In what way did he not "pull it off"? He never said he was going to do it alone. Right in the post he asks for lots of help. His goal was to have a free operating system and that's what he got.
If you mean that he didn't pull it off in precisely the order he announced he would, I guess that would be correct.
But perhaps they want to regulate devices such as this:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/09/21/1341212/turning-a-smart-phone-into-a-microscope
From the article:
For example, doctors in remote regions could use the technique to measure HIV viral loads in patients' blood samples, allowing the doctors to easily monitor disease progression and determine the best course of treatment."
The ability to sense and avoid — common on all manned aircraft that fly the national airspace — is one of the trickier issues for drones which do not support such technology.
It's common all manned aircraft? But you can't stick the same thing in a drone? Why not, exactly?
Here's an example: The Pi has a video connector that cannot be used because it is not possible to write a driver to talk to it. Presumably the Pi Foundation will release a video display to connect to it, but the community will not be able to do so.
Yeah. But driving ability probably is.
Robotopunado!!
Before, Microsoft was not charging you for using their patent. Now they are.
Parent to my comment referred to PCs.
251
and the NSA, of course.
I really like the gnome 3 shell, but had to abandon it because of stability problems. I've seen the "Oh Noes" screen more times than I can count.
Ok, let's be fundamental about this. Isn't it strange that we should consider "software" as different from other intellectual property? If X hours of work have been invested into the invention of a clever software routine, then, it would be strange if a patent could not be granted for that work while a patent would be granted for some physical apparatus that also took X hours to develop.
Fundamentally, software is already different from other intellectual property as it also has copyright protection. Why should one body of work be allowed to be protected under two completely different IP regimes? Copyright protection is enough to encourage the advancement of the arts and sciences of software. Patents appear to be a hindrance.
And be glad the duration is 70+life years instead of hundreds of years. I mean imagine if you bought land or a house and you have rights to it only for 70+life years. After that, your children/descendants would have to vacate the place and it would be public property, perhaps a park. Does that seem okay to you?
Please... copyrights are a deal between the government and authors that in exchange for doing the hard work of creating, the government will offer a monopoly on REPRODUCING the content for a LIMITED period of time. The actual physical copies that the authors create (the manuscripts, for example) are still theirs to keep FOREVER. Just like me and my house.
We're British.
Douglas Adams predicted this. He predicted that everything would become gesture controlled and then we would have to sit maddeningly still in order to listen to the radio without changing stations.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
