Hollywood cries foul when their movies end up on the net, claiming that piracy hurts the artists, when in reality it is the "creative"(greedy) accounting practices of the studios that deny compensation to the artists. If the studios have no qualms about stealing the work of artists, how can they expect people not to pirate movies? After all, the studios don't create the work, they only own it. This recent turn of events only underscores the fundamental reality that piracy doesn't hurt the artists, but only the studios - which do little more than provide venture capital for artists.
The whole issue of movie piracy boils down to one theif stealing from another. If anything, this has shown that piracy is only immoral when the artist would have been compensated. With the exception of artists who publish their own work, this is almost never the case.
"You sir, have pilfered what I have rightfully stolen..."
gcc is built for portability, not speed. VC++'s code is faster
You're joking, right? Perhaps I'm a little behind the times, but I was under the impression that GCC used a register based architecture where VC++ uses a stack based architecture. While GCC might spit out some average performing code with the default options, using -O3 will produce very fast running code. I've compared the performance of code compiled with GCC vs. the same program written in assembler, and at its best, GCC is only 50% slower than hand coded assembly, which is very good considering that some very well respected compilers will produce code that is 10 times slower than hand coded assembly.
I've also looked at the assembly language output of VC++, and it's a joke. VC++ often inserts large sections of extraneous instructions into the code. I've managed to follow function calls in VC++, and it is not uncommon for a function call to have prolog and epilog code of several dozen instructions. Interestingly, GCC uses a register based schema, and I can actually follow the code pretty easily, in spite of the fact that it uses the AT&T syntax. GCC just produces cleaner code.
Lasers do have one big drawback. The beam is not very effective in inclement weather and requires greater levels of energy to pierce thick clouds.
I am not a physicist, but I believe that even the infrared laser beams would be scattered by rain or fog droplets, making a laser practically useless under such situations. Since the power of lasers as weapons is dependent on all of the light waves traveling in phase and in the same direction, something as simple as a drop of water could scatter laser light in all different directions, disrupting the beam and rendering it tactically useless.
Whether or not KMart licensed the software or bought shrink-wrapped copies is not mentioned in the article, nor is it the fundamental issue.
The real issue I have is with the statement "...products are licenses of copyrighted materials and, therefore, may not be assumed or assigned with Microsoft's consent." This quote tends to suggest that Microsoft believes that they still have the right to control the sale of their software not because of the license agreement, but rather because they own the copyright on it. Microsoft says nothing of compliance with the license agreement, instead focusing on copyright law. According to first sale doctrine, the copyright holder is only entitled to compensation from the first sale of a copyrighted work; it appears as if Microsoft believes they are entitled to compensation for every sale of their software.
The licenses that debtors (Kmart) have of Microsoft's products are licenses of copyrighted materials and, therefore, may not be assumed or assigned with Microsoft's consent
Is the nerve that they have to say this. Basically, what they're claiming is that even thought Kmart paid for the licenses, it can't resell them without Microsoft's consent. This has nothing to do with a EULA - Kmart is not the end user. What Microsoft is asserting is that buying something from Microsoft no longer entitles you to the rights of ownership.
The real reason why this is important is because this was a software sale, not a license. Microsoft sold Kmart the licenses. Unlike most users of Windows, which merely license the code, KMart bought licenses with the explicit purpose of redestribution, and now Microsoft is claiming that Kmart cannot sell what it legally owns, because of copyright restrictions. But Microsoft didn't license the software, they sold it as a commodity. So copyright shouldn't apply.
And it has insisted that providers including America Online leave open the possibility of turning over names, e-mail addresses, or records of political dissidents if the government of China demands them...
Is this any different from what the US demands of its ISPs? IIRC, the USAPATRIOT act gives the feds the ability to do all of these things should they believe that it would be "relevant to an ongoing investigation". They aren't even required to show probable cause that the victim is committing, or plans to commit a crime - only that the information would be useful to an "ongoing investigation..."
At least the Chinese are honest - they don't put up any pretenses about being a free country.
A good point. In my original post, I wanted to point out that the current manner of compensating artists is both unethical and outdated. Unethical, because of the disparity between what the record company makes and the artist makes. Outdated because no one knows exactly what their rights are under "fair use," and casual copying and sharing, if illegal, is almost impossible to prevent. What we need is a new model of compensation, where the artists are fairly compensated based on the quality of what they produce, rather than the marketing (or lack thereof) that the record companies do.
No, I'm not trying to start a flame war. I would, however, like to interject some independent thought into the discussion, rather than repeating the mindless blather of both sides. It seems to me that I only see two sides represented in the comments: The RIAA Is Evil and P2P Users Are Thieves.... My purpose wasn't to flame, but rather, to try to introduce a different perspective in this debate.
In case you don't like the analogy: I'm also in a band that's "critically acclaimed" but not famous; we lose money every time we even think about music.) My most successful programmer friend guesses he makes about $200 US per hour.
Your cases are far from typical; the typical programmer makes about $25-35/hour, not $200. If I wanted to, I could probably come up with a list of musicians that make $2000/hour.
But this isn't the point. The point is that no one thinks about why we pay for some things and not others. Why don't we pay for radio? - after all, they are playing your music (if you're any good, but that's a different argument...). So why does it come to me for free, and benefit the advertisers, rather than the musicians? Well, we could argue that the musicians don't deserve any compensation, because they aren't actually doing any work when their songs are played on the radio.
If you are a musician, and music is what you sell, then you should be compensated every time someone hears it. But this model has problems, because of the distribution system currently in place ensures that those who don't make the music make the most from the music. If music is capable of being owned, then someone who buys a CD should own that music. But they don't. They aren't buying the music, and they can't do with it as they please. And the real problem is that there's no clear definition of what someone is buying when they buy the CD - Do they have the right to make a copy for a friend? (after all, the friend may not ever buy the CD, and the musician will not expend any additional effort...)
Or are they merely limited to only personal enjoyment - that is, they can listen to the CD, but they can't share it...
The problem with the current model of compensation for musicians is that it rewards the most successful of musicians for doing very little work, while the hardest working musicians are often the least equitably compensated. The idea of continuing to profit from work already done is as capitalist as one can get - and yes, it is greedy - whether you or Corporate America profits from your work is a matter of contract. What's wrong with an even exchange of work and money?
And don't get started about the starving musician bit. Musicians sell what is easily acquired to those who have little real need for it. Hence the low rates of compensation. But it's not the compensation level that I take issue with, but rather the means. Even a greedy thief is still poor, but that doesn't mean he's not greedy by virtue of his lack of money.
So back to the original question: Why is it stealing to copy a friend's CD, but not to listen to the radio? Please explain, because I haven't compensated the artist in either situation.
Why should the artist, who performs a song once, get paid every time someone wants to hear that song? They expend no additional effort regardless of how many times a CD is copied or their music is played.
Consider programming, for example. Most programmers are paid to produce something, and very few, if any, receive royalties every time their programs are run. Why should it be any different for "artists" - who like programmers, are creative, but considerable better compensated considering the actual amount of work they do.
Notice that I'm not saying that performers shouldn't be compensated, but rather that they aren't entitled to be compensated for doing nothing. I have no problem with paying to see an artist performing live, because in that case, they are actually working. But how am I depriving an artist of their "fair share" if I copy a CD that I wouldn't have paid for in the first place? What if I don't buy CD's, but rather just listen to the radio? Am I stealing then? (I enjoy the music, but I didn't pay for it!) What's the difference?
What it comes down to is plain and simple greed. The record companies and artists want to be compensated for doing nothing.
I'm not saying that a musician's life isn't hard, but no one forced these people to become musicians. A career in music is not an entitlement. If you can't make a living as a musician, actually performing live, then maybe you shouldn't be in the business.
I hired lawyers and a public relations firm to write those. They do not tell the whole story and they don't for a reason. That's why I hired those people because they know how to say things in a way to get an objective accomplished and that objective was not to impress SEO's.
I can't believe this one. He's basically admitting that he's not being totally honest. Can't wait for the SEC to ask for his accounting records! Maybe those do not tell the whole story either...
If this guy is the CEO of SearchKing, he won't be for long. He's basically admitted to misleading the public, a fact which will probably severely damage his credibility in the eyes of the courts.
Generally speaking, adding registers uses up more silicon on the die, as the microcode must now work with a larger number of registers. The real problem comes with register renaming and out of order execution - which take up a considerable amount of microcode logic. As the number of registers increases, I imagine (though I am not a computer engineer) that the amount of silicon used for optimization grows exponentially.
Translation: It's probably easier to optimize a processor with a smaller number of registers than one with many registers. However, the optimization that has been done to the x86 processors has yielded paltry results. Aside from pipelining (which has had the largest effect), most of the optimizations (register renaming, speculative execution, branch prediction) have had very little real world performance impact.
However, the biggest problem that modern processors face is in keeping the cache full. Since the memory bus works at about 1/5 the speed of the processor, any gains given by optimizing the processor core are lost by the relatively large amount of time that the processor spends waiting on the memory controller. Thus, if we had more registers, we could use them for variables, rather than main memory, and reduce the number of main memory accesses, allowing our processor to complete more instructions in any given amount of time. The reason why the mainframe processors work so well is that they have 16 general purpose registers, which can be used for anything - as opposed to PC's, where only one of the general purpose registers can be used for arithmetic, only three of which can be used for addressing, and only one for IO. Given these restrictions, it's very difficult to write a program in x86 assembly that uses registers for anything more than the most temporary of variables. Even though mainframe processors run at 1/3 the speed of PC's, they get about as much done because they don't have the main memory latencies that PC's do, and, they can use registers, rather than memory, for the most commonly used variables. It isn't very difficult for a mainframe programmer to write useful programs in assembly that use main memory for nothing more than file buffers, where to do the same thing in x86 assembly is next to impossible.
Oops. Forgot about PUSHA/POPA. Kind of strange, too, because I use these a lot.
Also, about the opcode problem - adding registers doesn't necessarily mean adding opcodes. For example, IBM mainframes have one opcode for a load register instruction, and the registers are specified in the instruction. Were IBM to double the number of registers, the opcode would not have to change (granted, the instruction would get longer because they only allocated enough space in the source and destination fields for specifying one of 16 registers.) The problem is with the way x86 opcodes work - they aren't as universal, that is, the opcode's first byte is a function of both the operation and the register used. So expansion would be pretty difficult, unless they expanded the instruction set to include two byte opcodes (which they've already done, iirc), and use general purpose opcodes for common operations such as loading and storing.
It's unfortunate, but true.
The real, and only solution, is that these companies get their acts together, quit issuing refreshes of old hardware, and finally give us their next gen chips to play with. Proposing anything else is just pointless. (Unless, of course, the new CPUs completely flop..)
Couldn't agree with you more. What I would really like to see is an x86 processor that could handle IBM mainframe instructions. The IBM mainframe instruction set makes a lot more sense than Intel's instruction set - unlike Intel, IBM realized that someday they might be doing 64 bit and 128 bit computing, and designed the instruction set to be expandable. Also, they don't have a lot of "garbage" instructions - no MMX, no SSE, no SIMD junk to clutter up a good design. To be honest, benchmarks that I've run on real-world software indicate that today's x86 processors complete 4 instructions for every 5 clock cycles. Which indicates that branch prediction and deep pipelines aren't the performance enhancers that Intel and AMD seem to believe them to be. While they might work well in theory, real world performance speaks otherwise. Given this, I don't see any practical reason for keeping a kludgy instruction set around, because the complexity of the instruction set has been a great hindrance to the actual, rather than the theoretical, optimization of x86 processors.
The only potential downfall I see in this design is the possible pipeline stall seen when RM/RMC have to be populated from stack data. When that happens, no assembly instructions can be decoded until the POPRMC instruction completes and RM/RMC are loaded with the values from the stack.
Actually, this is just one of many potential downfalls. He forgot interrupts, mode switching (going from protected to real mode, as some OS's still do), and IO would all require that the proposed RM/RMC register be loaded from the stack. The net effect would be that if his scheme is implemented, existing programs would run slower, not faster. Furthermore, placing the RM/RMC register on the stack is an impossibility without breaking backward compatibility; many assembly language coders depend on a set number of bytes being added to the stack when they perform a call or interrupt.
Why not just add 24 GP registers to the existing processor? Honestly, it would be a lot simpler, and would not complicate the whole x86 mess, nor break backward compatibility.
I don't mean to flame, but this guy is way off base. The biggest problem with the x86 instruction set is lack of registers, and the second biggest problem is that its complexity is rapidly becoming unmanageable. Not even Intel recommends using assembly anymore - their recommendation is to write in C and let their compiler perform the optimizations. Adding more instructions like this would further diminish the viability of coding in assembly.
A far better solution would be to simply keep the existing instruction set intact, and add more GP registers. IBM got it right the first time - their mainframe processors have 16 general purpose registers which can be used for any operation - addressing, indexing, integer, and floating point calculations. If anything,
Intel should stop adding instructions and start adding registers.
Those who would blame video games for violent behavior do not understand the cause of violence. Fear fuels hatred, and hatred fuels violence. Without the hatred, violence cannot flourish. If anything, video games reduce the level of stress an individual is experiencing, making it less likely that an individual will become violent.
What this is really about is blame shifting. White middle class America can't even grasp the concept that they might somehow be responsible for the angst level of minorities and the underpriveledged. It is much easier for suburban America to have a politician pass a law against "violent" video games than it is for them to take a hard look at their own lifestyles. This way, they feel as if they are "doing something" while absolving themselves of any responsibility for the condition of their communities.
I'm a professionally programmer, and all around me I see my colleagues wasting their time re-implementing things that have been done before many times. Sometimes redoing techniques from books, from competing software, from non-competing software (completely different fields). Sometimes even reimplementing their own prior work, because they're not licensed to paste it in again.
I too am a professional programmer, and I see the same thing. But this is simply a matter of job security. The employer pays for the wheel every time it is reinvented. Horribly inefficient from an economic standpoint, but you won't find me crying over Corporate America's (tm) lost money.
...you shouldn't have to force everyone to reimplement the warp-drive, on the chance that someone will do it in a new & unique way.
True - you should license the warp drive from the original inventor. This will probably save your company money in the long run, and if it won't, then you have every justification for reimplementing the Warp Drive. Perhaps you'll come up with a Better Warp Drive (tm) and add competitive advantage to your software, as opposed to merely marketing Yet Another Warp Drive (tm).
I feel really guilty that we as an industry use copyright laws to extort money from our customers, by getting paid for the same works over and over again.
So do I. But I've realized that this is what Corporate America (tm) demands. Look at how hard it was for Linux to break into Corporate America ("If it's free, it must not be worth anything...etc."). Companies want you to charge them money. The more money they spend, the better they feel - managers brag about how much money they spend.
I know it's kind of unethical, but I can't really shed tears for a system that intentionally destroys American jobs so they can exploit the poor in third world countries. Don't feel guilty about reinventing the wheel for your employer - your company gets what it deserves.
Business software is seldom written to innovate. In most cases, you just get a job done - nothing else. Yes, patents can cost your employer money, but they do it by keeping you, the programmer, employed.
My real point was this: patents can stimulate improvement in software by removing the ability to merely copy another programmer's work. So what if I have to reinvent my own wheel? Do you really think that I won't come up with a better solution the second time around? The patent system encourages programmers to make progress in their discipline, rather than plagiarizing the work of others.
I've learned to stop worrying so much about DRM, Palladium, Microsoft, etc... simply because I have faith in the ingenuity of people. I used to think that patents and IP prohibited innovation, but it occurs to me that they might actually spur programmers on to invent better ways of doing things, rather than merely copying someone else's idea or program. The reason why so many Open Source advocates have philosophical problems with the patent system is because most Open Source authors are merely copying someone else's idea, rather than inventing something new. I, for one, would like to see Open Source projects that invent something new and useful, rather than just making cheap knock-offs of someone else's program.
is not stem cell research, but in using unborn humans as a source for those stem cells. The church has no qualms about stem cell research so long as acquiring the stem cells does not mean killing an unborn human being.
What the Church really fears is a time in which humans will be "grown" for their organs - that is to provide healthy organs for sick people. Using embryonic stem cells for research is not a trivial step in that direction.
Microsoft generally believes that digital entertainment, digital media, is the thing that's going to drive the next cycle of PC upgrades," he said. "There's not that much more new you can do with your PC that you're not already doing."
Problem is, if the user cannot transfer their digital content, be it original work, copyrighted audio or video, to their next PC, they aren't likely to upgrade. What will Microsoft do in two years when their current customers will want to upgrade their PC, but won't for fear of losing their digital content? If Microsoft is indeed right in saying that digital media will drive PC upgrade cycles, they are being quite shortsighted by releasing an OS which ties all of a consumer's digital media to their current machine.
For more than 2000 years, the best scientific minds on earth believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Evolution as a theory is less than 200 years old. Why should I accept as true something said by a group that has made such large blunders before?
I will grant you that there is much data concerning evolution. What I disagree with is the interpretation of that data. Most evolutionary theory ideas do not hold up to simple logical scrutiny, much less scientific scrutiny. Yes, science will eventually straighten itself out in this regard, but in the meantime, many, many people will believe things that will later be shown to be false. Imagine the shock when some 25th century Galileo shows that evolution couldn't possibly be true!
Perhaps this is OT, but I couldn't help but notice this: (emphasis mine)
The searches began hours after The Washington Post reported that ForensicTec consultants used free software to identify vulnerable computers and then peruse hundreds of confidential files containing military procedures, e-mail, Social Security numbers and financial data, according to records maintained by the company.
This can't be good for Linux, and other free software projects. Granted, we could rant about how "free software" isn't necessarily the same free software that these folks used, but I think that we would do better to distance ourselves from the term "free software" - which conjures up images of pirated, illicit, or otherwise illegal software in the minds of the average user.
Given that the FBI now considers guilt-by-association probably cause, we should make the effort to use the term "open source" rather than "free software". I know there are ideological differences, but if we want to be accepted by the computing community at large, we need to appeal to them with terms that are unambiguous and easily understood.
The problem with evolution, as it currently stands, is that:
Evolution is a family of theories, many of which cannot be proven/disproven. Because of this, they aren't valid scientific theories. And it is certainly not a fact - not even the scientific community at large supports this claim.
The core idea behind evolution, that a species adapts to its environment by its weaker members being killed off before they can reproduce is logically suspect. If nature did indeed work this way, evolution would favor the most prolific breeders as opposed to those most suited to their environment. Compared to their evolutionary ancestors, time to maturity and gestation periods have increased for all of the advanced species - which is exactly the opposite of what should happen according to evolutionary theory.
The can of peaches argument. In a can of peaches, you will find all of the elements essential for life - a good food supply, amino acids, cell structures, DNA, etc... Yet, apart from contamination from the outside world, no life starts growing in a can of peaches. Why? If life really did begin as a cosmic accident where all of the ingredients came together under the right conditions, we should be able to reproduce this event with modern lab equipment. Yet we can't. In fact, if this theory were true, we should see new life forms springing up in every canned good. It just doesn't make sense that something as complex as modern life forms simply came about by random interaction between chemicals.
Entropy - life forms are the only part of the universe to demonstrate negative entropy; according to the theory of evolution, life forms become more complex as time goes on; in the rest of the sciences, however, complex systems tend to break down into simpler ones. This again illustrates that these theories are flawed, because they contradict the soundly established laws of physical science. (Yes, entropy is not a law, but equilibrium is - and the point still holds)
Fundamentalist Christianity aside, the Bible says very little about how life came about, and more about who started it. Microevolution doesn't conflict with Christianity per se, but just as any science cannot be apolitical, many humanist authors have (mis)used the theories of evolution to attack Christian belief. Macroevolution is in direct contrast with Christianity, however, and most Christians do not distinguish between the two.
Evolution is either 1.) against someone's belief, or 2.) not a scientific fact. Regardless of whether one believes in science or Christ, believing in evolution makes no sense. From a Christian perspective, God created life. From a scientific perspective, evolution is still nothing more than a family of theories, many of which cannot be proven, and all of which have not been proven.
My fear is that Pd will lead us down a road where our computers are no longer our computers, but are instead owned by a variety of factions and companies all looking for a piece of our wallet.
Strange thing is, what most people don't realize is that they don't own the software that runs on their computer. Microsoft does (or at least the EULA claims they do). Our computers are not our own, and have not been our own, for a long time now. The sad fact is that while we may physically own the hardware, a part essential for the hardware functioning - namely, the OS - is owned by Microsoft.
Now, you could counter by saying that people could run Linux, however, this isn't really an option for the average computer owner.
Most computers built today have hardware that isn't fully compatible with Linux (Winmodems, etc...). So, the while the user has physical possession of his computer, all of his data is effectively owned by Microsoft, because without Microsoft's blessing, the average PC is useless.
So the next time you hear of someone wanting to buy a new PC, you might want to remind them that unless they are willing to install Linux, they aren't really buying anything. It's more like a lease from Microsoft.
DRM-restricted (copy protected) media - CD's, DVD's, or otherwise.
What corporate america fails to realize is that the value of a CD lies not just in the physical device, but in the ability for the end user to enjoy the content as they see fit - to copy it to their computer, to make mixed CD's, etc... So my question to Sony is this: How do you expect to make money selling a product that nobody wants? Consumers DON'T WANT copy-restricted media or PC's. I, for one, won't be buying any Sony products in the future for fear that I won't be able to copy CD's that I have legimately paid for, or burn CD's of my own "copyrighted" original material.
How long will it be before running an unlicensed, unregistered software program will be illegal? This DRM scheme is just an incremental step in Corporate America's plan to levy a tax on everything done on a PC. Think about this folks - Sony is trying to take away our freedoms. Spend accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood cries foul when their movies end up on the net, claiming that piracy hurts the artists, when in reality it is the "creative"(greedy) accounting practices of the studios that deny compensation to the artists. If the studios have no qualms about stealing the work of artists, how can they expect people not to pirate movies? After all, the studios don't create the work, they only own it. This recent turn of events only underscores the fundamental reality that piracy doesn't hurt the artists, but only the studios - which do little more than provide venture capital for artists.
The whole issue of movie piracy boils down to one theif stealing from another. If anything, this has shown that piracy is only immoral when the artist would have been compensated. With the exception of artists who publish their own work, this is almost never the case.
"You sir, have pilfered what I have rightfully stolen..."
You're joking, right? Perhaps I'm a little behind the times, but I was under the impression that GCC used a register based architecture where VC++ uses a stack based architecture. While GCC might spit out some average performing code with the default options, using -O3 will produce very fast running code. I've compared the performance of code compiled with GCC vs. the same program written in assembler, and at its best, GCC is only 50% slower than hand coded assembly, which is very good considering that some very well respected compilers will produce code that is 10 times slower than hand coded assembly.
I've also looked at the assembly language output of VC++, and it's a joke. VC++ often inserts large sections of extraneous instructions into the code. I've managed to follow function calls in VC++, and it is not uncommon for a function call to have prolog and epilog code of several dozen instructions. Interestingly, GCC uses a register based schema, and I can actually follow the code pretty easily, in spite of the fact that it uses the AT&T syntax. GCC just produces cleaner code.
Or better:
Do not look at laser with remaining eye
I am not a physicist, but I believe that even the infrared laser beams would be scattered by rain or fog droplets, making a laser practically useless under such situations. Since the power of lasers as weapons is dependent on all of the light waves traveling in phase and in the same direction, something as simple as a drop of water could scatter laser light in all different directions, disrupting the beam and rendering it tactically useless.
Whether or not KMart licensed the software or bought shrink-wrapped copies is not mentioned in the article, nor is it the fundamental issue. The real issue I have is with the statement "...products are licenses of copyrighted materials and, therefore, may not be assumed or assigned with Microsoft's consent." This quote tends to suggest that Microsoft believes that they still have the right to control the sale of their software not because of the license agreement, but rather because they own the copyright on it. Microsoft says nothing of compliance with the license agreement, instead focusing on copyright law. According to first sale doctrine, the copyright holder is only entitled to compensation from the first sale of a copyrighted work; it appears as if Microsoft believes they are entitled to compensation for every sale of their software.
Is the nerve that they have to say this. Basically, what they're claiming is that even thought Kmart paid for the licenses, it can't resell them without Microsoft's consent. This has nothing to do with a EULA - Kmart is not the end user. What Microsoft is asserting is that buying something from Microsoft no longer entitles you to the rights of ownership.
The real reason why this is important is because this was a software sale, not a license. Microsoft sold Kmart the licenses. Unlike most users of Windows, which merely license the code, KMart bought licenses with the explicit purpose of redestribution, and now Microsoft is claiming that Kmart cannot sell what it legally owns, because of copyright restrictions. But Microsoft didn't license the software, they sold it as a commodity. So copyright shouldn't apply.
Is this any different from what the US demands of its ISPs? IIRC, the USAPATRIOT act gives the feds the ability to do all of these things should they believe that it would be "relevant to an ongoing investigation". They aren't even required to show probable cause that the victim is committing, or plans to commit a crime - only that the information would be useful to an "ongoing investigation..."
At least the Chinese are honest - they don't put up any pretenses about being a free country.
A good point. In my original post, I wanted to point out that the current manner of compensating artists is both unethical and outdated. Unethical, because of the disparity between what the record company makes and the artist makes. Outdated because no one knows exactly what their rights are under "fair use," and casual copying and sharing, if illegal, is almost impossible to prevent. What we need is a new model of compensation, where the artists are fairly compensated based on the quality of what they produce, rather than the marketing (or lack thereof) that the record companies do.
No, I'm not trying to start a flame war. I would, however, like to interject some independent thought into the discussion, rather than repeating the mindless blather of both sides. It seems to me that I only see two sides represented in the comments: The RIAA Is Evil and P2P Users Are Thieves.... My purpose wasn't to flame, but rather, to try to introduce a different perspective in this debate.
In case you don't like the analogy: I'm also in a band that's "critically acclaimed" but not famous; we lose money every time we even think about music.) My most successful programmer friend guesses he makes about $200 US per hour.
Your cases are far from typical; the typical programmer makes about $25-35/hour, not $200. If I wanted to, I could probably come up with a list of musicians that make $2000/hour.
But this isn't the point. The point is that no one thinks about why we pay for some things and not others. Why don't we pay for radio? - after all, they are playing your music (if you're any good, but that's a different argument...). So why does it come to me for free, and benefit the advertisers, rather than the musicians? Well, we could argue that the musicians don't deserve any compensation, because they aren't actually doing any work when their songs are played on the radio.
If you are a musician, and music is what you sell, then you should be compensated every time someone hears it. But this model has problems, because of the distribution system currently in place ensures that those who don't make the music make the most from the music. If music is capable of being owned, then someone who buys a CD should own that music. But they don't. They aren't buying the music, and they can't do with it as they please. And the real problem is that there's no clear definition of what someone is buying when they buy the CD - Do they have the right to make a copy for a friend? (after all, the friend may not ever buy the CD, and the musician will not expend any additional effort...) Or are they merely limited to only personal enjoyment - that is, they can listen to the CD, but they can't share it...
The problem with the current model of compensation for musicians is that it rewards the most successful of musicians for doing very little work, while the hardest working musicians are often the least equitably compensated. The idea of continuing to profit from work already done is as capitalist as one can get - and yes, it is greedy - whether you or Corporate America profits from your work is a matter of contract. What's wrong with an even exchange of work and money?
And don't get started about the starving musician bit. Musicians sell what is easily acquired to those who have little real need for it. Hence the low rates of compensation. But it's not the compensation level that I take issue with, but rather the means. Even a greedy thief is still poor, but that doesn't mean he's not greedy by virtue of his lack of money.
So back to the original question: Why is it stealing to copy a friend's CD, but not to listen to the radio? Please explain, because I haven't compensated the artist in either situation.
Why should the artist, who performs a song once, get paid every time someone wants to hear that song? They expend no additional effort regardless of how many times a CD is copied or their music is played.
Consider programming, for example. Most programmers are paid to produce something, and very few, if any, receive royalties every time their programs are run. Why should it be any different for "artists" - who like programmers, are creative, but considerable better compensated considering the actual amount of work they do.
Notice that I'm not saying that performers shouldn't be compensated, but rather that they aren't entitled to be compensated for doing nothing. I have no problem with paying to see an artist performing live, because in that case, they are actually working. But how am I depriving an artist of their "fair share" if I copy a CD that I wouldn't have paid for in the first place? What if I don't buy CD's, but rather just listen to the radio? Am I stealing then? (I enjoy the music, but I didn't pay for it!) What's the difference?
What it comes down to is plain and simple greed. The record companies and artists want to be compensated for doing nothing.
I'm not saying that a musician's life isn't hard, but no one forced these people to become musicians. A career in music is not an entitlement. If you can't make a living as a musician, actually performing live, then maybe you shouldn't be in the business.
I can't believe this one. He's basically admitting that he's not being totally honest. Can't wait for the SEC to ask for his accounting records! Maybe those do not tell the whole story either...
If this guy is the CEO of SearchKing, he won't be for long. He's basically admitted to misleading the public, a fact which will probably severely damage his credibility in the eyes of the courts.
So someone finally found a use for the Iridium satellites after all!
Generally speaking, adding registers uses up more silicon on the die, as the microcode must now work with a larger number of registers. The real problem comes with register renaming and out of order execution - which take up a considerable amount of microcode logic. As the number of registers increases, I imagine (though I am not a computer engineer) that the amount of silicon used for optimization grows exponentially.
Translation: It's probably easier to optimize a processor with a smaller number of registers than one with many registers. However, the optimization that has been done to the x86 processors has yielded paltry results. Aside from pipelining (which has had the largest effect), most of the optimizations (register renaming, speculative execution, branch prediction) have had very little real world performance impact.
However, the biggest problem that modern processors face is in keeping the cache full. Since the memory bus works at about 1/5 the speed of the processor, any gains given by optimizing the processor core are lost by the relatively large amount of time that the processor spends waiting on the memory controller. Thus, if we had more registers, we could use them for variables, rather than main memory, and reduce the number of main memory accesses, allowing our processor to complete more instructions in any given amount of time. The reason why the mainframe processors work so well is that they have 16 general purpose registers, which can be used for anything - as opposed to PC's, where only one of the general purpose registers can be used for arithmetic, only three of which can be used for addressing, and only one for IO. Given these restrictions, it's very difficult to write a program in x86 assembly that uses registers for anything more than the most temporary of variables. Even though mainframe processors run at 1/3 the speed of PC's, they get about as much done because they don't have the main memory latencies that PC's do, and, they can use registers, rather than memory, for the most commonly used variables. It isn't very difficult for a mainframe programmer to write useful programs in assembly that use main memory for nothing more than file buffers, where to do the same thing in x86 assembly is next to impossible.
Oops. Forgot about PUSHA/POPA. Kind of strange, too, because I use these a lot.
Also, about the opcode problem - adding registers doesn't necessarily mean adding opcodes. For example, IBM mainframes have one opcode for a load register instruction, and the registers are specified in the instruction. Were IBM to double the number of registers, the opcode would not have to change (granted, the instruction would get longer because they only allocated enough space in the source and destination fields for specifying one of 16 registers.) The problem is with the way x86 opcodes work - they aren't as universal, that is, the opcode's first byte is a function of both the operation and the register used. So expansion would be pretty difficult, unless they expanded the instruction set to include two byte opcodes (which they've already done, iirc), and use general purpose opcodes for common operations such as loading and storing.
It's unfortunate, but true.
The real, and only solution, is that these companies get their acts together, quit issuing refreshes of old hardware, and finally give us their next gen chips to play with. Proposing anything else is just pointless. (Unless, of course, the new CPUs completely flop..)
Couldn't agree with you more. What I would really like to see is an x86 processor that could handle IBM mainframe instructions. The IBM mainframe instruction set makes a lot more sense than Intel's instruction set - unlike Intel, IBM realized that someday they might be doing 64 bit and 128 bit computing, and designed the instruction set to be expandable. Also, they don't have a lot of "garbage" instructions - no MMX, no SSE, no SIMD junk to clutter up a good design. To be honest, benchmarks that I've run on real-world software indicate that today's x86 processors complete 4 instructions for every 5 clock cycles. Which indicates that branch prediction and deep pipelines aren't the performance enhancers that Intel and AMD seem to believe them to be. While they might work well in theory, real world performance speaks otherwise. Given this, I don't see any practical reason for keeping a kludgy instruction set around, because the complexity of the instruction set has been a great hindrance to the actual, rather than the theoretical, optimization of x86 processors.
Actually, this is just one of many potential downfalls. He forgot interrupts, mode switching (going from protected to real mode, as some OS's still do), and IO would all require that the proposed RM/RMC register be loaded from the stack. The net effect would be that if his scheme is implemented, existing programs would run slower, not faster. Furthermore, placing the RM/RMC register on the stack is an impossibility without breaking backward compatibility; many assembly language coders depend on a set number of bytes being added to the stack when they perform a call or interrupt.
Why not just add 24 GP registers to the existing processor? Honestly, it would be a lot simpler, and would not complicate the whole x86 mess, nor break backward compatibility.
I don't mean to flame, but this guy is way off base. The biggest problem with the x86 instruction set is lack of registers, and the second biggest problem is that its complexity is rapidly becoming unmanageable. Not even Intel recommends using assembly anymore - their recommendation is to write in C and let their compiler perform the optimizations. Adding more instructions like this would further diminish the viability of coding in assembly.
A far better solution would be to simply keep the existing instruction set intact, and add more GP registers. IBM got it right the first time - their mainframe processors have 16 general purpose registers which can be used for any operation - addressing, indexing, integer, and floating point calculations. If anything, Intel should stop adding instructions and start adding registers.
Those who would blame video games for violent behavior do not understand the cause of violence. Fear fuels hatred, and hatred fuels violence. Without the hatred, violence cannot flourish. If anything, video games reduce the level of stress an individual is experiencing, making it less likely that an individual will become violent.
What this is really about is blame shifting. White middle class America can't even grasp the concept that they might somehow be responsible for the angst level of minorities and the underpriveledged. It is much easier for suburban America to have a politician pass a law against "violent" video games than it is for them to take a hard look at their own lifestyles. This way, they feel as if they are "doing something" while absolving themselves of any responsibility for the condition of their communities.
I'm a professionally programmer, and all around me I see my colleagues wasting their time re-implementing things that have been done before many times. Sometimes redoing techniques from books, from competing software, from non-competing software (completely different fields). Sometimes even reimplementing their own prior work, because they're not licensed to paste it in again.
I too am a professional programmer, and I see the same thing. But this is simply a matter of job security. The employer pays for the wheel every time it is reinvented. Horribly inefficient from an economic standpoint, but you won't find me crying over Corporate America's (tm) lost money.
True - you should license the warp drive from the original inventor. This will probably save your company money in the long run, and if it won't, then you have every justification for reimplementing the Warp Drive. Perhaps you'll come up with a Better Warp Drive (tm) and add competitive advantage to your software, as opposed to merely marketing Yet Another Warp Drive (tm).
I feel really guilty that we as an industry use copyright laws to extort money from our customers, by getting paid for the same works over and over again.
So do I. But I've realized that this is what Corporate America (tm) demands. Look at how hard it was for Linux to break into Corporate America ("If it's free, it must not be worth anything...etc."). Companies want you to charge them money. The more money they spend, the better they feel - managers brag about how much money they spend.
I know it's kind of unethical, but I can't really shed tears for a system that intentionally destroys American jobs so they can exploit the poor in third world countries. Don't feel guilty about reinventing the wheel for your employer - your company gets what it deserves.
Business software is seldom written to innovate. In most cases, you just get a job done - nothing else. Yes, patents can cost your employer money, but they do it by keeping you, the programmer, employed.
My real point was this: patents can stimulate improvement in software by removing the ability to merely copy another programmer's work. So what if I have to reinvent my own wheel? Do you really think that I won't come up with a better solution the second time around? The patent system encourages programmers to make progress in their discipline, rather than plagiarizing the work of others.
I've learned to stop worrying so much about DRM, Palladium, Microsoft, etc... simply because I have faith in the ingenuity of people. I used to think that patents and IP prohibited innovation, but it occurs to me that they might actually spur programmers on to invent better ways of doing things, rather than merely copying someone else's idea or program. The reason why so many Open Source advocates have philosophical problems with the patent system is because most Open Source authors are merely copying someone else's idea, rather than inventing something new. I, for one, would like to see Open Source projects that invent something new and useful, rather than just making cheap knock-offs of someone else's program.
is not stem cell research, but in using unborn humans as a source for those stem cells. The church has no qualms about stem cell research so long as acquiring the stem cells does not mean killing an unborn human being.
What the Church really fears is a time in which humans will be "grown" for their organs - that is to provide healthy organs for sick people. Using embryonic stem cells for research is not a trivial step in that direction.
Problem is, if the user cannot transfer their digital content, be it original work, copyrighted audio or video, to their next PC, they aren't likely to upgrade. What will Microsoft do in two years when their current customers will want to upgrade their PC, but won't for fear of losing their digital content? If Microsoft is indeed right in saying that digital media will drive PC upgrade cycles, they are being quite shortsighted by releasing an OS which ties all of a consumer's digital media to their current machine.
I will grant you that there is much data concerning evolution. What I disagree with is the interpretation of that data. Most evolutionary theory ideas do not hold up to simple logical scrutiny, much less scientific scrutiny. Yes, science will eventually straighten itself out in this regard, but in the meantime, many, many people will believe things that will later be shown to be false. Imagine the shock when some 25th century Galileo shows that evolution couldn't possibly be true!
Perhaps this is OT, but I couldn't help but notice this: (emphasis mine)
The searches began hours after The Washington Post reported that ForensicTec consultants used free software to identify vulnerable computers and then peruse hundreds of confidential files containing military procedures, e-mail, Social Security numbers and financial data, according to records maintained by the company.This can't be good for Linux, and other free software projects. Granted, we could rant about how "free software" isn't necessarily the same free software that these folks used, but I think that we would do better to distance ourselves from the term "free software" - which conjures up images of pirated, illicit, or otherwise illegal software in the minds of the average user.
Given that the FBI now considers guilt-by-association probably cause, we should make the effort to use the term "open source" rather than "free software". I know there are ideological differences, but if we want to be accepted by the computing community at large, we need to appeal to them with terms that are unambiguous and easily understood.
Evolution is either 1.) against someone's belief, or 2.) not a scientific fact. Regardless of whether one believes in science or Christ, believing in evolution makes no sense. From a Christian perspective, God created life. From a scientific perspective, evolution is still nothing more than a family of theories, many of which cannot be proven, and all of which have not been proven.
Strange thing is, what most people don't realize is that they don't own the software that runs on their computer. Microsoft does (or at least the EULA claims they do). Our computers are not our own, and have not been our own, for a long time now. The sad fact is that while we may physically own the hardware, a part essential for the hardware functioning - namely, the OS - is owned by Microsoft.
Now, you could counter by saying that people could run Linux, however, this isn't really an option for the average computer owner. Most computers built today have hardware that isn't fully compatible with Linux (Winmodems, etc...). So, the while the user has physical possession of his computer, all of his data is effectively owned by Microsoft, because without Microsoft's blessing, the average PC is useless.
So the next time you hear of someone wanting to buy a new PC, you might want to remind them that unless they are willing to install Linux, they aren't really buying anything. It's more like a lease from Microsoft.
What corporate america fails to realize is that the value of a CD lies not just in the physical device, but in the ability for the end user to enjoy the content as they see fit - to copy it to their computer, to make mixed CD's, etc... So my question to Sony is this: How do you expect to make money selling a product that nobody wants? Consumers DON'T WANT copy-restricted media or PC's. I, for one, won't be buying any Sony products in the future for fear that I won't be able to copy CD's that I have legimately paid for, or burn CD's of my own "copyrighted" original material.
How long will it be before running an unlicensed, unregistered software program will be illegal? This DRM scheme is just an incremental step in Corporate America's plan to levy a tax on everything done on a PC. Think about this folks - Sony is trying to take away our freedoms. Spend accordingly.