting tool, but I have one question about it.
Why is it that for pretty much everything, the search volume has decreased over time? Is this because there is less accurate or different data for older searches, or perhaps Google isn't quite as popular today as it was a couple of years ago? I mean, one would think that for most things the search volume should increase over time since more and more people are getting onto the internet and using search engines...
Based on comments that Microsoft employees make about Free Software, I sometimes wonder if there is anyone in management at Microsoft who actually understands the philosophy behind Free Software. They don't seem to understand why this huge threat to their business has emerged. It seems like it is all a big mystery to Microsoft. This isn't surprising, I suppose. The Free Software mentality is almost completely opposite to the Microsoft mentality.
Once something is liberated, it no longer matters whether or not it was previously liberated.
This is completely different from certain Creative Commons licenses, which *ARE* damaging. The "share-alike, non-commercial" CC licenses are particularly bad because the "non-commercial" bit partially circumvents the intentions of the "share-alike" bit. Anyone with an interest in freedom should want commercial products to make use of any free culture in a "share-alike" way. That is the only way that free culture will eventually be able to overtake proprietary culture.
"Share-alike, non-commercial" rules just mean people can't ever make money off derivative works, no matter how much freedom the person (who would be making money) is willing to offer people. These licenses seem designed to promote the lie that free culture can't also be commercial.
You're missing the point. Free software people are interested in spreading Free Software. Why would they sacrifice the Free Software part of that, just to spread more proprietary software?
Even though, instead of looking for prior art, your engineers could also be coming up with other trivial patents that could be used as deterrents to prevent your company from being sued incase one patent does slip by...?
It's a broken system. There is a large amount of work to be done for each patent to be processed properly, so on the one hand it makes sense that the person who wants the patent should do that work. On the other hand, though, if you let the applicant have a say in the process of approving/denying the patent, they will surely choose to approve it. How do you make them prove that they have properly checked their patent application against all existing patents, and prior art from the past?
What makes you think this will improve matters? Who exactly is going to go reading patents and reviewing them for the patent office?
Lawyers? No... they'd be much more interested in spending their time on similar work that they actually get paid for. Developers/scientists/engineers? No... (AFAIK, IANAL) most legal advice suggests that you shouldn't go reading about patents in your field, and instead just read patents whenever they become relevant to you. (when you're being sued for infringement, for example)
I struggle to see how the patent office is going to get much out of this. I also struggle to see why people should contribute (without being paid) to such a broken system. Contributing in this way will not make the system any less broken. It will more likely just make it a bit easier to keep running it.
That's like having a kid and then arguing that it's okay for you to kill your own kid. Just because you created the technology that allows the medium to exist does not mean it is okay for you to start censoring the resulting medium.
Microsoft switched from using Yahoo for something to doing it themselves. How does this affect Google? Microsoft wasn't their customer before, and isn't now. The net effect appears to be 0.
That said, Microsoft's new advertising program will certainly effect Google, but that is old news.
Ahh. Thanks.
1. Build spaceship.
2. Enslave Xiggawathians.
3. ???
4. Profit!
Since you provided this as text which I read aloud, rather than acting in a video, I shall pay you the industry standard rate for unestablished music artists. You now owe me $5.
Yeah, the movie can be about how the coalition of the willing needs start intergalactic war with Rofuble to spread democracy and stop them from copying our movies, which they have been doing for years without our knowledge!
Of course, I don't have to explain to you that Rofuble pirating movies causes the price to rise for everyone else.
Little do they know, they are losing $588.34 trillion dollars a day by not selling to the Xiggawathians on planet Rofuble.
I have a little more knowledge about what they might need to tap this huge market on planet Rofuble, but I need to do some further research on the technology. If they could just grant me $2 billion for research, I feel that we would be in a position to approach the King of Rofuble within the next few years. While that figure may startle you, rest assured it's a small price to pay for such a huge market!
Good point, but isn't laying those foundations the most important part? Putting themselves ahead in units sold sounds like some damn good foundations to me!
I hope Nintendo comes through and takes the lead because I think they're the best games company out of the three, but it does seem unlikely.
You could not update iTunes, and for most people that would work. New types of iPods generally need new versions of iTunes, though. So if you wanted to play your ITMS-purchased music on your new, upgraded iPod, you'd be forced into the "upgraded" iTunes, and forced into the change.
To be fair, yes, the change was fairly trivial (to most users) in this case. The very fact that Apple is willing to modify the terms using the control they have over already-purchased music should be setting off alarm bells, though. First it's something trivial, then it's something a bit less trivial, and one day perhaps they will decide to make you pay an extra cent each time you listen to the song you've already purchased. What measures are in place to protect consumers from Apple attempting to make them pay extra (or implementing other undesirable changes retroactively) using the control that they have gained through their use of DRM?
You say that this was "a trade", but it wasn't. "Trade" implies that both parties have agreed, but that wasn't the case. If Apple had made every iTunes pop up a small decision box saying "how would you like to be only able to burn X CDs but now share music onto Y computers?" and then not implement the change if the user declined, that would have been a fair trade.
It is evil to sell a product and then switch it for a different one, regardless of whether the person you sold the original product to is willing to accept the swap. Whether the change is small or not, it is the principle of this that makes it evil.
It minimises their risk. Instead of putting all their eggs in one basket, they spread them around, and since they are Microsoft, they'll usually have at least some degree of success in every market they're in. Income from multiple sources is a sign of a healthy business.
The Xbox was a mighty success considering it was their first attempt at that market. They beat Nintendo easily and they were pretty much on-par with Sony. I'm talking in terms of units/games sales, not how good games were, by the way.
Indeed, and it might get even worse. (or better, depending on whether you want Vista to be a success or not)
From the article:
Researchers at Gartner said in a report Tuesday that they believe Windows Vista won't be broadly available until sometime between March and June of 2007. Gartner is basing its projections on the progress the Redmond company has made in getting test versions of Vista out the door. In a statement on Tuesday, Microsoft said it disagreed with Gartner's views and was still on track to meet its revised released schedule.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares whose idea it was first? All I'm interested in is who is supporting homebrew NOW!
Is it? People think this is so unlikely, but I don't think it is. Really, having the kernel source of a Microsoft OS available as free software wouldn't hurt them at all. They could pile proprietary software on top of it, and people would still be forced to buy their OS.
Stop wasting your time making posts like this! We need to focus on stopping the terrorists and protecting the children!
Don't try to blame this on Dijkstra or Bellman and Ford. This is very clearly the fault of the guy who called his mother. He should have cut off all connections to people (his mum) who had connections to people (his mum's hairdresser) who had connections to people (Mexican family) who had connections to Islamic extremists.
It is an interesting tool, but I have one question about it.
Why is it that for pretty much everything, the search volume has decreased over time? Is this because there is less accurate or different data for older searches, or perhaps Google isn't quite as popular today as it was a couple of years ago? I mean, one would think that for most things the search volume should increase over time since more and more people are getting onto the internet and using search engines...
Based on comments that Microsoft employees make about Free Software, I sometimes wonder if there is anyone in management at Microsoft who actually understands the philosophy behind Free Software. They don't seem to understand why this huge threat to their business has emerged. It seems like it is all a big mystery to Microsoft. This isn't surprising, I suppose. The Free Software mentality is almost completely opposite to the Microsoft mentality.
Once something is liberated, it no longer matters whether or not it was previously liberated.
This is completely different from certain Creative Commons licenses, which *ARE* damaging. The "share-alike, non-commercial" CC licenses are particularly bad because the "non-commercial" bit partially circumvents the intentions of the "share-alike" bit. Anyone with an interest in freedom should want commercial products to make use of any free culture in a "share-alike" way. That is the only way that free culture will eventually be able to overtake proprietary culture.
"Share-alike, non-commercial" rules just mean people can't ever make money off derivative works, no matter how much freedom the person (who would be making money) is willing to offer people. These licenses seem designed to promote the lie that free culture can't also be commercial.
You're missing the point. Free software people are interested in spreading Free Software. Why would they sacrifice the Free Software part of that, just to spread more proprietary software?
Even though, instead of looking for prior art, your engineers could also be coming up with other trivial patents that could be used as deterrents to prevent your company from being sued incase one patent does slip by...?
It's a broken system. There is a large amount of work to be done for each patent to be processed properly, so on the one hand it makes sense that the person who wants the patent should do that work. On the other hand, though, if you let the applicant have a say in the process of approving/denying the patent, they will surely choose to approve it. How do you make them prove that they have properly checked their patent application against all existing patents, and prior art from the past?
It probably does violate some obscure software patent, you know... I'd like to see the USPTO get sued for patent infringement over this.
What makes you think this will improve matters? Who exactly is going to go reading patents and reviewing them for the patent office?
Lawyers? No... they'd be much more interested in spending their time on similar work that they actually get paid for.
Developers/scientists/engineers? No... (AFAIK, IANAL) most legal advice suggests that you shouldn't go reading about patents in your field, and instead just read patents whenever they become relevant to you. (when you're being sued for infringement, for example)
I struggle to see how the patent office is going to get much out of this. I also struggle to see why people should contribute (without being paid) to such a broken system. Contributing in this way will not make the system any less broken. It will more likely just make it a bit easier to keep running it.
Exactly. Trust must be earned. Microsoft don't even seem to care that they're not trusted, though.
That's like having a kid and then arguing that it's okay for you to kill your own kid. Just because you created the technology that allows the medium to exist does not mean it is okay for you to start censoring the resulting medium.
I was trying to be funny, but I really didn't know what happened after 'z'. Thanks!
Microsoft switched from using Yahoo for something to doing it themselves. How does this affect Google? Microsoft wasn't their customer before, and isn't now. The net effect appears to be 0.
That said, Microsoft's new advertising program will certainly effect Google, but that is old news.
Who cares? I just want to know what's going to happen after they reach 'z'.
Ahh. Thanks. 1. Build spaceship. 2. Enslave Xiggawathians. 3. ??? 4. Profit! Since you provided this as text which I read aloud, rather than acting in a video, I shall pay you the industry standard rate for unestablished music artists. You now owe me $5.
Yeah, the movie can be about how the coalition of the willing needs start intergalactic war with Rofuble to spread democracy and stop them from copying our movies, which they have been doing for years without our knowledge!
Of course, I don't have to explain to you that Rofuble pirating movies causes the price to rise for everyone else.
Little do they know, they are losing $588.34 trillion dollars a day by not selling to the Xiggawathians on planet Rofuble.
I have a little more knowledge about what they might need to tap this huge market on planet Rofuble, but I need to do some further research on the technology. If they could just grant me $2 billion for research, I feel that we would be in a position to approach the King of Rofuble within the next few years. While that figure may startle you, rest assured it's a small price to pay for such a huge market!
Good point, but isn't laying those foundations the most important part? Putting themselves ahead in units sold sounds like some damn good foundations to me!
I hope Nintendo comes through and takes the lead because I think they're the best games company out of the three, but it does seem unlikely.
You could not update iTunes, and for most people that would work. New types of iPods generally need new versions of iTunes, though. So if you wanted to play your ITMS-purchased music on your new, upgraded iPod, you'd be forced into the "upgraded" iTunes, and forced into the change.
To be fair, yes, the change was fairly trivial (to most users) in this case. The very fact that Apple is willing to modify the terms using the control they have over already-purchased music should be setting off alarm bells, though. First it's something trivial, then it's something a bit less trivial, and one day perhaps they will decide to make you pay an extra cent each time you listen to the song you've already purchased. What measures are in place to protect consumers from Apple attempting to make them pay extra (or implementing other undesirable changes retroactively) using the control that they have gained through their use of DRM?
You say that this was "a trade", but it wasn't. "Trade" implies that both parties have agreed, but that wasn't the case. If Apple had made every iTunes pop up a small decision box saying "how would you like to be only able to burn X CDs but now share music onto Y computers?" and then not implement the change if the user declined, that would have been a fair trade.
It is evil to sell a product and then switch it for a different one, regardless of whether the person you sold the original product to is willing to accept the swap. Whether the change is small or not, it is the principle of this that makes it evil.
Not null and void. There is a loss in quality whenever you encode something.
It minimises their risk. Instead of putting all their eggs in one basket, they spread them around, and since they are Microsoft, they'll usually have at least some degree of success in every market they're in. Income from multiple sources is a sign of a healthy business.
The Xbox was a mighty success considering it was their first attempt at that market. They beat Nintendo easily and they were pretty much on-par with Sony. I'm talking in terms of units/games sales, not how good games were, by the way.
Indeed, and it might get even worse. (or better, depending on whether you want Vista to be a success or not)
From the article:
Researchers at Gartner said in a report Tuesday that they believe Windows Vista won't be broadly available until sometime between March and June of 2007. Gartner is basing its projections on the progress the Redmond company has made in getting test versions of Vista out the door. In a statement on Tuesday, Microsoft said it disagreed with Gartner's views and was still on track to meet its revised released schedule.