HP had the basic IA-64 architecture already designed when Intel was brought in to implement it. Intel fucked up their implementation (Merced), so HP had to design McKinley to make up for it. Under their agreement, Intel also took credit for McKinley. But Intel had little to do with the design of IA-64, or with its features that are actually innovative, or with the processor design that will actually implement it decently.
Ummm... *HP* came up with IA-64, not Intel. Part of the deal for Intel to deploy it was that HP wouldn't claim any credit for IA-64, OR for McKinley, which they also designed.
You're going to have to find another example of recent Intel innovation.
If you want to consider used, how much does a 1997-era iMac cost today?
And will that 1997-era iMac run OSX?
Nope. However, I believe it will run Linux...
Let me sum it up for you, since you're not very bright. A $100 PC with a $100 monitor will run Linux very well. A PC at this price is availiable to probably 40% of the world's population. OSX requires a PC that costs at least $800, and sucks on that hardware. *Maybe* 15-20% of the world's population can afford that $800 PC. Therefore, Linux is doing a better job of bringing Unix to the masses. What part of this does your tiny little mind not comprehend, trollboy?
Well, one difference is the rights of the victims involved. There is a right to life; this is fundamental to modern morality, ethics, and law. Violation of this right to life should always be a criminal act.
Copyright, however, is a utilitarian social contract. We (the public) accept restrictions on our right to disseminate information and we accept the responsibility to punish those who violate this compact. By doing this, we compensate the author for the time spent in coming up with an artistic work. The author doesn't have a RIGHT to copyright protection, it's a contract between the author and society. If, due to technological advances, the cost to society of enforcing the contract becomes greater than the benefit society gains from artistic works, then it's time to scrap copyright.
Me, I don't think that's true yet. I doubt it ever will be. However, I do think that the obscene copyright laws the media industry have bought are definitely too expensive and should be scrapped.
Unfortunately, restraint of trade only applies to national laws under the WTO's jurisdiction. The process is carefully designed to benefit corporations, not people. At least the proposal to let corporations bring grievances directly to the WTO was shot down. (For now...)
But anyway. Why the slant, slashdot? Is it so wrong for artists to make a profit? You'd think an organization like the RIAA that was constantly fighting censorship legislation and promoting freedom of speech wouldn't be quite so shitted-upon by us.
Really? When? They've rolled over every time censorship was proposed. They've rolled over to every major boycott done. The major labels are absolute chickenshit; they've contributed absolutely jack shit to the fight against censorship.
While its true Microsoft do take a lot of their ideas from elsewhere, I don't think anyone could deny that MS Office, IE, and perhaps even VB are the best products available of their class. Sure, VB is not the most beautiful language out there, but if you want to get the job done quickly and have little experience, it is probably the best tool available.
Well, first off, I disagree. Ask anyone who's worked with Delphi and VB which is better. I strongly prefer WordPerfect to Word; I find I have to fight with it a LOT less to get anything written. And yes, while IE crashes less then Netscape 4.x on Windows, from a user perspective, what's the difference between the two? Opera's the closest thing around to an actually innovative browser.
Second, you weren't responding to my point. You still haven't said anything about Microsoft's alleged innovations. Please enlighten me?
If Microsoft doesn't innovate, then restricting Microsoft cannot decrease innovation in the software industry. It can only increase it, by allowing companies who do innovate to compete with Microsoft.
I am saying that there should be clear-cut laws and penalties for dealing with anticompetitive behaviour. I.e. it should not be left to the discretion of whichever judge happens to be sitting when the case comes to court. This reduces uncertainty and the related problems mentioned in my post above. If this means less regulation, so be it!
I'll agree with that; Sherman is definitely unconstitutionally vague. As long as laws are in place to prevent corporations from acting anticompetitively, and as long as those laws are actively enforced, I've got no problem with it.
OK. Question. How does If it weren't for M$ continually developing software requiring ever more powerful hardware, they wouldn't have cheap, fast processors for their linux boxes. constitute innovation? And the point of Linux users isn't that a lack of innovation on Microsoft's part won't affect them, it's that Microsoft doesn't innovate. Period. Dominance of the market by Microsoft has done far more to reduce innovation in the software industry than any government intervention.
Also, are you saying we should let companies get away with violating the law in order to prevent investors from realizing that investment is simply gambling by another name? Or are you saying we should simply change the laws so that companies and investors don't have to worry that unethical behavior is against the law anymore?
Yah know, I've been wondering that myself, lately. Repeat after me, the word is THROUGHPUT, kids.
Pisses me off almost as much as nuke-yuh-lar. Which, incidentally, was how my 10th grade English teacher pronounced it until we gave him enough shit about it:)
I can criticize the government without fear of retribution
Darryl Cherney, Judy Bari, Fred Hampton, Mark Clark, Bobby Seal, Leonard Peltier, and the WTO protesters who got shot at with rubber bullets are all going to be very glad to hear you really can do that in the US.
Ummm... Do you REALLY want to get into a discussion of whether atheism or religion has caused more evil? Or even atheism or christianity, for that matter?
Bzzzt. That's how *creationists* interpret evolution. If the Bible is not literally correct, than maybe their nice, safe, no-thought-required worldview is wrong. Therefore, they've been attacking the theory of evolution for over a century now. If you see a scientist getting obnoxious, it's because he's getting bored with defending evolution theory from the same stupid, lying attacks repeatedly from idiots who are afraid to think for themselves.
The other fallacy, of course is the opposite: that if creation "science" manages to prove wrong evolution by natural selection, somehow that means that the Judeo-Christion creation myth is correct. Which, of course, is crap. There's a few other creation myths out there which have equal scientific validity to their own. (i.e., none at all.)
Libertarianism isn't a form of conservative. It's got just as much in common with liberalism as it does with conservatism. (The liberal wants government to regulate the economy but not morality, the conservative wants government to regulate morality but not the economy, the libertarian wants government to regulate neither. I'm a libertarianish leftist; the two are not incompatible.
wanted (and got) warning labels on records.... a liberal Democrat (Al Gore's wife)
Bullshit. First off, the Gores are born-agains. Second, they're moderate-conservative, not in any way liberal. Howard Zinn is a liberal. Noam Chomsky is a liberal. Barney Frank is a liberal. The Gores aren't even close. Third, the vast majority of the PMRC Washington Wives contingent was the wives of *Republicans.* (Susan Baker, etc.)
wants to shut down shows like MTV's Jackass... a liberal Democrat (Lieberman)
Bullshit. See above. Lieberman is conservative-authoritarian, like most Democrats these days.
backs the RIAA in their persuit of Napster... a liberal Democratic appointed DoJ
Bullshit. On the vast majority of issues, Clinton's to the right of Nixon. He's not even remotely liberal.
etc...
Democrat != liberal. These days, the Democrats are conservative-authoritarian, with a few old-style liberals around. Us pinkos have moved on to the Greens and the New party. There are alot of liberals who vote Democrat, but that's just because they've been brainwashed by the right-wing corporate media into believing that the Democrats differ substantively from Republicans.
A liberal will support free speech. We always have, and we always will; it's fundamental to being a liberal. Anyone who does not support free speech is not a liberal. Moderate, conservative, or authoritarian, depending on how far out they are and their econmic views, but the support of free speech and personal rights are part of the definition of liberalism.
So for those who were a bit... "confused", this really and truly is the extent of what is considered "fair use", as far as replication is concerned. There are, of course, other types of "fair use" (broadcasting music and such), but this is really the only one that seems to apply. I hope this clears up some of the "confusion" surrounding the subject.
Uh, no, actually you've successfully managed to *add* to the confusion. There are several types of copying that are, in fact, legally fair use. For example: backup copies, copying to a different media for personal use, and time shifting are all forms of copying that are fair use, at least under US law. (And given that your examples were all US-centric references, I'm assuming US law is what you're referring to.) This has been decided by the 1976 Copyright Act and by numerous court decisions.
Broadcasting music, on the other hand, is NOT fair use. Radio and TV stations, advertisers, etc. pay a fee to be allowed to broadcast music. This is why ADCAP and the other company who's name I can't remember offhand and am too lazy to look up were started, to collect royalties for broadcasts of music.
Copyright is intended to encourage artists and authors to share their creations with everyone else. In return for this, they recieve *for a limited time* sole rights to distribute their creation, and the law will enforce this. But not even the creator can *own* an idea. And the only way to *steal* an idea would be to copy it from someone, then run current through their brain to remove their memory of it. Because a fundamental part of the concept of "theft" is that the former owner loses it. I know, "copyright infringement" isn't nearly as newsworthy as "theft," but I'm afraid you're going to have to live with that.
Oh, and nice ad hominem attack there. Always good when you don't actually have any real response to someone.
How about "infringing copyright?" Worked up until now. Or do you mean you need a new inflammatory, inaccurate, get-the-average-TV-watching-idiot-to-think-it's-as -evil-as-Hitler term?
Actually, that's got a lot to do with Hollywood propoganda, which is one of our biggest exports. According to Hollywood, everyone in the US is rich, even criminals. The US is exciting, and anyone can make it here if they just try, gosh darn it! The image the rest of the world has of the average American is born from Cosby, Mad About You, Friends, etc., not from reality. Even if they know the facts, their prejudices still cause them to view the US through seriously rose-colored glasses. Add to this the fact that most income statistics look at the average and ignore the median. The problem is that the average statistics are badly skewed due to just how absurdly rich the top half percent of the US is.
Thus, people ignore the actual facts, which are that the US has a lower median standard of living than practically any country in Western Europe or Scandinavia. At least until they get here, and discover that the reason we want them here is that US citizens don't want the job of "migrant farm worker" past about the second generation.
Juvenile crime, like all other crime, has been on a steady decline for over a century now. It's at the lowest it's been for as long as it's been recorded. And yes, that includes violent crime. The "recent rash of school shootings" doesn't touch the trend. It's just the fact that it's *white* kids getting shot that makes it national news. Fact is, unless your school's in downtown Chicago or LA you don't need those metal detectors. All they do is waste money that could have gone to hiring some competant counselors, or actually done some teaching for a change, make the parents feel secure, and help get the kids used to their privacy being invaded and their rights stripped away.
However, idiot school administrators like you are doing a *great* job of reversing the trend of reduced violence. If you treat people like criminals, they WILL act like criminals. And the rage your constant invasions of their privacy cause has to be let out somehow. Kids don't have any less need for privacy then adults do.
The difference between juvenile crime today and 50 years ago is that today it's front page news for weeks. Much easier to keep people from looking at what the multinationals and politicians are doing that way. The difference is that schools today are much harsher than they were 20 years ago, making the kids in them much more likely to snap. And part of that harsher environment is the fact that arrogant administrators like you are constantly invadining their privacy, WITHOUT actually bothering to prevent the football jock from sticking their heads in the toilet. People like you ignore behaviour from the "popular" kids that would be considered assault with intent to commit great bodily harm if I did it to you. "It's just part of being a kid." When was the last time you stopped the quarterback from giving some burnout a hard time?
So you want to know the problem with our schools is? Look in the mirror. It's you.
Slashdot Mirror
HP had the basic IA-64 architecture already designed when Intel was brought in to implement it. Intel fucked up their implementation (Merced), so HP had to design McKinley to make up for it. Under their agreement, Intel also took credit for McKinley. But Intel had little to do with the design of IA-64, or with its features that are actually innovative, or with the processor design that will actually implement it decently.
So yes, you are going to have to try again.
--
Well, since I had to step back 30 feet to get a look at your entire ass, I'd say the pants aren't what you need to worry about.
--
Ummm... *HP* came up with IA-64, not Intel. Part of the deal for Intel to deploy it was that HP wouldn't claim any credit for IA-64, OR for McKinley, which they also designed.
You're going to have to find another example of recent Intel innovation.
--
If you want to consider used, how much does a 1997-era iMac cost today?
And will that 1997-era iMac run OSX?
Nope. However, I believe it will run Linux...
Let me sum it up for you, since you're not very bright. A $100 PC with a $100 monitor will run Linux very well. A PC at this price is availiable to probably 40% of the world's population. OSX requires a PC that costs at least $800, and sucks on that hardware. *Maybe* 15-20% of the world's population can afford that $800 PC. Therefore, Linux is doing a better job of bringing Unix to the masses. What part of this does your tiny little mind not comprehend, trollboy?
--
And Cyber Patrol (which I'm stuck behind at work) is currently filtering friggin *Babelfish*
--
Well, one difference is the rights of the victims involved. There is a right to life; this is fundamental to modern morality, ethics, and law. Violation of this right to life should always be a criminal act.
Copyright, however, is a utilitarian social contract. We (the public) accept restrictions on our right to disseminate information and we accept the responsibility to punish those who violate this compact. By doing this, we compensate the author for the time spent in coming up with an artistic work. The author doesn't have a RIGHT to copyright protection, it's a contract between the author and society. If, due to technological advances, the cost to society of enforcing the contract becomes greater than the benefit society gains from artistic works, then it's time to scrap copyright.
Me, I don't think that's true yet. I doubt it ever will be. However, I do think that the obscene copyright laws the media industry have bought are definitely too expensive and should be scrapped.
--
Unfortunately, restraint of trade only applies to national laws under the WTO's jurisdiction. The process is carefully designed to benefit corporations, not people. At least the proposal to let corporations bring grievances directly to the WTO was shot down. (For now...)
--
And the difference is?
--
Nope, for the same reason killing someone in self defense isn't murder.
--
Dude... Sorry to break it to you, but three inches isn't enormous.
--
But anyway. Why the slant, slashdot? Is it so wrong for artists to make a profit? You'd think an organization like the RIAA that was constantly fighting censorship legislation and promoting freedom of speech wouldn't be quite so shitted-upon by us.
Really? When? They've rolled over every time censorship was proposed. They've rolled over to every major boycott done. The major labels are absolute chickenshit; they've contributed absolutely jack shit to the fight against censorship.
--
While its true Microsoft do take a lot of their ideas from elsewhere, I don't think anyone could deny that MS Office, IE, and perhaps even VB are the best products available of their class. Sure, VB is not the most beautiful language out there, but if you want to get the job done quickly and have little experience, it is probably the best tool available.
Well, first off, I disagree. Ask anyone who's worked with Delphi and VB which is better. I strongly prefer WordPerfect to Word; I find I have to fight with it a LOT less to get anything written. And yes, while IE crashes less then Netscape 4.x on Windows, from a user perspective, what's the difference between the two? Opera's the closest thing around to an actually innovative browser.
Second, you weren't responding to my point. You still haven't said anything about Microsoft's alleged innovations. Please enlighten me?
If Microsoft doesn't innovate, then restricting Microsoft cannot decrease innovation in the software industry. It can only increase it, by allowing companies who do innovate to compete with Microsoft.
I am saying that there should be clear-cut laws and penalties for dealing with anticompetitive behaviour. I.e. it should not be left to the discretion of whichever judge happens to be sitting when the case comes to court. This reduces uncertainty and the related problems mentioned in my post above. If this means less regulation, so be it!
I'll agree with that; Sherman is definitely unconstitutionally vague. As long as laws are in place to prevent corporations from acting anticompetitively, and as long as those laws are actively enforced, I've got no problem with it.
--
OK. Question. How does If it weren't for M$ continually developing software requiring ever more powerful hardware, they wouldn't have cheap, fast processors for their linux boxes. constitute innovation? And the point of Linux users isn't that a lack of innovation on Microsoft's part won't affect them, it's that Microsoft doesn't innovate. Period. Dominance of the market by Microsoft has done far more to reduce innovation in the software industry than any government intervention.
Also, are you saying we should let companies get away with violating the law in order to prevent investors from realizing that investment is simply gambling by another name? Or are you saying we should simply change the laws so that companies and investors don't have to worry that unethical behavior is against the law anymore?
--
Yah know, I've been wondering that myself, lately. Repeat after me, the word is THROUGHPUT, kids.
:)
Pisses me off almost as much as nuke-yuh-lar. Which, incidentally, was how my 10th grade English teacher pronounced it until we gave him enough shit about it
--
I can criticize the government without fear of retribution
Darryl Cherney, Judy Bari, Fred Hampton, Mark Clark, Bobby Seal, Leonard Peltier, and the WTO protesters who got shot at with rubber bullets are all going to be very glad to hear you really can do that in the US.
--
Ummm... Do you REALLY want to get into a discussion of whether atheism or religion has caused more evil? Or even atheism or christianity, for that matter?
--
Truly amazing the number of people here who can't understand complex concepts like "humor" and "sarcasm," isn't it?
--
Bzzzt. That's how *creationists* interpret evolution. If the Bible is not literally correct, than maybe their nice, safe, no-thought-required worldview is wrong. Therefore, they've been attacking the theory of evolution for over a century now. If you see a scientist getting obnoxious, it's because he's getting bored with defending evolution theory from the same stupid, lying attacks repeatedly from idiots who are afraid to think for themselves.
The other fallacy, of course is the opposite: that if creation "science" manages to prove wrong evolution by natural selection, somehow that means that the Judeo-Christion creation myth is correct. Which, of course, is crap. There's a few other creation myths out there which have equal scientific validity to their own. (i.e., none at all.)
--
Libertarianism isn't a form of conservative. It's got just as much in common with liberalism as it does with conservatism. (The liberal wants government to regulate the economy but not morality, the conservative wants government to regulate morality but not the economy, the libertarian wants government to regulate neither. I'm a libertarianish leftist; the two are not incompatible.
wanted (and got) warning labels on records.... a liberal Democrat (Al Gore's wife)
Bullshit. First off, the Gores are born-agains. Second, they're moderate-conservative, not in any way liberal. Howard Zinn is a liberal. Noam Chomsky is a liberal. Barney Frank is a liberal. The Gores aren't even close. Third, the vast majority of the PMRC Washington Wives contingent was the wives of *Republicans.* (Susan Baker, etc.)
wants to shut down shows like MTV's Jackass... a liberal Democrat (Lieberman)
Bullshit. See above. Lieberman is conservative-authoritarian, like most Democrats these days.
backs the RIAA in their persuit of Napster... a liberal Democratic appointed DoJ
Bullshit. On the vast majority of issues, Clinton's to the right of Nixon. He's not even remotely liberal.
etc...
Democrat != liberal. These days, the Democrats are conservative-authoritarian, with a few old-style liberals around. Us pinkos have moved on to the Greens and the New party. There are alot of liberals who vote Democrat, but that's just because they've been brainwashed by the right-wing corporate media into believing that the Democrats differ substantively from Republicans.
A liberal will support free speech. We always have, and we always will; it's fundamental to being a liberal. Anyone who does not support free speech is not a liberal. Moderate, conservative, or authoritarian, depending on how far out they are and their econmic views, but the support of free speech and personal rights are part of the definition of liberalism.
--
So for those who were a bit... "confused", this really and truly is the extent of what is considered "fair use", as far as replication is concerned. There are, of course, other types of "fair use" (broadcasting music and such), but this is really the only one that seems to apply. I hope this clears up some of the "confusion" surrounding the subject.
Uh, no, actually you've successfully managed to *add* to the confusion. There are several types of copying that are, in fact, legally fair use. For example: backup copies, copying to a different media for personal use, and time shifting are all forms of copying that are fair use, at least under US law. (And given that your examples were all US-centric references, I'm assuming US law is what you're referring to.) This has been decided by the 1976 Copyright Act and by numerous court decisions.
Broadcasting music, on the other hand, is NOT fair use. Radio and TV stations, advertisers, etc. pay a fee to be allowed to broadcast music. This is why ADCAP and the other company who's name I can't remember offhand and am too lazy to look up were started, to collect royalties for broadcasts of music.
--
Bzzzzt... Try again.
Copyright is intended to encourage artists and authors to share their creations with everyone else. In return for this, they recieve *for a limited time* sole rights to distribute their creation, and the law will enforce this. But not even the creator can *own* an idea. And the only way to *steal* an idea would be to copy it from someone, then run current through their brain to remove their memory of it. Because a fundamental part of the concept of "theft" is that the former owner loses it. I know, "copyright infringement" isn't nearly as newsworthy as "theft," but I'm afraid you're going to have to live with that.
Oh, and nice ad hominem attack there. Always good when you don't actually have any real response to someone.
--
How about "infringing copyright?" Worked up until now. Or do you mean you need a new inflammatory, inaccurate, get-the-average-TV-watching-idiot-to-think-it's-as -evil-as-Hitler term?
--
And how could this thread have gone on this long without mention of those MISERABLE FAT BELGIUM BASTARDS?
--
Actually, that's got a lot to do with Hollywood propoganda, which is one of our biggest exports. According to Hollywood, everyone in the US is rich, even criminals. The US is exciting, and anyone can make it here if they just try, gosh darn it! The image the rest of the world has of the average American is born from Cosby, Mad About You, Friends, etc., not from reality. Even if they know the facts, their prejudices still cause them to view the US through seriously rose-colored glasses. Add to this the fact that most income statistics look at the average and ignore the median. The problem is that the average statistics are badly skewed due to just how absurdly rich the top half percent of the US is.
Thus, people ignore the actual facts, which are that the US has a lower median standard of living than practically any country in Western Europe or Scandinavia. At least until they get here, and discover that the reason we want them here is that US citizens don't want the job of "migrant farm worker" past about the second generation.
--
Juvenile crime, like all other crime, has been on a steady decline for over a century now. It's at the lowest it's been for as long as it's been recorded. And yes, that includes violent crime. The "recent rash of school shootings" doesn't touch the trend. It's just the fact that it's *white* kids getting shot that makes it national news. Fact is, unless your school's in downtown Chicago or LA you don't need those metal detectors. All they do is waste money that could have gone to hiring some competant counselors, or actually done some teaching for a change, make the parents feel secure, and help get the kids used to their privacy being invaded and their rights stripped away.
However, idiot school administrators like you are doing a *great* job of reversing the trend of reduced violence. If you treat people like criminals, they WILL act like criminals. And the rage your constant invasions of their privacy cause has to be let out somehow. Kids don't have any less need for privacy then adults do.
The difference between juvenile crime today and 50 years ago is that today it's front page news for weeks. Much easier to keep people from looking at what the multinationals and politicians are doing that way. The difference is that schools today are much harsher than they were 20 years ago, making the kids in them much more likely to snap. And part of that harsher environment is the fact that arrogant administrators like you are constantly invadining their privacy, WITHOUT actually bothering to prevent the football jock from sticking their heads in the toilet. People like you ignore behaviour from the "popular" kids that would be considered assault with intent to commit great bodily harm if I did it to you. "It's just part of being a kid." When was the last time you stopped the quarterback from giving some burnout a hard time?
So you want to know the problem with our schools is? Look in the mirror. It's you.
--