True, but then there's also the cost of running a Diaspora node, or equivalent, that needs to be addressed.
With free software we're lucky that the economics works in our favour - although we aim to emphasize the freedom aspect over "free-as-in-beer", the latter undoubtedly plays a big part when it comes to the widespread adoption of a particular application.
As others have already said, p2p is one solution to the cost problem, but risks taking a step back in ease of use, as you now need a social networking client application instead of just firing up a browser. Might work with mobile apps though.
Now if there were a p2p based system that ran in the browser, maybe that would be the sweet spot. I'm not sure that such as thing is currently possible though.
We talk a lot here about how piracy can be dealt with if the entertainment industry offered an alternative that had most of the same content as file-sharing, but was simple to use and more convenient.
With social networking, the boot is pretty much on the other foot - Facebook et al are the easy option (just sign up and go), while the open distributed alternatives like Diaspora typically require you to install the software on a server (which you will need to buy or rent).
Until this problem is solved, I don't see any distributed alternative to Facebook getting any traction outside of the "geek" community.
I've often said that the main reason I haven't bought a Kindle is that if I had the money I could have 15 paperbacks for the same price.
If Amazon started offering free Kindles when you buy a bunch of books, it's just possible I'd snatch their hands off ;-)
Again, it's good that some research into that "significant harm" will be carried out, but shouldn't that come before the legislation is drawn up and enacted, not after it?
While I agree that the pledge might not have any effect by itself - what it would do, if enough companies signed up, is act as a clear message to congress that patents are anti-innovation.
After all companies signing this pledge are effectively turning down a potential revenue stream, because they recognise that it is against their wider interest.
Yeah, this definitely looks like Google throwing down the gauntlet to Apple.
Effectively they're saying, look, we see how instead of suing us you're suing HTC and Samsung because you think they're easier to bully - but now, if you want to close down Android, you're going to have to bring the game to us.
I didn't think it would be long before the Nazis found their way into the discussion ;-)
Are you saying that there were people during WWII that believed that sending millions of Jews to the gas chamber was not only acceptable, but somehow believed that such actions were beyond reproach and could not imagine coming under future criticism?
Maybe there were such people, I admit I can't see into minds of such people.
This isn't quite where I was going with my argument though. There is a difference between people that are considered heroes while they were able keep terrible acts under wraps who are then judged harshly when such acts come to light - and what I was discussing above of actions that were widely known about and approved of at the time but would not be approved of today.
I'm not convinced this is necessarily something to worry about either. Again you have to look at equivalent situations today.
People do not generally "rejudge" peoples past actions without making allowances for the fact that such actions might have been considered OK at the time.
For example today it is considered stupid and reckless for a man to promiscuously engage in unprotected sex with a number of women, but you would not consider someone who behaved like this during the 60s to be stupid. Instead you would correctly recognise that they could not possibly have known about things like HIV back then.
And if the you and your lawyers all have drunken photos and such on-line too?
What I think AC is getting at is that we're in a transitional period when it comes to social networking. Rather than everyone suddenly realising what a terrible mistake they've made in putting so much of their personal lives on-line, it could just as easily go the other way and society could redefine what is considered "personal information".
If the next generation considers it the norm to make public what we would consider private, then there wouldn't be anything to gain in someone else digging it up. Just a few decades ago, a couple living together and raising children out of wedlock would be considered a terrible scandal and make them pariahs in the local community, while today it is considered perfectly acceptable and not unusual. Today's scandals are often tomorrow's banalities.
Well, of course it's perfectly valid to use photoshopped images - these are intended to represent the reflections vain women see in the mirror after applying moisturiser with 1000% markup. Such delusions cannot be captured with a camera lens ;-)
But the Court didn't really look at that issue. All the court was asked to rule on was (a) whether or not visiting a website (or receiving an email) could involve making an infringing copy, and (b) whether or not the temporary copying defence applies. The court found yes, for (a), and no, for (b).
I'm not a physicist but I think the idea is that as you approach the speed of light time slows down for you relative to everywhere else. That means from your point of view, time seems the same inside your ship but the outside world's "clock" gets faster and faster, meaning Causes get closer and closer to Effects.
If you were able to exceed the speed of light it would appear (again from your POV) that Effects start to precede the Causes i.e. time in the rest of the universe would appear to be running backwards. In principle, you could then slam the brakes on and be in the past.
As you correctly point out - no-one has believed for decades that time travel using this method was possible - Special Relativity itself predicts that you would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate to the speed of light.
What most physicists (including Stephen Hawking) are betting on as being more likely is the possibility of being able to "warp" spacetime in such a fashion that you could bring a more distant patch of space (or time) closer. You could then travel to it at a speed less that that of light and then let it "snap back" to it's previous position. This would, in theory, allow FTL travel and in certain cases possibly time travel.
Although there are indications that this might be exceedingly difficult (AIUI you need to borrow a massive amount of "vacuum energy" to make it work), it hasn't actually been disproved yet - and it doesn't sound as if this paper even addresses this method of travel.
(Whew, step away from chalkboard David, step away... ;-)
Ok, I am off my soap box. Keep fighting the good fight.
The crazy thing is how shortsighted it all is. A company invents a way to streamline online processing and thinks "not only will this make us more profitable, but if I patent it and prevent others from using it, it will make us even more profitable"
What they fail to take into account is by the time all their competitors have jumped onto the patent bandwagon all that extra profit (and probably more besides) is frittered away on license fees.
This is a lot like someone suing local government after tripping over a broken paving stone and thinking they're in the money - but failing to appreciate that over the long term the necessarily higher taxes mean they end up effectively paying for their own payout.
I imagine that such a move will show up in the industry... er... I mean the USTR's annual Special 301 report as evidence as to why Russia doesn't "respect" copyright law enough
So this would mean that Russia would be considered to be, like, a sort of enemy of the USA?
Yes, I can see how that would bother them ...
Eric, if I were you I'd just tell the magazine to @spin on it!
But as new document formats contain new features that the old formats don't have, it's reasonable to expect the old version not to be able to open the new format.
Only if the file format is poorly designed. It's not that hard to come up with a way of representing the data such that older versions can just skip the information it doesn't understand.
The problem is that in a lot of cases, especially with software that was originally written a good while ago, the file format is often not much more than a dump to disk of the document's in-memory representation. From a programmer's point of view this is the easiest thing to implement, but it suffers from exactly this sort of problem - and if the company has an effective monopoly in the market, there's not much incentive to replace it with something more flexible.
Software as a service (sometimes called Cloud computing) will succeed if it offers a value proposition over that of having software on your own PC.
In other words, if the market buys into the idea that having your documents available and editable from any device and location is a significant benefit that exceeds the limitations of needing an always accessible broadband connection and possibly an additional monthly subscription to the service, not to mention the privacy concerns - then it stands a chance.
Failing that there will always be companies willing to sell (or give) you software to run locally, even if the big names suddenly decide not to offer their wares this way.
The same thing applies to music, video etc.
The evidence of the last census suggests that the Jedi are the fastest growing religion in the world, but you know something, it isn't.
Where's your evidence that it isn't? How do you know that there isn't a growing number of people that fervently believe in the power of the Force? As a belief system it's no more irrational than many others. (I could also point out the idea of the Force has some similarities to some pagan beliefs)
The thing about evidence is we need more evidence to refute it, not just your opinion that something is "obviously" not true.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I've read about it - like you I think they've got some way to go to make it an interesting proposition to the "average joe".
It helps with the cost issue - replacing a rental fee with a one off payment of what - $60 or something like that? That's an improvement but I think they still have a hill to climb to persuade millions of people to shell out for one. They need a killer app - the idea they're running with of it helping you retain control over your private data probably isn't enough of an incentive on its own to get most to open their wallets.