People seem to be forgetting that OSX is still a proprietary OS, and it will *still* will only run on Macs, albeit with an '86 processor instead of a PPC. So what's all the fuss about? The only thing changing here is the processor that Apple will be using for its future Macs.
Choice. You may think this is a bad thing, but I run KDE on one linux box, and Gnome on the other. I like certain aspects of both. There are certain aspects of both that irritate me. However, at the end of the day, I like having the choice to use what works best for me, rather than leaving this up to a single effort, and leaving me stuck with it whether I like it or not.
If any government agency is alloted a certain amount of hard-earned taxpayer money, they either have to spend it, or risk losing it the next time the budget is funded. In short, there's a huge advantage to wasting that much money - at minimum, it means they stand a good chance of staying funded at the current level (maybe even more), whether or not they have anything to show for it. The losers, of course, are the taxpayers.
We don't have to accept it in the short run, either. The problem is that we (the public) don't have the discipline required to reject it. As long as the average denizen can get his/her next McFix, these issues aren't important.
This is an invention. It is innovative, it solves a real problem, provides real value, and prior to this, did not exist. This is the kind of work that deserves patent protection. When I compare this to say, the genius behind Amazon's "one-click" patent, I find it quite humorous. There's NO COMPARISON.
The cretins that bless us with their "bad-ass" harleys and their four-wheeled ghetto blasters. Mutual Assault might be a good name for it.
Re:Clarification On Intel's "Press Release"
on
Intel Claims No DRM
·
· Score: 1
DRM is not something I really would like to see implemented on the CPU-level. I don't think "THE MAN" should be controlling what I can or can't do with media that exists on my computer.
Today, it's the media...tomorrow, it will be the computer itself.
Wouldn't it be better (and more targeted) to fine people who steal identity?
Identify theft is already illegal. One of the problems is that this data is too easy to get ahold of. I think the law is a good step, but not for the reasons mentioned in the article. Most of the wholescale identity theft issues result from the compromise of large systems that are used to STORE data. I found it rather laughable that they quoted ChoicePoint- they're a major offender in this regard.
Destroying documents with sensitive data is the right thing to do. The problem however, is with information pimps like ChoicePoint, and that's what the laws need to address.
Re:Get over it - and put some thought into it!
on
Google Never Forgets
·
· Score: 1
Hasn't Intel been one of the biggest "innovators" when it comes to DRM and other similar nastiness? This is what really saddens me about Apple's decision. Not a strong selling point, mind you.
Re:Get over it - and put some thought into it!
on
Google Never Forgets
·
· Score: 1
I'm willing to bet that few people consider the fact that as data that is available (or archived), it is also discoverable in a legal proceeding. That may not mean much at the moment people sign up, but under the right circumstances, it could be disasterous.
Yes, you have a point. For those that can afford it, doing both is certainly an option.
The last video card upgrade I did was a TI-4200. I haven't played halflife or doom, so maybe it's not as good as I think it is, but I've been quite pleased with Lineage2, WoW, and Farcry. The only issue I see is the initial lag that occurs when there's a lot of action going on - I think that's more related to the available RAM though.
That's why consoles will never destroy the PC gaming arena. My computer may cost more, but I can use it for whatever I want AFTER I'm through playing. I can't check my email with a console, nor can I surf the latest chatter slashdot.
If a console is an electric drill, then a PC is the entire tool chest. I'll take the tool chest, thank you.
I actually have some stuff I need to get rid of, but I've been holding onto it until I can find a responsible way to do it. There's a recycling facility about 30 miles away, and it costs like $10 or so per item, but I'd rather expend the effort and see this junk end up there, than in a landfill or something.
When I shop, my choices are not brand-oriented at all- they are based on what ever happens to offer the most value. So, club card or not, I still pick the best deals.
I personally think the whole "loyalty card" stuff sucks. I stopped shopping at one well-known chain several years ago because I decided that I wasn't interested in having my every purchase tracked and profiled. I still use a card (at a different chain), but they don't require any personally identifying information.
1. I believe that in the US, a copyright comes into existence either at the point of creation or at the time it is first plublished (I don't remember which). So it doesn't need a specific copyright on it, but the downside is that if the owner ever wants to seek damages, it will be more difficult.
2. You can only "reserve all rights" when the work is registered with the copyright office. If it's not registered, you still own the copyright, but there are certain legal advantages that you will not have at your disposal.
Email has become such a ubiquitous means of communication, I'm not sure the its frequent use can be termed an "addiction". Would we say that someone is addicted to the phone because they either call or answer it 5 times a day? I'd posit that it's used a lot simply because it's an effective way to communicate.
I thought I read somewhere (in an article on Patents - i Think it was New Yorker), where someone suggested that the possibility of professional athletic teams patenting certain PLAYS!! GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK!!! That's when you have far too many people with FAR too much money on their hands.
Is that this is happening DESPITE all the problems with Windows-related security. I guess all those MCSE's are really bucking to keep themselves employed.
I read a very interesting interview quite a while ago in (I think) a Wired magazine article. The topic of discussion was the creation of realistic 3D human models. One point, if I recall, was that you have a lot of leeway as you're moving toward a realisting image, but once you cross a certain line, the absence of the most seemingly benign details will give it away.
I think the same applies to modeling in general. Take the office image for example. The lighting is very good - if you look along the edges where the walls meet the ceiling, you'll see subtle light "spots". It's not that this is anything unique, but that they were rather well done. They're subtle - if they were missing, you might not notice at first, but I can pretty well bet that it would still register- not as something that would be readily identifiable, but something that's just "missing".
If you look at something in real life, and you set yourself to reproduce an exact replica, you're forced to deal with the collective imperfections that make the object what it is. Suffice it to say, straight edges are rarely perfectly straight, but 3D modeling makes it exceedly easy to produce them as such. The challenge is introducing just the right amount of imperfection.
Add in lighting - that's often something that will make or break an image. In fact, lighting is so important (imho), and getting it "right" takes a lot of time and tweaking. When you factor this into the length of time required for a good test render, you may find yourself settling for "not exactly what I want, but good enough."
So, it's a combination of things. Even if someone had a supercomputer at their disposal, I think you'll still see a lot of work that comes close, but just slightly misses the mark for one reason or another.
I THINK I agree with you, but I'm not REALLY sure what you are suggesting. If you are simply saying MS isn't untouchable, then obviously that is true. I'd argue there never has been and never will be a company which is untouchable.
Yes, this is what I am suggesting. Granted, it's exactly a prophetic statement, but I see so many comments that seem to suggest that Micorosoft is beyond the reach of normal market forces.
You must remember at the time IBM was largely a hardware fabrication company. Yes, they did software (hadn't REALLY gotten big in "servies" yet), but the hardware was the back-bone of the company. When looking at company financials this is a HUGE difference. Hardware fabrication is hugely capital intensive.
My understanding is that IBM was a "one-stop-shop"- hardware, software, and support. The only thing the customer had to do was write a check each month, and for whatever sum that was, they'd get the mainframe and the engineers to run it. I can't say with certainty, but I'm willing to bet that a signicant chunk of revenue was derived from these services. IBM didn't actually "sell" harware until the early 1980s.
All you have to do is look at the history of a another behemoth of a corporation that failed to recognize what was happening in the market, and paid dearly...IBM. Microsoft is not beyond this kind of reality. As a corporation, it may have a lot of cash on hand, and a lot of assets, but it also has a HUGE infrastructure to support.
Slashdot Mirror
People seem to be forgetting that OSX is still a proprietary OS, and it will *still* will only run on Macs, albeit with an '86 processor instead of a PPC. So what's all the fuss about? The only thing changing here is the processor that Apple will be using for its future Macs.
Choice. You may think this is a bad thing, but I run KDE on one linux box, and Gnome on the other. I like certain aspects of both. There are certain aspects of both that irritate me. However, at the end of the day, I like having the choice to use what works best for me, rather than leaving this up to a single effort, and leaving me stuck with it whether I like it or not.
If any government agency is alloted a certain amount of hard-earned taxpayer money, they either have to spend it, or risk losing it the next time the budget is funded. In short, there's a huge advantage to wasting that much money - at minimum, it means they stand a good chance of staying funded at the current level (maybe even more), whether or not they have anything to show for it. The losers, of course, are the taxpayers.
I only know of handful of people who even have 4 year bachelor degrees.
As if that means much, either.
Notice the absence of real dollars, as opposed to terminology like "70%". 70% of what? 70% doesn't mean much if you don't have a frame of reference.
We don't have to accept it in the short run, either. The problem is that we (the public) don't have the discipline required to reject it. As long as the average denizen can get his/her next McFix, these issues aren't important.
This is an invention. It is innovative, it solves a real problem, provides real value, and prior to this, did not exist. This is the kind of work that deserves patent protection. When I compare this to say, the genius behind Amazon's "one-click" patent, I find it quite humorous. There's NO COMPARISON.
The cretins that bless us with their "bad-ass" harleys and their four-wheeled ghetto blasters. Mutual Assault might be a good name for it.
DRM is not something I really would like to see implemented on the CPU-level. I don't think "THE MAN" should be controlling what I can or can't do with media that exists on my computer.
Today, it's the media...tomorrow, it will be the computer itself.
Wouldn't it be better (and more targeted) to fine people who steal identity?
Identify theft is already illegal. One of the problems is that this data is too easy to get ahold of. I think the law is a good step, but not for the reasons mentioned in the article. Most of the wholescale identity theft issues result from the compromise of large systems that are used to STORE data. I found it rather laughable that they quoted ChoicePoint- they're a major offender in this regard.
Destroying documents with sensitive data is the right thing to do. The problem however, is with information pimps like ChoicePoint, and that's what the laws need to address.
I have my privacy WELL under control, thank you.
Hasn't Intel been one of the biggest "innovators" when it comes to DRM and other similar nastiness? This is what really saddens me about Apple's decision. Not a strong selling point, mind you.
I'm willing to bet that few people consider the fact that as data that is available (or archived), it is also discoverable in a legal proceeding. That may not mean much at the moment people sign up, but under the right circumstances, it could be disasterous.
Yes, you have a point. For those that can afford it, doing both is certainly an option.
The last video card upgrade I did was a TI-4200. I haven't played halflife or doom, so maybe it's not as good as I think it is, but I've been quite pleased with Lineage2, WoW, and Farcry. The only issue I see is the initial lag that occurs when there's a lot of action going on - I think that's more related to the available RAM though.
That's why consoles will never destroy the PC gaming arena. My computer may cost more, but I can use it for whatever I want AFTER I'm through playing. I can't check my email with a console, nor can I surf the latest chatter slashdot.
If a console is an electric drill, then a PC is the entire tool chest. I'll take the tool chest, thank you.
I actually have some stuff I need to get rid of, but I've been holding onto it until I can find a responsible way to do it. There's a recycling facility about 30 miles away, and it costs like $10 or so per item, but I'd rather expend the effort and see this junk end up there, than in a landfill or something.
When I shop, my choices are not brand-oriented at all- they are based on what ever happens to offer the most value. So, club card or not, I still pick the best deals.
I personally think the whole "loyalty card" stuff sucks. I stopped shopping at one well-known chain several years ago because I decided that I wasn't interested in having my every purchase tracked and profiled. I still use a card (at a different chain), but they don't require any personally identifying information.
1. I believe that in the US, a copyright comes into existence either at the point of creation or at the time it is first plublished (I don't remember which). So it doesn't need a specific copyright on it, but the downside is that if the owner ever wants to seek damages, it will be more difficult.
2. You can only "reserve all rights" when the work is registered with the copyright office. If it's not registered, you still own the copyright, but there are certain legal advantages that you will not have at your disposal.
Email has become such a ubiquitous means of communication, I'm not sure the its frequent use can be termed an "addiction". Would we say that someone is addicted to the phone because they either call or answer it 5 times a day? I'd posit that it's used a lot simply because it's an effective way to communicate.
I thought I read somewhere (in an article on Patents - i Think it was New Yorker), where someone suggested that the possibility of professional athletic teams patenting certain PLAYS!! GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK!!! That's when you have far too many people with FAR too much money on their hands.
Is that this is happening DESPITE all the problems with Windows-related security. I guess all those MCSE's are really bucking to keep themselves employed.
1400 watts? I stopped to ask myself if they were heating the CPU, or cooling it.
I'd say a little of both.
I read a very interesting interview quite a while ago in (I think) a Wired magazine article. The topic of discussion was the creation of realistic 3D human models. One point, if I recall, was that you have a lot of leeway as you're moving toward a realisting image, but once you cross a certain line, the absence of the most seemingly benign details will give it away.
I think the same applies to modeling in general. Take the office image for example. The lighting is very good - if you look along the edges where the walls meet the ceiling, you'll see subtle light "spots". It's not that this is anything unique, but that they were rather well done. They're subtle - if they were missing, you might not notice at first, but I can pretty well bet that it would still register- not as something that would be readily identifiable, but something that's just "missing".
If you look at something in real life, and you set yourself to reproduce an exact replica, you're forced to deal with the collective imperfections that make the object what it is. Suffice it to say, straight edges are rarely perfectly straight, but 3D modeling makes it exceedly easy to produce them as such. The challenge is introducing just the right amount of imperfection.
Add in lighting - that's often something that will make or break an image. In fact, lighting is so important (imho), and getting it "right" takes a lot of time and tweaking. When you factor this into the length of time required for a good test render, you may find yourself settling for "not exactly what I want, but good enough."
So, it's a combination of things. Even if someone had a supercomputer at their disposal, I think you'll still see a lot of work that comes close, but just slightly misses the mark for one reason or another.
I THINK I agree with you, but I'm not REALLY sure what you are suggesting. If you are simply saying MS isn't untouchable, then obviously that is true. I'd argue there never has been and never will be a company which is untouchable.
Yes, this is what I am suggesting. Granted, it's exactly a prophetic statement, but I see so many comments that seem to suggest that Micorosoft is beyond the reach of normal market forces.
You must remember at the time IBM was largely a hardware fabrication company. Yes, they did software (hadn't REALLY gotten big in "servies" yet), but the hardware was the back-bone of the company. When looking at company financials this is a HUGE difference. Hardware fabrication is hugely capital intensive.
My understanding is that IBM was a "one-stop-shop"- hardware, software, and support. The only thing the customer had to do was write a check each month, and for whatever sum that was, they'd get the mainframe and the engineers to run it. I can't say with certainty, but I'm willing to bet that a signicant chunk of revenue was derived from these services. IBM didn't actually "sell" harware until the early 1980s.
All you have to do is look at the history of a another behemoth of a corporation that failed to recognize what was happening in the market, and paid dearly...IBM. Microsoft is not beyond this kind of reality. As a corporation, it may have a lot of cash on hand, and a lot of assets, but it also has a HUGE infrastructure to support.