To be more accurate, no corporation has ever tried to make anyone else rich. That the corporations boost the Chinese economy is a side effect they couldn't care less about; their aim is to produce something for the lowest cost possible and sell it for the highest price possible. China's ironically utterly capitalist approach to worker's rights and environmental protection means the cost is lowest there. That made it attractive to corporations.
But there are hidden costs from industrial espionage, arbitrary unpredictable actions by the government, poor safety guidelines (thus bad quality control) and the consumer backlash for exploiting lax pollution&employment laws. If these hidden costs grow too great, corporations will pack up and go elsewhere.
Also, just think of what the Chinese government could do with this - immediately locating any dissident who searches google.hk just by identifying their regional "telegraphic fist". By monitoring their citizen's keyboards, they can save themselves the bother of having to monitor every internet connection in the count----
From sorting data efficiently, to calculating statistics, to drawing geometric shapes.
Programmers should cherish the mathematics and abstract thinking - it's the only part of our expertise that is guaranteed to remain useful until retirement, when all our favorite languages have become either obsolete or unrecognizable. (And visual interface design has been rendered obsolete by brain implants.:P )
I'm not sure, but I've heard there's one under development somewhere at Sourceforge... last I heard they were at version 0.1.3.8pre-alpha, but had temporarily suspended development because they couldn't find any crash-testers.
Of course prior art is a more popular argument in the free software community because it is a more aggressive defense. It's an attack against the patent itself. The free software movement is keen to destroy patents they consider unjust (which for broad and vague patents such as "taking online orders with a single click" or "online course management" is a given), and merely avoiding the damage from lawsuits may look like a "weak" move.
(Which is probably par for the course in law: Clients resent their lawyer's advice when they counsel against an aggressive course of action. Their rights were violated, dammit, and they want to see vindication. Even when the slower and less flashy strategy, even settlement, can have the better ultimate outcome.)
The fact is that most Windows users firstly don't care what runs on their computer, and secondly don't use even a non-negligible fraction their computer's power.
Suggestions have been made, by frustrated sysadmins, for a "destructive" counter-virus, a large-scale attack that cripples botnets by destroying infected computers. That's not only morally wrong but also just impractical - the average computer user just buys a new computer, and all the virus does is destroy property to satisfy lust for vengeance. Value is lost.
A more practical idea may be to re-purpose this vast resource of free computing power and put it to better use than churning out advertisements. A botnet worm could instead hook these computers up to a grid computing project like Folding or SETI, or distributed file transfer, cloud storage, providing uncensored communication to authoritarian countries. The worm could at the same time inoculate computers against more damaging viruses and botnets. The user gets free protection instead of the overpriced crud by McAfee & co; the world gets free computing infrastructure, the internet gets less spam. Everybody gains value.
It would be like a very lenient security tax - for letting their computers pose a risk to the network at large, users donate a share of their computing power/bandwidth for the good of society, at no real cost to themselves.
(And yes, the obvious ethical dilemma here is whether it is morally wrong to manipulate a person's property without their knowledge or consent, even to their own benefit. This suggestion takes a strict utilitarian perspective, which doesn't always lead to the best option.)
Just because Google has an ulterior motive to provide uncensored access does not mean that it is not a concern. As you said, the move to oppose censorship differentiates their product and generates attention.
It's nice when what is right coincides with what is lucrative.
Depends. Tolkien didn't flesh those years out much beyond a general timeline, so there's nothing for them to outright destroy. As long as they do enough research to stick with the general setting and history, it could work out well.
Well... this was legal action started in a Norwegian court by Norwegian plaintiffs against a Norwegian defendant, so I'm not sure where the "foreign" comes into it.
The lawyers are happy, and everyone is paying lots of money. At this rate, at some future point it will hopefully become unaffordable to litigate over software patents, and all companies who do so will go the way of SCO.
Unfortunately, they aren't prohibited yet; their lobby was too powerful. They're under heavy investigation though, and do not have the status of a religion.
Slashdot Mirror
Move to China, then use Google. :P
(If you hear someone knocking, don't open.)
To be more accurate, no corporation has ever tried to make anyone else rich. That the corporations boost the Chinese economy is a side effect they couldn't care less about; their aim is to produce something for the lowest cost possible and sell it for the highest price possible. China's ironically utterly capitalist approach to worker's rights and environmental protection means the cost is lowest there. That made it attractive to corporations.
But there are hidden costs from industrial espionage, arbitrary unpredictable actions by the government, poor safety guidelines (thus bad quality control) and the consumer backlash for exploiting lax pollution&employment laws. If these hidden costs grow too great, corporations will pack up and go elsewhere.
That's a scary thought.
Also, just think of what the Chinese government could do with this - immediately locating any dissident who searches google.hk just by identifying their regional "telegraphic fist". By monitoring their citizen's keyboards, they can save themselves the bother of having to monitor every internet connection in the count----
Oh wait, they do that anyway.
I knew there was something on Facebook I was missing out on aside from Mafia Wars.
From sorting data efficiently, to calculating statistics, to drawing geometric shapes.
Programmers should cherish the mathematics and abstract thinking - it's the only part of our expertise that is guaranteed to remain useful until retirement, when all our favorite languages have become either obsolete or unrecognizable. (And visual interface design has been rendered obsolete by brain implants. :P )
...as the point when the Diamond Age really began.
This is amazing. The future is going to be pretty cool!
I'm not sure, but I've heard there's one under development somewhere at Sourceforge... last I heard they were at version 0.1.3.8pre-alpha, but had temporarily suspended development because they couldn't find any crash-testers.
And promptly drive it into a ditch and get stuck. :P
Of course prior art is a more popular argument in the free software community because it is a more aggressive defense. It's an attack against the patent itself. The free software movement is keen to destroy patents they consider unjust (which for broad and vague patents such as "taking online orders with a single click" or "online course management" is a given), and merely avoiding the damage from lawsuits may look like a "weak" move.
(Which is probably par for the course in law: Clients resent their lawyer's advice when they counsel against an aggressive course of action. Their rights were violated, dammit, and they want to see vindication. Even when the slower and less flashy strategy, even settlement, can have the better ultimate outcome.)
But Rivest, Shamir and Adleman might have been annoyed. :P
Or polygraphs [/xkcd]. :P
"I've got eyes, pervert."
Yes it would.
Take cover!
The fact is that most Windows users firstly don't care what runs on their computer, and secondly don't use even a non-negligible fraction their computer's power.
Suggestions have been made, by frustrated sysadmins, for a "destructive" counter-virus, a large-scale attack that cripples botnets by destroying infected computers. That's not only morally wrong but also just impractical - the average computer user just buys a new computer, and all the virus does is destroy property to satisfy lust for vengeance. Value is lost.
A more practical idea may be to re-purpose this vast resource of free computing power and put it to better use than churning out advertisements. A botnet worm could instead hook these computers up to a grid computing project like Folding or SETI, or distributed file transfer, cloud storage, providing uncensored communication to authoritarian countries. The worm could at the same time inoculate computers against more damaging viruses and botnets. The user gets free protection instead of the overpriced crud by McAfee & co; the world gets free computing infrastructure, the internet gets less spam. Everybody gains value.
It would be like a very lenient security tax - for letting their computers pose a risk to the network at large, users donate a share of their computing power/bandwidth for the good of society, at no real cost to themselves.
(And yes, the obvious ethical dilemma here is whether it is morally wrong to manipulate a person's property without their knowledge or consent, even to their own benefit. This suggestion takes a strict utilitarian perspective, which doesn't always lead to the best option.)
Every browser is flawed. It's the internet that is insecure.
Next headline: "German government warns against using the Internet."
We're just crazy, though at least not as crazy as China.
If they wanted to piss off the PRC, they might have redirected to Google Taiwan instead. :P
Just because Google has an ulterior motive to provide uncensored access does not mean that it is not a concern. As you said, the move to oppose censorship differentiates their product and generates attention.
It's nice when what is right coincides with what is lucrative.
Actually, that depends on what you do with the hydrogen. If you re-oxidize it by combustion, obviously no energy will come out.
If you fuse it into Helium, you've got free energy until you run out of water.
Yeah, I guess...
Depends. Tolkien didn't flesh those years out much beyond a general timeline, so there's nothing for them to outright destroy. As long as they do enough research to stick with the general setting and history, it could work out well.
(I'm an optimist, I know.)
Well... this was legal action started in a Norwegian court by Norwegian plaintiffs against a Norwegian defendant, so I'm not sure where the "foreign" comes into it.
And not the kind of vinyl we might be thinking of, either. :P
The lawyers are happy, and everyone is paying lots of money. At this rate, at some future point it will hopefully become unaffordable to litigate over software patents, and all companies who do so will go the way of SCO.
Unfortunately, they aren't prohibited yet; their lobby was too powerful. They're under heavy investigation though, and do not have the status of a religion.