 whole platform in all of its working glory.
· MS says they have OEMs install IE as a matter of convenience. If they don’t and allow individual users to put it on themselves, Dell will be overwhelmed by cretins calling tech support for problems because they installed it incorrectly.
· JZ says this argument has been somewhat mooted by the intertwining of IE code and Windows code to the point that they are practically the same product.
4. When I buy MS products, I agree to a license that says that I buy only the use of the software, but not the software (the code). So I can’t alter it or fix it like I can my car.
· JZ: true. You don’t get a fee simple title to the software. The license for NT used to make consumers agree not to publish benchmarking results (limited negative feedback). Other terms can govern your use of the software beyond the copyright. It can be argued that the license can be used to maintain power.
5. MS is offering convenience. The average computer user does not know anything about browsers and all the pros and cons. They don’t want to research these issues, they just want a browser that works well. MS provides this by requiring OEMs to put it on.
6. JZ: there is a great power in the default settings of each computer. This often determines which software will be used widely.
7. In this area you have the dynamic of network effects. Intercompatibility drives this market in many ways. Uniformity is efficient, but it may stifle innovation. MS is saying that they are the innovator. Is their innovation the only innovation that we want.
8. Antitrust law may be an antiquated way to deal with this kind of problem. Bill Gates’ intuition that ubiquity rather than quality will make the billions. He’s found a way around the free market (assumes that MS products aren’t the best products – problem is that the best products aren’t the ones that succeed like they are supposed to, but rather the most common products are the leading products even though they aren’t the best).
· This is an unfair characterization. There really is great power in this integrated Windows Suite. To say that they haven’t innovated anything is unfair.
9. Past example of punchcards – the DOJ was still prosecuting IBM over cornering the punchcard market long after the last punchcard was punched.
· JZ: the problem is that the browser that you use as a launch point may be an MS browser. MS may recognize that Windows and traditional software apps are dead and simply transition, through the distribution of the browser, into the new market.
A. We now have a world where some software consists of open code (like internet protocols and Linux).
B. Will open source software provide the final threat to closed source software? Which is more efficient?
1. Crypto software: you’d be insane to put trust in a crypto program that didn’t have open code. Without open code, you’d never know if it were working. Netscape wanted to export its browser to France. France said fine, so long as they put in a back door for the authorities. Netscape thought that would be dumb since the code was open source. It gives you a built in protection from government regulation because you open up what you’re doing for the inspection of all.
2. Poll from last week: would it be a better thing to make it so your identity were discoverable (with regard to your internet speech)? Half the HLS students thought that sounded great. MIT students say no way.
3. JZ: If I’m in the crypto market, I’ll just buy open source crypto software. Recent event: someone found an NSA key in the code of MS Windows. Everyone freaked because they thought the NSA could access any Windows activity. Not so in reality, but it was embarrassing.
C. MIT has agreed with MS to do stuff for education (including developing educational software). Development at MIT is different – it’s open. Then don’t make everyone working on it sign a non-disclosure agreement. Thus, it is hard to develop in the university environment without the code essentially being open since so many people are familiar with it. MIT has no claim on software created by students (so long as student wasn’t funded by the school). Harvard says that if you do it for a class, it’s ours (characteristic of them). Why, Harvard and other universities are starting to think of themselves as profit centers in the intellectual property area. At MIT, RA’s have to sign over their ownership interests in intellectual property developed at the university. Does the university develop it (as a community)? Or is the university a group of smart people who are all working on their own individual projects which they arguably own?
D. Are there any other reasons for us to care whether tomorrow’s world is mostly open source or closed source (apart from crypto example).
1. If you believe that code imposes real constraints like law imposes constraints, you probably think it should be published. Laws are published so people understand the restraints they impose. Code should be open so users know what the rules are. If you don’t know how software works, MS will send you an error message, crash your system, force you to restart and then gouge you on the help line, all without you knowing what went wrong.
2. Think about a world where every town was a company town and you could choose where to live. Everything in the town would be privatized. Towns where you were pulled over arbitrarily without knowing why would not be popular and people would gravitate towards others. The same argument applies to code. Most code today is private code and most law is public law.
3. A great IETF case study just came out. They’re considering a CALEA type request from the FBI so that internet packets can be plugged into in much the same way the FBI can plug into phone lines. The IETF is trying to figure out how to respond to the request.
4. If you can’t look at the code or hire someone to do so, you can have problems. If you type in the address for amnesty international at AOL, it’s a decoy site.
5. What allows someone to close their code completely is intellectual property law. You can copyright your intellectual property. Thus the government allows you to proprietize and close your code to others. Copyright protection for code lasts for 95 years!
6. The MP3 standard is challenging these ideas. Some are trying to outlaw devices that allow the downloading or copying of music. If they succeed, it may be time to be afraid. Could send us down the slippery slope.
7. Back in the old days, you could copy a cassette once (for your own use), but you couldn’t copy a copy. If the audio industry uses closed code, which it does, hacking around it or finding out how it works or how it is protected, you’ve violated the law.The use of the potential of offshore wind energy and its inclusion in the energy mix of Poland will certainly allow for the diversification of electricity generation sources, and thus increase the security and independence of Poland’s energy. It will enable production from renewable sources to be increased, which will contribute to meeting the requirement to increase the share of energy from renewable energy sources in total electricity consumption.
The decisions of the next few years will point the way into the future.
The development of offshore wind farms in Poland will be a driving force in the reconstruction of the Polish shipbuilding industry as well as the entire supply chain of components, materials and services. It will also be an excellent field for the development of innovative solutions, which may contribute to the increase in Poland's competitiveness compared to other European countries.Brush ware comprising at least one carrier and bristles made from a moldable plastic material disposed thereon, is produced by providing the carrier with through holes acting like spinning nozzles, to which bristle-shaped molding channels join and a plastic melt for the bristles is injected from at least one side of the carrier—the feed side of the melt—through the holes into the channels thereby forming the bristles, wherein the through holes have a minimal width along at least a portion of their length which is ≦3 mm and the ratio between this width and the flow path of the melt resulting from the depth of the through holes plus the length of the channels is ≦1:5. A device for carrying out the method and brush ware produced in accordance with the method is also described.
FIGS. 1 and 2 are partial cross-sections through brush ware, e.g. a section in the region of the head of a tooth brush, which has been conventionally produced as a single piece through injection molding (e.g. U.S. Pat. No. 5,926,900). It comprises a carrier [0153] 1 and parallel bristle-like working elements in the form of “bolts” or “pins” which extend conically from the carrier towards their free end. The support and working elements are produced in an injection mold having a cavity corresponding to the finished brush ware. During feeding of the plastic melt in accordance with the arrow 3, that part of the cavity which forms the support is initially filled, and the molding channels for the working elements 2 are subsequently filled, thereby producing working elements having a large diameter and a relatively large diameter to length ratio. The polymer molecules in the melt have an irregular and knotted structure, which substantially remains, in the region of the carrier 4. As indicated in the transition region 5, the molecular chains are longitudinally oriented to a certain extent when they enter the molding channels for the working elements 2 due to the reduction