It depends on the purpose of the flatpanel in question - if I were a hardcore quake III player, then an LCD would be unacceptable. However, as I mostly use my computer for doing math, and the games I do play are old, the savings in desk space afforded by an LCD just might be worth it when I go to purchase my new system this summer.
The LCD Flatpanel aren't for nerds, they are for one of the millions of home users whom, as was said earlier, don't play intense games with demanding resolutions. "Normal" consumers love the idea that you could put Flatpanels on a wall or a take up a 1/3 of the space of a normal monitor.
In reference to your reply, yes it is my opinion (not argument) that Napster is in compliance with this law. However within my original post I never mention whether I sided with the RIAA or Napster. I did state that, "So this has nothing to do with the judge. It is the Congress and the way they designed the law," which was a statement of fact not my opinion.
My point was that pirodude didn't bother to read or understand what the judge was doing nor what he was ruling on, and it was this uninformed opinion which incite me to write. This means that my reply had more to do with pirodude's rash reaction then it truly did with the ruling made against Napster.
After reading other posts, and seeing as I am uninformed as to the procedures of trials such as this, I have come to understand that this ruling really seems to mean nothing more then the case will proceed to trial. In so stating this I will start with my reserved opinions, my judgment as to the validity of both sides at this point is still undecided. Currently I have an account on Napster which I have used only on very rare occasions strictly because of the lack of over all encoding quality (yes you do find 160kbps but finding what you want when you want with out spending an absurd amount of time waiting for it is hard to come by), a lack of naming conventions, and lack of users with speed. This has not stopped me from putting my nine gigs of MP3's on napster and have let people hack at it for days (over my cable modem). So I do understand how napster works and believe that the service is a viable marketing area similar to radio, however it isn't not one I'm directly interested in. I am interested the impact it will have on both the music industry, which could be very positive if Metallica and Dr. Dre would follow the lead of Limp Bizkit as well as Offspring, as well as Internet privacy laws.
I am very interested to see how the copyright laws, the case involving these laws, the fair uses laws, and other related cases turn out. Now that the Internet is out of it's infancy this should be an intriguing fight.
Before you go spouting your horn, try reading the law that they are arguing, or at least the summary. The Copyright Office Summary of 'The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998' states under Limitation for Transitory Communications
In general terms, section 512(a) limits the liability of service providers in circumstances where the provider merely acts as a data conduit, transmitting digital information from one point on a network to another at someone else's request. This limitation covers acts of transmission, routing, or providing connections for the information, as well as the intermediate and transient copies that are made automatically in the operation of a network. In order to qualify for this limitation, the service provider's activities must meet the following conditions:
The transmission must be initiated by a person other than the provider.
The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or copying must be carried out by an automatic technical process without selection of material by the service provider.
The service provider must not determine the recipients of the material.
Any intermediate copies must not ordinarily be accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and must not be retained for longer than reasonably necessary.
The material must be transmitted with no modification to its content.
So this has nothing to do with the judge. It is the Congress and the way they designed the law. Here's three links or at least skim before you go delving into this subject.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on the purpose of the flatpanel in question - if I were a hardcore quake III player, then an LCD would be unacceptable. However, as I mostly use my computer for doing math, and the games I do play are old, the savings in desk space afforded by an LCD just might be worth it when I go to purchase my new system this summer.
The LCD Flatpanel aren't for nerds, they are for one of the millions of home users whom, as was said earlier, don't play intense games with demanding resolutions. "Normal" consumers love the idea that you could put Flatpanels on a wall or a take up a 1/3 of the space of a normal monitor.
In reference to your reply, yes it is my opinion (not argument) that Napster is in compliance with this law. However within my original post I never mention whether I sided with the RIAA or Napster. I did state that, "So this has nothing to do with the judge. It is the Congress and the way they designed the law," which was a statement of fact not my opinion.
My point was that pirodude didn't bother to read or understand what the judge was doing nor what he was ruling on, and it was this uninformed opinion which incite me to write. This means that my reply had more to do with pirodude's rash reaction then it truly did with the ruling made against Napster.
After reading other posts, and seeing as I am uninformed as to the procedures of trials such as this, I have come to understand that this ruling really seems to mean nothing more then the case will proceed to trial. In so stating this I will start with my reserved opinions, my judgment as to the validity of both sides at this point is still undecided. Currently I have an account on Napster which I have used only on very rare occasions strictly because of the lack of over all encoding quality (yes you do find 160kbps but finding what you want when you want with out spending an absurd amount of time waiting for it is hard to come by), a lack of naming conventions, and lack of users with speed. This has not stopped me from putting my nine gigs of MP3's on napster and have let people hack at it for days (over my cable modem). So I do understand how napster works and believe that the service is a viable marketing area similar to radio, however it isn't not one I'm directly interested in. I am interested the impact it will have on both the music industry, which could be very positive if Metallica and Dr. Dre would follow the lead of Limp Bizkit as well as Offspring, as well as Internet privacy laws.
I am very interested to see how the copyright laws, the case involving these laws, the fair uses laws, and other related cases turn out. Now that the Internet is out of it's infancy this should be an intriguing fight.
Here's the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 in fullhttp:/ /thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:SN00227:|TO M:/bss/d104query.html|
Here's the summary of the Digital Millenium Act of 1998 http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/le gislation/dmca.pdf
Here is the Digital Millenium Act of 1998 in full http:/ /thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR02281:|TO M:/bss/d105query.html|
Read up!!!!
Rich