From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,e276c1ed16429c03 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!85.195.64.253.MISMATCH!news.internetdienste.de!newsfeed.velia.net!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:59:57 +0100 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada is getting more popular! References: <4cc87d7a$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc912e1$0$23761$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <19rlit851kct1$.db26uwez2yg7$.dlg@40tude.net> <4cc94547$0$23752$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc9bf12$0$23765$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <15lnc6vv8z3hc$.1oi6i03umest8$.dlg@40tude.net> <871v7aqcpq.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <13rgisoyxwkb2$.1dpflsd9zyiz5.dlg@40tude.net> <4cca091e$0$7655$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <4h6j3lfp7x5l.zqrg45o56ci3$.dlg@40tude.net> <4cca9195$0$6978$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <87hbg46mcz.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <4ccc1681$0$6776$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <878w1fy3lb.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <4ccc6bb9$0$6977$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <1moioblnrwu6j$.lryvrdcvl543.dlg@40tude.net> <4ccc86ab$0$7669$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <4ccd4c2d$0$7653$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Oct 2010 11:59:57 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 86df99be.newsspool1.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=L_Xa59b6nKHj7E:bke<5HFic==]BZ:afN4Fo<]lROoRA<`=YMgDjhgBMBHNc?NkSHNPCY\c7>ejVH;Bi1XSQ]b4If On 10/31/10 8:48 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 22:57:15 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > >> On 10/30/10 9:26 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:02:17 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: >>> >>>> So standards production costs money. Who is going to pay? >>> >>> Who should pay for laws? Who does not mathematical theorems? >>> >>>> If the answer is tax payers, then who is going to decide >>>> which standard deserves what amount of tax payers' money? >>> >>> Which law does deserve money? There are things, which cannot and may not be >>> sold. >>> >>> There was enough money for the laws about curved cucumbers and bent >>> bananas. >> >> And? > > Maybe there is still some money left for more useful things, like vital > software standards? So when selecting a subject for standardization, one criterion is its usefulness (undefined term, so far), specifically its being vital (to be defined). If a subject vital (whatever this means) then it is payed for with public money. Who determines what is vital? And who pays them for determining what is vital, and why it is vital? Lastly, who decides that the standard is so vital that everyone needs copies of the standard for free, plus that its production should be payed for by such-and-such? > BTW, publicly funded standards might become more > exposed to critique and control. Note that this issue will touch everyone. > New standards are coming, e.g. for the electrical devices in everyone's > home. Another criterion for selecting a subject for standardization, then, is that the thing is in everyone's home. Like light bulbs or cucumbers are in everyone's homes, maybe? Who, then, will drive standardization of light bulbs, and who does the financing?