Addendum. There *is* a Intel GMA something or other on the 530 lineup, but in order to get it, you'll have to pay 50 dollars more, and Ubuntu won't be preinstalled. (Go to Dell.com/open and click on shop for FreeDOS)
It makes no sense to me either.
Another nifty trick? They have an ultra low end (as in celeron) machine with Vista on it, will only cost you 400 dollars and should run Linux great (except the modem, which will be useless).
Okay, so I'm borderline astroturfing at this point. I'm being honest about it though.
I'd call it that. I've got a fairly intimate knowledge of the Dell systems that can be configured with Ubuntu (I fix Dell's for a living). Dell tends to favor Intel for it's onboard graphics (and Linux users have little reason, to upgrade this). And Intel produces it's own open source* drivers. Sadly, right now it looks like the new Inspiron desktop doesn't have an onboard graphics option**, and the XPS machines never do, so until that changes, a pure open source system will have to be the notebooks.
*GPLv2 for kernel modules, MIT for other parts, which to my understanding is traditional for Linux drivers.
**I'm going to have to take a look at this when I get to work, but iirc, there's an onboard Intel GMA, even if they don't sell that as an option.
Footnote: Selling Ubuntu apparently worked, they've run out of 1505Ns already. Hopefully this will encourage them to widen the options a bit.
I see "GNU/Linux" mostly as a historical concept. both the Linux and GNU projects originally had little do do with each other. GNU was one operating system, and Minix was another. The operating system I have today, is a result of the two projects being merged. (The Linux kernel combined with the userland that the GNU project had been putting together (though I don't think all, or even most, of it was FSF code) ). Thus GNU and Linux can be seen as the parents of the GNU/Linux operating system. Calling it "GNU/Linux" is not so much a statement of what is, but rather where it came from.
That said, I'm far too lazy to call it anything other than "Linux" except when I find it necessary.
Which supposedly contains a link to the part that says you can use it for free with freely distributable software. The link is to a MP3liscensing page, which, at the time of this writing, appears to be down. It also has a quote from Thompson on the matter. As far as everything else goes, it's my understanding that this is standard practice. Or that a different method of free decoder, charged for encoder, is used. I haven't looked into it too much for other patented formats though.
There's also this: http://web.archive.org/web/20000818191854/www.mp3l icensing.com/royalty/swdec.html which represents the old policy page. This has been changed to remove the free-for-free-programs clause apparently, though it is also said that this change does not represent a change in policy. So I dunno hat exactly that's supposed to mean.
Um, the non Free (as in freedom, not price) MP3 packages aren't infringement. MP3 patents (and as far as I know, most multimedia patents) are set up with a royalty basis. The people that own MP3 are quite happy to let you obtain free ones, because it standardizes the format, and lets them get a royalty out of MP3 players and windows.
The legal problem actually comes in because of the patent's conflict with the GPL (IE, you are supposed to be able to charge for a copy of Linux if you feel like it). The solution then becomes to distribute multimedia packages though a different repository. It's an annoying hassle, but it works.*
The only format I see a particular problem with is the WMA and WMV formats from M$, since as far as I know, you're not allowed to use those outside of windows period. But well, there's 233 other patents M$ has Linux infringes upon anyway.
*IANAL, and I do not know about all multimedia patents, I've only looked closely at MP3,
Well here's the fun part. There's going to be *only* 1 billion personal computer's by 2008. Balmer is just making an assumption that none of them will be non windows machines (Admittedly, windows does have 88%, but that's still only going to be 880 million machines with windows. And only about 660 million machines where windows has been payed for.*
*I believe the figure is 1/4th of Windows machines use pirated copies of windows. It's possible that Microsoft counts all non windows machines as pirated copies though. My figure may also be horribly out of date.
You'd be surprised how long it takes for them to pay off all that copper (and more recently, fiber). The big telco in my area (Quest) just managed to clear out it's debt last year.
Some of this was debt extending all the way back to Ma Bell.
Um... I don't think you understand what I'm asking, or maybe I misunderstand what this thing is for. I was asking if it would be possible to incorporate Intel's code into GCC and make it a standard part of the compiler.
It occurs to me, upon further reading, that this may not be necessary though, and that Intel's code would become part of the final program instead of part of the compiler.
And you have yourself stated a relative position by deciding that the good of society is a good thing. (And yes, I can make a damned strong argument that it isn't, given that society is presently busy risking the survival of the species.)
Relativism doesn't work, because nothing that is subjective is real, merely opinion. That isn't to say that Objectivity holds true, but you need to either admit that there are certain logical standards (which does not imply that the rules don't change if the situation does, but that little tidbit relies on the fact that there is a *reason* behind the rules) or you need to admit that the entire thing is a load of BS that's used to promote survival/control/insanity.
Exactly how much performance boost not shown in clock speed you get with Opteron over Xeon is going to depend on what you're doing. (AMD is very good a floating point operations, and fairly good at virtualization), and those tests the parent post linked seem fairly optimal for an AMD processor. But then, those are the kinds of things server's do. That said, I doubt an Intel chip would come out on top of an AMD chip for any benchmark if the chips have the same number of cores/clock speed. (Unless you find an operation that really really needs a 4 MB L2 cache or 1333 MHz FSB).
I'm very surprised at the power efficiency of the issue though, since AMD chips have a higher peak wattage. This may just be the Opteron's higher performance rearing it's head right here, since it wouldn't be as much of a processor load for this test.
I also wonder if maybe the chipsets involved have differing power consumption. That high FSB on the Intel chips may be hurting it's power performance right there.
Because Microsoft's security strategy is to pretend that they have less security flaws than the competition. Even when they *do* admit to flaws, they're usually behind on patching them. In fact, the whole thing would be a bad idea for Microsoft as a result. They'd end up with a huge number of known flaws, and still lack the resources to do anything about them.
(I see far too many machine with eyeball identifiable malware despite the fact that the customer is fully patched, anti-virused, and anti-malwared (blacklists suck, they really do) to believe that MS is capable of coming even close to patching all the flaws. Even with the added protection of third party help.
You also have to call tech support and have them activate the cable router (who, inevitably, don't know what you're talking about when you say router, and have no fracking clue why you can't run the windows only software.)
Seriously, hire people in India already, the Comcast techs are even worse.
The Neo phone OpenMoko is putting out is a Samsung processor, so no, it's unlikely that Moblin will work right now (though Intel did say that they'll host other architectures, I think somebody would have to port it first.)
Not that I wouldn't highly appreciate a phone with a pentium 3 powering it. (And modular hardware so it can be forced to work with multiple carriers, the Neo kinda fails the open phone idea because of that (at least as far as I can tell, you cant add CDMA to it and get it to work with sprint/verizon/cricket).
My Demo of Diablo II does not prevent me from using my copy of Diablo I though. The bigger problem I see here is with a trial upgrade that prevents going back to the original. This should in theory, be fixable by uninstalling/reinstalling though. As long as you both A) are able to do this, and B) Don't end up with all you're files automatically converted to the new format (both of which happened to the OP). Doesn't look like this will be a problem this time around though, as long as you actually have the original install disk and product key of Office.
(I have incidentally, seen itunes convert an entire My Music folder into m4a though, which kept me from using my mp3 player with my mother's comp, as I had been doing up until that point).
Yeah, going over my other public domain works, which largely contain some simple introduction from the editor, it would seem that they all try to do this. (I mention the On liberty originally, because I don't think that has any such introduction, *nothing* in the book is copyrightable).
Out of the dozen or so public domain works I have, only one fails to try and lay claim to the copyright. (A copy of David Copperfield, publication date unknown, probably around the 30s or 40s judging by the other books purchased in that lot). A couple ones that may or may not be PD have notices as well (translations of latin/ancient greek/german I don't know when the translations where done though).
I don't think the OP is talking about collected or derivative works. I know that I have a copy of John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" Sitting on my bookshelf, with a copyright notice dated to 1945, (He died in 1873) Definitely way way outside the extendable copyright.
IANAL, but I know there's a SCOTUS ruling that says you can't copyright a faithful reproduction of a public domain work. (However much Project Gutenburg would like you to believe that their non-commercial clause is valid). You might be right in that you can copyright a specific arrangement. But that just means you need to change the order of Shakespeare's plays from the complete works book that you're copying. Or do something with a complete lack of creativity, like publish them in the order Shakespeare wrote them. (A copyright on gee, read hamlet first, then go to The Tempest, with Titus way at the back, and some other specific order inside, may be valid, I know of nothing that would invalidate it anyway (except maybe that somebody else probably did it first 200 years ago). You can also copyright commentaries to a collected or single work, which is something I doubt anybody would protest. (Except maybe a public domain\copyleft only advocate).
And in retort to the parent post, I've *never* had a physics class that required me to remember a formula (I was a physics major for two years). I do remember many many physics formula's, simply because after you look it up 30 times while studying, you start to remember them.
Birthday's though, are something I look up once a year. (The ones I've actually looked up ten or so times, like my mother's, I can remember).
Rote memorization isn't terribly useful in education (the 10% another poster mentioned isn't too bad though.) Because you'll remember more useful things if you study concepts instead. (This has always been the approach to physics education in my experience, which is what made it so damned hard, knowing that f/m=a (the parent post got it wrong btw, those capitals matter in physics), won't help you actually solve the problem if you do not know what f=ma means. (I'll assume you do though, but go ahead and try to interpret maxwell's equations by memorization. Or even for a relatively easy one, try using f=GMm/r^2 without resorting to looking anything up (I remember the equation, and still couldn't)).
I believe that BitLocker has a built in back door. It is , ideally, there so that you can convince the manufacturer to let you back into your data after you forget your password. Though the companies will comply with a court order if the cops provide one. IIRC there was actually a case where HP (or maybe Dell) got sued over complying with one (not for BitLocker, but for a different, full hard drive, encryption program. (The guy ended up in jail for kiddie porn.)
And IIRC, they can hold you *forever* in contempt of court, it's not a punishment per se when you refuse to comply with a court order, they just let you rot until you actually do comply. Which would suck if you legitimately forgot the password. There's a decent chance I'm wrong on that one though.
If it did, we'd be in trouble, because both Intel and AMD have patent's on their processors.
Rather, they simply require that let the user do as they please with the software. (And only the software, you're free to disallow the user from modding the hardware, or even other parts of the sftware that aren't under the GPL).
It would, for example, be perfectly allowed to DRM the heck out of a file server black box, as long as you made it so that the DRM ignores Samba, and lets the *end user* mod that.
As soon as Tivo hands me a bill of sale, it is not theirs anymore, it is mine, not Tivo's. I do think that the GPLv3 should have a exception clause that lets people use modded code on DRMed hardware internally though. If Tivo/motorola/apple wants to hamper themselves (or use it as a security feature, DRM seems to some interesting applications that way), there should be no restriction on that.
Slashdot Mirror
Addendum. There *is* a Intel GMA something or other on the 530 lineup, but in order to get it, you'll have to pay 50 dollars more, and Ubuntu won't be preinstalled. (Go to Dell.com/open and click on shop for FreeDOS)
It makes no sense to me either.
Another nifty trick? They have an ultra low end (as in celeron) machine with Vista on it, will only cost you 400 dollars and should run Linux great (except the modem, which will be useless).
Okay, so I'm borderline astroturfing at this point. I'm being honest about it though.
I'd call it that. I've got a fairly intimate knowledge of the Dell systems that can be configured with Ubuntu (I fix Dell's for a living). Dell tends to favor Intel for it's onboard graphics (and Linux users have little reason, to upgrade this). And Intel produces it's own open source* drivers. Sadly, right now it looks like the new Inspiron desktop doesn't have an onboard graphics option**, and the XPS machines never do, so until that changes, a pure open source system will have to be the notebooks.
*GPLv2 for kernel modules, MIT for other parts, which to my understanding is traditional for Linux drivers.
**I'm going to have to take a look at this when I get to work, but iirc, there's an onboard Intel GMA, even if they don't sell that as an option.
Footnote: Selling Ubuntu apparently worked, they've run out of 1505Ns already. Hopefully this will encourage them to widen the options a bit.
I see "GNU/Linux" mostly as a historical concept. both the Linux and GNU projects originally had little do do with each other. GNU was one operating system, and Minix was another. The operating system I have today, is a result of the two projects being merged. (The Linux kernel combined with the userland that the GNU project had been putting together (though I don't think all, or even most, of it was FSF code) ). Thus GNU and Linux can be seen as the parents of the GNU/Linux operating system. Calling it "GNU/Linux" is not so much a statement of what is, but rather where it came from.
That said, I'm far too lazy to call it anything other than "Linux" except when I find it necessary.
My source is this: http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/08/29/1 633205&mode=thread&tid=17
l icensing.com/royalty/swdec.html which represents the old policy page. This has been changed to remove the free-for-free-programs clause apparently, though it is also said that this change does not represent a change in policy. So I dunno hat exactly that's supposed to mean.
Which supposedly contains a link to the part that says you can use it for free with freely distributable software. The link is to a MP3liscensing page, which, at the time of this writing, appears to be down. It also has a quote from Thompson on the matter. As far as everything else goes, it's my understanding that this is standard practice. Or that a different method of free decoder, charged for encoder, is used. I haven't looked into it too much for other patented formats though.
There's also this: http://web.archive.org/web/20000818191854/www.mp3
Um, the non Free (as in freedom, not price) MP3 packages aren't infringement. MP3 patents (and as far as I know, most multimedia patents) are set up with a royalty basis. The people that own MP3 are quite happy to let you obtain free ones, because it standardizes the format, and lets them get a royalty out of MP3 players and windows.
The legal problem actually comes in because of the patent's conflict with the GPL (IE, you are supposed to be able to charge for a copy of Linux if you feel like it). The solution then becomes to distribute multimedia packages though a different repository. It's an annoying hassle, but it works.*
The only format I see a particular problem with is the WMA and WMV formats from M$, since as far as I know, you're not allowed to use those outside of windows period. But well, there's 233 other patents M$ has Linux infringes upon anyway.
*IANAL, and I do not know about all multimedia patents, I've only looked closely at MP3,
/me wikis Tony Jay to find out what happened to keep him from the show.
If you'll excuse me, I need to go cry now.
Well here's the fun part. There's going to be *only* 1 billion personal computer's by 2008. Balmer is just making an assumption that none of them will be non windows machines (Admittedly, windows does have 88%, but that's still only going to be 880 million machines with windows. And only about 660 million machines where windows has been payed for.*
*I believe the figure is 1/4th of Windows machines use pirated copies of windows. It's possible that Microsoft counts all non windows machines as pirated copies though. My figure may also be horribly out of date.
You'd be surprised how long it takes for them to pay off all that copper (and more recently, fiber). The big telco in my area (Quest) just managed to clear out it's debt last year.
Some of this was debt extending all the way back to Ma Bell.
Um... I don't think you understand what I'm asking, or maybe I misunderstand what this thing is for. I was asking if it would be possible to incorporate Intel's code into GCC and make it a standard part of the compiler.
It occurs to me, upon further reading, that this may not be necessary though, and that Intel's code would become part of the final program instead of part of the compiler.
So does this mean it will or won't be compatible with upcoming GPL3 versions of GCC?
For that matter, will it or won't it be compatible with proprietary compilers?
And you have yourself stated a relative position by deciding that the good of society is a good thing. (And yes, I can make a damned strong argument that it isn't, given that society is presently busy risking the survival of the species.)
Relativism doesn't work, because nothing that is subjective is real, merely opinion. That isn't to say that Objectivity holds true, but you need to either admit that there are certain logical standards (which does not imply that the rules don't change if the situation does, but that little tidbit relies on the fact that there is a *reason* behind the rules) or you need to admit that the entire thing is a load of BS that's used to promote survival/control/insanity.
Exactly how much performance boost not shown in clock speed you get with Opteron over Xeon is going to depend on what you're doing. (AMD is very good a floating point operations, and fairly good at virtualization), and those tests the parent post linked seem fairly optimal for an AMD processor. But then, those are the kinds of things server's do. That said, I doubt an Intel chip would come out on top of an AMD chip for any benchmark if the chips have the same number of cores/clock speed. (Unless you find an operation that really really needs a 4 MB L2 cache or 1333 MHz FSB).
I'm very surprised at the power efficiency of the issue though, since AMD chips have a higher peak wattage. This may just be the Opteron's higher performance rearing it's head right here, since it wouldn't be as much of a processor load for this test.
I also wonder if maybe the chipsets involved have differing power consumption. That high FSB on the Intel chips may be hurting it's power performance right there.
Because Microsoft's security strategy is to pretend that they have less security flaws than the competition. Even when they *do* admit to flaws, they're usually behind on patching them. In fact, the whole thing would be a bad idea for Microsoft as a result. They'd end up with a huge number of known flaws, and still lack the resources to do anything about them.
(I see far too many machine with eyeball identifiable malware despite the fact that the customer is fully patched, anti-virused, and anti-malwared (blacklists suck, they really do) to believe that MS is capable of coming even close to patching all the flaws. Even with the added protection of third party help.
You also have to call tech support and have them activate the cable router (who, inevitably, don't know what you're talking about when you say router, and have no fracking clue why you can't run the windows only software.)
Seriously, hire people in India already, the Comcast techs are even worse.
The Neo phone OpenMoko is putting out is a Samsung processor, so no, it's unlikely that Moblin will work right now (though Intel did say that they'll host other architectures, I think somebody would have to port it first.)
Not that I wouldn't highly appreciate a phone with a pentium 3 powering it. (And modular hardware so it can be forced to work with multiple carriers, the Neo kinda fails the open phone idea because of that (at least as far as I can tell, you cant add CDMA to it and get it to work with sprint/verizon/cricket).
/me ponders.
Okay, I need a patent lawyer and an engineer.
I work sundays, so I'm probably busy throwing the percentage off. Speaking of which, I have to go, like now.
My Demo of Diablo II does not prevent me from using my copy of Diablo I though. The bigger problem I see here is with a trial upgrade that prevents going back to the original. This should in theory, be fixable by uninstalling/reinstalling though. As long as you both A) are able to do this, and B) Don't end up with all you're files automatically converted to the new format (both of which happened to the OP). Doesn't look like this will be a problem this time around though, as long as you actually have the original install disk and product key of Office.
(I have incidentally, seen itunes convert an entire My Music folder into m4a though, which kept me from using my mp3 player with my mother's comp, as I had been doing up until that point).
I actually did read it. It's entirely possible that I interpreted it wrong though. *Goes to check* ...
Yep, you appear to be right. It's not even remotely misleading either. I must have been fairly out of it when I read it the first time.
Please ignore that particular piece of dumbassery on my part in my original post. Thanks.
Maybe, can you copyright a specific color font and font size of the title and author?
Yeah, going over my other public domain works, which largely contain some simple introduction from the editor, it would seem that they all try to do this. (I mention the On liberty originally, because I don't think that has any such introduction, *nothing* in the book is copyrightable).
Out of the dozen or so public domain works I have, only one fails to try and lay claim to the copyright. (A copy of David Copperfield, publication date unknown, probably around the 30s or 40s judging by the other books purchased in that lot). A couple ones that may or may not be PD have notices as well (translations of latin/ancient greek/german I don't know when the translations where done though).
I don't think the OP is talking about collected or derivative works. I know that I have a copy of John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" Sitting on my bookshelf, with a copyright notice dated to 1945, (He died in 1873) Definitely way way outside the extendable copyright.
IANAL, but I know there's a SCOTUS ruling that says you can't copyright a faithful reproduction of a public domain work. (However much Project Gutenburg would like you to believe that their non-commercial clause is valid). You might be right in that you can copyright a specific arrangement. But that just means you need to change the order of Shakespeare's plays from the complete works book that you're copying. Or do something with a complete lack of creativity, like publish them in the order Shakespeare wrote them. (A copyright on gee, read hamlet first, then go to The Tempest, with Titus way at the back, and some other specific order inside, may be valid, I know of nothing that would invalidate it anyway (except maybe that somebody else probably did it first 200 years ago). You can also copyright commentaries to a collected or single work, which is something I doubt anybody would protest. (Except maybe a public domain\copyleft only advocate).
And in retort to the parent post, I've *never* had a physics class that required me to remember a formula (I was a physics major for two years). I do remember many many physics formula's, simply because after you look it up 30 times while studying, you start to remember them.
Birthday's though, are something I look up once a year. (The ones I've actually looked up ten or so times, like my mother's, I can remember).
Rote memorization isn't terribly useful in education (the 10% another poster mentioned isn't too bad though.) Because you'll remember more useful things if you study concepts instead. (This has always been the approach to physics education in my experience, which is what made it so damned hard, knowing that f/m=a (the parent post got it wrong btw, those capitals matter in physics), won't help you actually solve the problem if you do not know what f=ma means. (I'll assume you do though, but go ahead and try to interpret maxwell's equations by memorization. Or even for a relatively easy one, try using f=GMm/r^2 without resorting to looking anything up (I remember the equation, and still couldn't)).
I believe that BitLocker has a built in back door. It is , ideally, there so that you can convince the manufacturer to let you back into your data after you forget your password. Though the companies will comply with a court order if the cops provide one. IIRC there was actually a case where HP (or maybe Dell) got sued over complying with one (not for BitLocker, but for a different, full hard drive, encryption program. (The guy ended up in jail for kiddie porn.)
And IIRC, they can hold you *forever* in contempt of court, it's not a punishment per se when you refuse to comply with a court order, they just let you rot until you actually do comply. Which would suck if you legitimately forgot the password. There's a decent chance I'm wrong on that one though.
If it did, we'd be in trouble, because both Intel and AMD have patent's on their processors.
Rather, they simply require that let the user do as they please with the software. (And only the software, you're free to disallow the user from modding the hardware, or even other parts of the sftware that aren't under the GPL).
It would, for example, be perfectly allowed to DRM the heck out of a file server black box, as long as you made it so that the DRM ignores Samba, and lets the *end user* mod that.
As soon as Tivo hands me a bill of sale, it is not theirs anymore, it is mine, not Tivo's. I do think that the GPLv3 should have a exception clause that lets people use modded code on DRMed hardware internally though. If Tivo/motorola/apple wants to hamper themselves (or use it as a security feature, DRM seems to some interesting applications that way), there should be no restriction on that.