The Central Communications office of the US Air Force was forced to recall and edit the General's original comment, which they felt was "too forward thinking". Originally the General was quoted as saying "You can't go to war and win without spice."
The General later apologized and blamed it on too much time in the desert, but not before raising his fist and screaming "Long live the Fighters!"
IANAL but as far as I know, if I record something for personal use -- that recording BELONGS TO ME. Yes, I am still restricted by copyright and that prevents me from selling, redistributing or publicly showing the work -- but aside from those restrictions, the work is mine. It is residing on my machine, which I paid for.
Doesn't this constitute destruction of personal property? Seems worthy of class action.
Or I'll just go the home theater PC route and donate to whichever open-source PVR software works best.
The poor entertainment industry and their failed business model. They're going to have a tantrum aren't they...
I'm a hardcore democrat, but... just for purposes of discussion, I'll be the flamebait:
"Diebold threatened violators with immediate dismissal," the insider, who we'll call DIEB-THROAT, explained recently to The BRAD BLOG via email. "In 2005, after one newly hired member of Diebold's technical staff pointed out the security flaw, he was criticized and isolated."
Ok... so this whistle blower who worked for Diebold went to The New York Times? No. Went to The Washington Post? No. Went to a... newspaper? No.
This whistleblower went to The Brad Blog.
Any questions?
"What on earth do you mean? That's about as standard as it gets. It's called exclusive licensing, and that's the way it goes. Companies offer price incentives to sign exclusive deals. It's competitive because Dell is free to sign exclusively with anybody."
No, IANAL but I don't think that's true at all.
Were that the case there would be no such thing as "anti-competitive behaviour". Microsoft bundling would be seen as "exclusivity".
'Exclusivity' means that you have the sole right to distribute a product within a certain region or territory. But as far as I know it does not mean that that right comes with the other requirement that you don't stock competing products. As far as I know, that would be the very definition of "anti-competitive".
Any lawyers in the house?
Re:Exactly what *is* the Dell aversion to AMD?
on
Dell Dumping Itanium
·
· Score: 1
> "I am sure Intel will offer Dell "whatever" it takes to keep the exclusive arrangement"
What you're describing is illegal anti-competitive behaviour.
Re:Exactly what *is* the Dell aversion to AMD?
on
Dell Dumping Itanium
·
· Score: 2
... right, but either way its the "if you don't sell Pepsi" part that's the illegal bit.
Re:Exactly what *is* the Dell aversion to AMD?
on
Dell Dumping Itanium
·
· Score: 1
Because ultimately anti-competitive behavior *always* hurts the consumer.
Just when you think you're winning on pricing, it usually turns out you're losing on innovation.
Re:Exactly what *is* the Dell aversion to AMD?
on
Dell Dumping Itanium
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
No its not like saying that at all.
If Coke said to your local supermarket: "We'll give you a 10% discount if you don't stock Pepsi -- even though Pepsi represents 36% of the market", that would be anti-competitive behaviour.
The case already went before the Japanese Trade Comission and AMD won. I have a hard time believing that the scenario is different in the US.
Re:Exactly what *is* the Dell aversion to AMD?
on
Dell Dumping Itanium
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
IMHO that's not an acceptable explanation for offering zero AMD servers.
Its not as if Dell sells AMD servers at a higher price. Clearly there is an enormous amount of demand for Opterons. All the market metrics show Opterons taking a larger and larger piece of the server market. Dell's server business is hurting as a result, and still they offer no AMD machines.
Furthermore, if as you say "Intel offers a better deal" -- and that deal was based upon exclusivity. (In other words: "You get a 15% discount if you sell only Intel chips"), It seems to me that that would be illegal and anti-competitive.
Exactly what *is* the Dell aversion to AMD?
on
Dell Dumping Itanium
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
One has to wonder, outside the obvious explanation of Intel's anti-competitive trade practices, what is Dell's aversion to AMD 64-bit / dual-core processors?
Clearly there is significant (and growing) demand for Opterons.
Dell's outright refusal to offer AMD chips seems almost like proof of itself that Intel is acting in an anti-competitive manner.
Why do graphics that are supposed to simulate being "Jacked In" always look so lame?
If, in the year 2005, we already have games which look nearly photo-realistic......in what possible future will a human-computer interface take a graphical step backwards to look like bad sci-fi movies from the early 80's?
Wouldn't being "Jacked In" look... well... sort of like Half-Life at least?
It wasn't just American ingenuity and willpower that got us to the moon. It was the threat of the Soviet Union beating us to the punch. The Soviets had already beaten us into orbit with Sputnik (a secret development project) and to put a human in space.
All that is necessary for our mission to Mars to happen in record time is the threat of China getting there first.
Hell... since I'd love to see us get to Mars in my lifetime... I suggest we all start the rumour that China is working on a secret Mars project....
The upside potential to be gained from Xbox far outweighs the upside potential from increased PC gaming.
This is a half-baked effort to make nice with the only segment of the hardware business that has legs. (Gamer's always demand the latest and greatest).
This review tries to make it sound like the game is good... but I can't help noticing that it succeeds in exactly the opposite.
"Diablo model"? (How old is Diablo now?)
"Very close to Dungeon Seige I"? (DS I was good but that was years ago.)
Those games are both archaic at this point when we have WOW and other MMORPGS, the game needs to offer something that those other games don't. Storyline? NPC's? FMV Cutscenes? Depth of character development? Thousands of rare items a la BGII?
I don't know if it was this review, but the game sounds positively retro.
AMD admits that now they are capacity restrained, but that was not always the case. The reality is that AMD has begun to chip away at Intel in the last two years, but that's not a result of Intel releasing its iron grip on OEM's -- its just a matter of AMD having the clearly superior product. But the AMD's claims suggest, that if AMD and Intel had *equal* products, AMD's market share would not improve, even if their prices were lower.
Using evidence of capacity would be holding AMD's own against-all-adversity successes as an argument against them. The reality is that Intel has unfairly squashed AMD at every turn, and just recently AMD has begun to succeed *anyway* -- to the point where they are exceeding their own capacity to produce.
These video game patents are some of the most ridiculously offensive pieces of IP. So many of them revolve around "the character" and the medium for their originality. ie: "This was the first game to give an athlete points for finesse!"
Oh please.
Multiple real world, and pre-existing fictional examples exist for every one of these concepts.
Laughing isn't "new". Hallucinating isn't "new". Nor is scoring a 720 above the rim with particular finesse anything new. These feats are only "new" in video games.
But video games *are an approximation of reality*. And if every new level of reality-approximation results in a patent, it is extremely clear where we'll end up: we'll end up with a level of creativity which is *exactly equal* to everything that has already been achieved musically, fictionally, artistically, athletically and of prior human achievement will be owned by a small group of people who were not the innovators or the inventors -- they were merely the translators.
Actually, the more I think about this... the more it makes sense.
Webb Interactive (WEBB.OB) owns somewhere south of 50% of Jabber, Inc.
It *does* seem sort of surprising that Google would bank so heavily on the Jabber platform with no equity stake. Granted, its an open standard, but the amount of development Jabber, Inc. has in terms of server and enterprise components far, far exceeds anything that Google has.
I'd put my 2 cents on Google buying (the very tiny Webb Interactive) before they buy Skype.
This whole piece is full of half-baked speculation. Google is perfectly happy with their current client which has been in development for months.
Its not as if Google is in the business of investing time, money and press exposure on "interim, stepping stones".
Google wanted Jabber. And that's what they used. The current client supports VOIP, and uses open standards. Anyone who knows Google knows that Jabber and Google's own VOIP are the platform for the next 5 years at least.
The only question should be: Will Google buy Webb Interactive (46% owner of Jabber)
Slashdot Mirror
Rumour has it that Nintendo promptly extended kudos back to Microsoft for their attempt at a console.
The General later apologized and blamed it on too much time in the desert, but not before raising his fist and screaming "Long live the Fighters!"
The Air Force has refused to comment further.
IANAL but as far as I know, if I record something for personal use -- that recording BELONGS TO ME. Yes, I am still restricted by copyright and that prevents me from selling, redistributing or publicly showing the work -- but aside from those restrictions, the work is mine. It is residing on my machine, which I paid for.
Doesn't this constitute destruction of personal property? Seems worthy of class action.
Or I'll just go the home theater PC route and donate to whichever open-source PVR software works best.
The poor entertainment industry and their failed business model. They're going to have a tantrum aren't they...
"Diebold threatened violators with immediate dismissal," the insider, who we'll call DIEB-THROAT, explained recently to The BRAD BLOG via email. "In 2005, after one newly hired member of Diebold's technical staff pointed out the security flaw, he was criticized and isolated."
Ok... so this whistle blower who worked for Diebold went to The New York Times? No. Went to The Washington Post? No. Went to a... newspaper? No. This whistleblower went to The Brad Blog. Any questions?
> Fortunately for us, there are other chip manufacturers than Intel.
As there are other operating systems besides Windows. I don't think the definition of monopoly requires singularity.
"What on earth do you mean? That's about as standard as it gets. It's called exclusive licensing, and that's the way it goes. Companies offer price incentives to sign exclusive deals. It's competitive because Dell is free to sign exclusively with anybody." No, IANAL but I don't think that's true at all. Were that the case there would be no such thing as "anti-competitive behaviour". Microsoft bundling would be seen as "exclusivity". 'Exclusivity' means that you have the sole right to distribute a product within a certain region or territory. But as far as I know it does not mean that that right comes with the other requirement that you don't stock competing products. As far as I know, that would be the very definition of "anti-competitive". Any lawyers in the house?
> "I am sure Intel will offer Dell "whatever" it takes to keep the exclusive arrangement"
What you're describing is illegal anti-competitive behaviour.
Because ultimately anti-competitive behavior *always* hurts the consumer.
Just when you think you're winning on pricing, it usually turns out you're losing on innovation.
No its not like saying that at all.
If Coke said to your local supermarket: "We'll give you a 10% discount if you don't stock Pepsi -- even though Pepsi represents 36% of the market", that would be anti-competitive behaviour.
The case already went before the Japanese Trade Comission and AMD won. I have a hard time believing that the scenario is different in the US.
IMHO that's not an acceptable explanation for offering zero AMD servers.
Its not as if Dell sells AMD servers at a higher price. Clearly there is an enormous amount of demand for Opterons. All the market metrics show Opterons taking a larger and larger piece of the server market. Dell's server business is hurting as a result, and still they offer no AMD machines.
Furthermore, if as you say "Intel offers a better deal" -- and that deal was based upon exclusivity. (In other words: "You get a 15% discount if you sell only Intel chips"), It seems to me that that would be illegal and anti-competitive.
One has to wonder, outside the obvious explanation of Intel's anti-competitive trade practices, what is Dell's aversion to AMD 64-bit / dual-core processors?
Clearly there is significant (and growing) demand for Opterons.
Dell's outright refusal to offer AMD chips seems almost like proof of itself that Intel is acting in an anti-competitive manner.
Has Dell ever put forth a better explanation?
I'm going to go out and buy it right now.
It has recently been revealed that young users of the Internet can unlock "hidden" pornographic content by using the following cheat code:
w w w . p e n t h o u s e . c o m
The ESRB has demanded a full recall of all software which works with the above code.
Why do graphics that are supposed to simulate being "Jacked In" always look so lame?
If, in the year 2005, we already have games which look nearly photo-realistic...
Wouldn't being "Jacked In" look
It wasn't just American ingenuity and willpower that got us to the moon. It was the threat of the Soviet Union beating us to the punch. The Soviets had already beaten us into orbit with Sputnik (a secret development project) and to put a human in space.
All that is necessary for our mission to Mars to happen in record time is the threat of China getting there first.
Hell... since I'd love to see us get to Mars in my lifetime... I suggest we all start the rumour that China is working on a secret Mars project....
The upside potential to be gained from Xbox far outweighs the upside potential from increased PC gaming.
This is a half-baked effort to make nice with the only segment of the hardware business that has legs. (Gamer's always demand the latest and greatest).
Smart people have fewer.
If the human brain is evolving, its probably doing a 180 right about now and heading back to chimp land.
This is just another sign that Intel is beginning to grow desperate in the face of AMD's superior CPU architecture.
Can't win in your core competency? Diversify!
This review tries to make it sound like the game is good... but I can't help noticing that it succeeds in exactly the opposite.
"Diablo model"? (How old is Diablo now?)
"Very close to Dungeon Seige I"? (DS I was good but that was years ago.)
Those games are both archaic at this point when we have WOW and other MMORPGS, the game needs to offer something that those other games don't. Storyline? NPC's? FMV Cutscenes? Depth of character development? Thousands of rare items a la BGII?
I don't know if it was this review, but the game sounds positively retro.
AMD admits that now they are capacity restrained, but that was not always the case. The reality is that AMD has begun to chip away at Intel in the last two years, but that's not a result of Intel releasing its iron grip on OEM's -- its just a matter of AMD having the clearly superior product. But the AMD's claims suggest, that if AMD and Intel had *equal* products, AMD's market share would not improve, even if their prices were lower.
Using evidence of capacity would be holding AMD's own against-all-adversity successes as an argument against them. The reality is that Intel has unfairly squashed AMD at every turn, and just recently AMD has begun to succeed *anyway* -- to the point where they are exceeding their own capacity to produce.
These video game patents are some of the most ridiculously offensive pieces of IP. So many of them revolve around "the character" and the medium for their originality. ie: "This was the first game to give an athlete points for finesse!"
Oh please.
Multiple real world, and pre-existing fictional examples exist for every one of these concepts.
Laughing isn't "new". Hallucinating isn't "new". Nor is scoring a 720 above the rim with particular finesse anything new. These feats are only "new" in video games.
But video games *are an approximation of reality*.
And if every new level of reality-approximation results in a patent, it is extremely clear where we'll end up: we'll end up with a level of creativity which is *exactly equal* to everything that has already been achieved musically, fictionally, artistically, athletically and of prior human achievement will be owned by a small group of people who were not the innovators or the inventors -- they were merely the translators.
Actually, the more I think about this... the more it makes sense.
Webb Interactive (WEBB.OB) owns somewhere south of 50% of Jabber, Inc.
It *does* seem sort of surprising that Google would bank so heavily on the Jabber platform with no equity stake. Granted, its an open standard, but the amount of development Jabber, Inc. has in terms of server and enterprise components far, far exceeds anything that Google has.
I'd put my 2 cents on Google buying (the very tiny Webb Interactive) before they buy Skype.
This whole piece is full of half-baked speculation. Google is perfectly happy with their current client which has been in development for months.
Its not as if Google is in the business of investing time, money and press exposure on "interim, stepping stones".
Google wanted Jabber. And that's what they used. The current client supports VOIP, and uses open standards. Anyone who knows Google knows that Jabber and Google's own VOIP are the platform for the next 5 years at least.
The only question should be: Will Google buy Webb Interactive (46% owner of Jabber)
Why didn't Google just *buy* Jabber?
Or write it themselves?
The piece of this that I find very interesting is that Google doesn't usually use "someone else's" technology like this without acquiring them first.
Does anyone know much about Jabber? Is it just a client that bridges multiple formats?