So according to you
* printing, storing, shipping costs are not a large part of the book price as Extra costs (marketing, etc) are to be applied
* this is only valid for large scale sales as low scale aren't envisioned due to poor viability
* because of large scale, they need to have large marketing costs, increasing the cost ratio of these Extra activities
* because of large scale, publishing costs get lowered per item, thereby reducing its ratio

The publishing costs are just low per item because the system is focusing on large scale printing to actually lower the distribution costs per item...

Aren't you just describing an inefficient system that justifies itself ? I say cut the inefficient part.

According to http://ireaderreview.com/2009/05/03/book-cost-analysis-cost-of-physical-book-publishing/

And author's get 8/15% of a book. That's a bit small to me. And that's in part caused by this inefficiency.

I agree.

I would have paid one dollar for the app. Maybe CBS wants to reconsider instead, contract the developper to modify the app. If they keep the open source version, they could have a different theme for the OSS one.

Win-win ?

I haven't found a petition. Is there one ?

So one can block the sale of a device on a whole continent because it possibly infringes on a functionality that represents 1/10000 of the default functionality of the phone. My phone can call, video call, chat, do my email, take and edit videos, upload pictures to the net, scan bar codes for maintaining list of books and dvds, do anything a browser can do, play games like a console, be my alarm clock, and I can't buy it because of the way it reacts if I scroll half way my pictures in the photo editor ?

This is just wrong.

When something is painfull, do it more often. If a company wait years to release a new browser then it will be painfull. If you wait years to upgrade it same thing.

Some companies manage to develop and deploy software continuously. Same should be for infrastructure.

Gettings stuck with a 5+ years old browser isn't a "key productivity" advantage. The more you wait, the more a change is risky. Reminds of that: http://www.itjoblog.co.uk/2011/06/the-iteration-is-too-long.html

Browsers should be upgraded every few weeks (like chrome and firefox now) and companies could upgrade almost as fast. There are many ways to achieve this, not because it is a little bit different and harder problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Magee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Chisov

a bit different (and controversal) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulović

My father is not what one would consider a technology friendly person, but he understood what BCC is for and is using it right. It took a few months and a few mistakes. And now he teaches others to do it. So I think most people don't use it, because they don't even know it exists or don't understand the problem caused by it.

One nice thing I've noticed: the group of those who don't use BCC, almost 100% interesects with the one of those who send me hoaxes (in a top posting, hotmail/yahoo style forwarding with the headers of past messages containing previous senders/recipients). It's very practical because I can answer to everybody and point them to http://hoaxbusters.org/ or like (using BCC this time).

Hehe

Talking about fragmentation!

2 versions of Android ? What a waste !
2 competing Desktop Environments on Linux ? Bouh !
Different Linux distributions ? Yack !
Different people ? Uerg ...
Different species on Earth ? pfff
Different planets & environments ? Crazy !
Different universes ? (not yet proven, but ...)

Operators that ship android don't need to distribute the Google version of it. They can take the open source version and add a mail, maps and app store application of their own.

Android is open. Google's android version has a few restrictions.

> There's already a tax on buggy software, it's
> just paid by the wrong side of the equation, the
> user.

I don't think software is paid by the wrong side of the equation.

Software being insecure is most often insecure when used in ways not intended by their creators.
Security is most often a property of the software, often ranked well below real functionality.

e.g. You don t buy Outlook because it protects you from viruses, you buy it to read your mail.

<bad_analogy>
You don t put windows on your house because you want people to stay out of it. You put them because you want light in, view outside, etc. Ideally with little heatloss. And best if people can t in easily. Now if someone finds out that a mixture of 24.6% pee and olive oil 75.4% at 35degrees placed on the windows joints makes it easy to open the window from the outside, is it really the problem of the window builder ? As a buyer, would you hold out if you knew that an unknown liquid mixture might reduce the security of the window ? Probably not. You may add shutters and an alarm system. And a safe.
</bad_analogy>

When you have an entire industry relying on a piece of software and then complaining it doesn t have the properties they really want, I say blame them. Big industries have the mean to reduce their risks. Individuals that rely a lot on IT should think twice of how they manage their data.

My take, people who buy software should invest more in checking whether it is secure or not.

And if you really want to introduce 3rd parties, instead of taxes, use a (optional) insurance system. It will probably adapt better to risks than a tax. And people are used to that.

No they didnt.

They didnt take a full OS or product and relicensed it.
They took 7 files. Those files arent even used.

Yes its probably a mistake or a very bad judgement. In no way this decision was to give Google a competitive advantage, a better product or etc. Nothing like taking a full product from someone else and reusing it.

Comply with the license (mostly done). Optionally pay a reasonable fee and move on. Not a full scale SCO lawsuit for 7 files again please. Thatsick.

(for the lawsuit, please go on, because there are other argumentrs. But that one seems moot).

Can we put things in perspective ?

Yes Google did a mistake (whether it was intended, it may be hard to prove). But were talking about 7 files that are not even part of the runtime OS. Were talking about no patented functionality, no functionality at all in fact (no runtime code), no linking of these files with Androids other files. Hei Google even removed the files from the (future) trees as soon as it became aware of it.

Does this warrant a multi million lawsuit ? Really ? (I know there are other arguments, but this one seems a bit light to me, at least on its own)

You're right.

I find it strange that people complain it's not a standard while the 2 other actors who could have done something, didn't, didn't want, and actually act against such an idea (supporting a non free format). And actually complaining about google's stance on h264 very ironically (hint: IE team).

I applaud Google's action.I know it's in their interest, but I also think it's in our interest.

And to me it's not a standoff. The standoff was when Apple and Microsoft did nothing.

> WebM was purchased and opened up by Google. Nobody else could have proposed it before.

Somebody else could have tried to buy the technology and open it. Or develop a competing technology. No ?

http://www.hotstocked.com/article/0197/on2-technologies-ont-launches-their-new-product-flix-r-engine.html

> It wouldn't surprise me at all if Google bought
> WebM for the specific purpose of providing a
> good open compromise.

I agree with you there.

Define standard.

Some counter arguments:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?458060

"What you perhaps actually mean is that WebM is a standard that is not yet endorsed by any official independent standards body."

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_standard):

"A technical standard may be developed privately or unilaterally, for example by a corporation, regulatory body, military, etc."

H.264 is not a standard acceptable by the W3c http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2011/01/13/openness

And finally:
http://annevankesteren.nl/2011/01/why-webm

"And lets face it, WebM has a specification, independent implementations, backing from hardware manufacturers, and is supported in all browsers that are not MPEG LA H.264 patent licensor — once Firefox 4 is released that makes about sixty percent of the desktop browser market."

Exactly. How often can you solve problems by just getting rid of the fear ?

People are afraid all the time.