where do you people live, caves? in THE WORLD, we have LIGHTING, both via filament and the excitation of certain noble gases. and then, oh, wait, i almost forgot THE SUN. perhaps, on the side of the box, nintendo should have pointed out places where you can GET LIGHT.
What are the words you put in all caps? I find that, for the most part, I am unaware of their meanings. From "light", however, I can only assume you are referring to the things above the desks at work which all of the programmers leave off. I hear it's different in the other building, but we try not to go over there.
and you feel inclined to complain because you don't get an organic display, infinite battery, 10/100 port, bump mapping on the chip, and a built-in taser?
There's no 10/100 port!? How am I supposed to h4x0r it to run Lunix? (Or is FreeBSD the cool one these days?)
Aside from the explanation why backlighting won't help, you're missing the point-- the system is unplayable as sold.
Systems are being sold with less and less to reduce cost. No more bundled game; just one controller. But Nintendo seems to be taking a page from PC game manufacturers-- no usable product in the box (WW2Online and UO:Renaissance, for example, if you bought them the week of release).
I'm sure not including the screen itself would cut down on battery consumption, but they still included that. If they're not going to include an essential part of the system, they should say so, just like with batteries: "2 AA batteries required (not included), worm light required (not included)". Instead, both people I know who bought it got it home, said, "fuck! It's unplayable!", then went back to the store to discover the good wormlights were sold out. Go figure.
So, I was reading this post, thinking, "wow! All those Flamebait mods-- what's up with that? He's got some good-- er, wait, what's that? But do they really hold a candle to Full House or Pee Wee's Great Adventure or any of the other brilliant programs that have followed?"
Well, congrats on a good troll. Surprisingly well-written. But if it was your intention to have me fooled, you should've left out Full House.
While AOL obviously cannot be expected to advertise for other ISPs on, say, AOL, the fact that AOL Time Warner is locking their ads out of cable markets is blatantly monopolistic.
It's difficult for me to see how AOL Time Warner could think this wouldn't raise the ire of the Justice Department. Are they so confident that they'll be too tied up with MS for years to deal with this? Or do they know something we don't, and think they'll lose horrible on MS's appeal, and be too castrated to take on AOL Time Warner?
Remember, this isn't the only anti-competitive action they've taken in recent history, and they've even been investigated for some of them (Time Warner's discontinuation of ADSL was overridden by FTC, for example).
The only other thing I can think of is that they figure going after the little guys (they're reputed to be in negotiations with the big providers to do advertising) is a safe bet, because the mom and pops don't have the cash to lobby to bring this to antitrust's attention.
On/., someone says shit like this, and it goes down to -1 Flamebait (sometimes after going up to +5 insightful). But when someone from MS says it AGAIN (MS has been calling GPL evil for some time now, no?), it gets/. front page.
Why? What's the point of posting this? Sure, he's wrong, we all know that-- so we can post the same old pro-Open Source and/or GPL stuff we've been posting for years. Great, we all agree, and MS is still evil. This isn't news!
If you insist on posting this, could you at least make a category called "pointless, trivial crap that no one cares about" so we can all filter it out?
WELL. I mean shit, why should we put our bags on the belt and walk through metal detectors at the airport because *some* people use bombs to blow up airplanes? They're stomping all over my right to privacy! Just because the FAA, the airlines, and the airports are losing money doesn't mean they can restrict MY rights in any way.
As other posters have pointed out (but I just couldn't help myself), that's the weakest part of your argument. I only have to go through the metal detector if I want to get on the airplane. I'm saying, "Hey, I'd like to use your services, airport.". And airport says, "Sure, you have to pay me some money, and walk through my metal detector.". I can say "sure", or I can say, "go fuck yourself".
In the RIAA case, however, it's entirely different. I could not want any of their music at all. I could simply want to use Aimster for its file-trading capabilities (which I do, on occasion; and never once has it been for a copyrighted work). So I say, "Hey Aimster, I'd like to use your services.". Aimster says, "Su--". RIAA interrupts, "Hey buddy, I'd like to check those packets first. Hey Aimster, go check those packets. Then check with us to see if it's okay. Hmm, these packets are looking a little fishy-- Aimster, we might have to shut you down entirely.".
Of course, that's far from the worst infringement. RIAA shuts down Aimster-- sure, no problem, one corporation kills another, not directly affecting my rights in any way. This is where something like DeCSS is much more clear cut-- that's where they pretty much come into my home and tell me what I can and can't do.
With Napster, it was easy to say, "look, we did a bunch of searches, and we got 99% copyrighted material.". What are they going to do with Aimster, I wonder? The link didn't give any details, but I know that the RIAA isn't on my buddy list. Think they'll try to subpoena a lot of the information?
The patent for the "Multimedia time warping system" made me do quite the double-take. The first time you read it, it looks like a highly technical, restrictive patent on a non-obvious technology.
But that's where the double-take comes in. Look at the sorts of "restrictions" they're volunteering to put on their patent, so that it only covers their "non-obvious" technology:
User control commands are accepted and sent through the system. Watch out, you can fast-forward.
The video and audio components are stored on a storage device and when the program is requested for display, the video and audio components are extracted from the storage device and reassembled into an MPEG stream which is sent to a decoder. Damn, that's what my MPEG playback algorithm has been getting wrong-- I need to store my audio and video on a storage device! Damn, if they hadn't patented that bit, I would've stolen it.
The decoder converts the MPEG stream into TV output signals and delivers the TV output signals to a TV receiver. Those wizards at Tivo have done it again. Apparently, the secret to getting MPEG to play on TV is-- get this-- converting the MPEG stream into a TV-readable format.
The invention allows the user to store selected television broadcast programs while the user is simultaneously watching or reviewing another program. This, in fact, is a breakthrough. Have you ever tried to do this with your VCR? The instructions read something like: "During install, wall cord into first input, VCR cord from box to television. Then on watching, Input A the program watching, Input B the program being.". I don't know anyone who's ever done this-- they eventually gave up and watched TV upstairs.
It looks like the Patent Office, even if they have longer to review patents in the future, will run into the problem encountered in programming: it's easy to make a very complicated, confusing explanation for a very simple solution. Luckily for us (and, well, quite expensively for us), the courts have a lot more time to puzzle through all the bullshit.
OTOH, I hate it when a reviewer gets so caught up in technical problems running it, that you can't see what the game will be like once (if) you get it up and running. For example, Ultima IX. My current system can run it, no problem. Have I ever seen a review of the actual gameplay? No. Was it worth buying when it came out? No. But now I'm curious. And of course reviewers are loath to do a "second chance review" after all the patches, and for a very good reason-- they don't want to encourage these releases of beta products. Finish it, dammit, and then release it. But the issue remains-- if you're releasing a review so I can inform myself about a game, make sure you talk a bit about the gameplay.
So, what does "GPL'd" mean to you?
on
Swarmcast GPLed
·
· Score: 2
Before you go off and start including this GPL'd code in your new and useful tools, you should be aware of several pitfalls involved in writing new programs using GPL'd code:
Using GPL'd code may put you into severe financial jeopardy. Make sure to check with your local Microsoft representative to make sure you have paid the appropriate "GPL tax". Remember: this applies even if you don't own any Microsoft software.
There are stringent limitations on the ways you can redistribute GPL'd code. If you redistribute any GPL'd tool in whole or in part, you must put a link to Midori's home page in the About box of your program.
The GPL is "viral", and can cause your program to become GPL'd too. However, instead of including the code directly in your new program, use a C trick called "linking". To do this, all of the GPL'd code you wish to use must be in a "library". If it isn't, take all the parts you need and compile them into a library, then distribute that with your program.
If you follow these tips, you can make great use of other people's hard work-- without running the risk of having to share any of your own. Good luck!
Re:Article tries to make AOL look bad
on
AOL And The GPL
·
· Score: 1
That's actually what I think, too, and I meant to put it in its own sentence at the end. And then, of course, I forgot. That's what I get for not using preview. Between AOL's choices of fighting a pointless lawsuit, and putting a few text files on a hard drive no one will ever look at (except these crazy ass observer guys), I think their choice is pretty obvious.
Re:Article tries to make AOL look bad
on
AOL And The GPL
·
· Score: 5
Actually, it's an extremely clear-cut license violation. First, from the article:
While the inside of the Tech Pad was mildly interesting, most striking was what we didn't find. For software allegedly released by its manufacturer under the GPL, curiously missing were most of the things required by the license.
No notices of copyright holders. No disclaimer of warranty. No source code and no directions on where and how to get the source code. No copy of the GPL, or at least none accessible or viewable from the interface provided by Gateway or America Online. No notice in the interface or help files about what is and isn't covered under the license.
Now, from the GPL: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
I don't see how there's any way you could claim this is anything but an egregious violation of the license. If you'd like to review the license yourself, it's at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. AOL is likely assuming no one will have the money to properly sue them, or perhaps they think they'd be able to have the license found invalid, or possibly they think they're in the clear by putting it all in a box that's not supposed to be open.
All this article says, under all the overblown, sensationalist statements, can be reduced to one sentence buried halfway into the article: "But as it stands Linux on the desktop is not an entity that is usable by the average PC user when it comes to accomplishing their daily work.". That's a statement that most of us would agree with-- but most of us wouldn't bother to click over to and read.
So what we get is a bunch of flamebait surrounding a state of affairs that reporters have been covering for years. Here's an example of the senseless rhetoric: "Such is the way of all movements: either the professionals take over and the movement evolves, or the movement recedes." Wow. That would've been cut from Catch-22 for being too absurd.
Now, am I saying that everything on the Linux desktop is great? Of course not. The fact that this is essentially identical to articles about Linux two or three years ago should be of concern to anyone who wants Linux on more desktops. A lot of the software still isn't quite there. Mozilla isn't quite finished. A lot of lower-profile tools also aren't quite finished, or not polished yet. So a better question (and one this reporter completely fails to ask) is: is this a natural and expected development cycle for new and useful tools, or is there some inherent obstacle holding back these tools?
If by "just fine", you mean already caused several other companies to cough up protection money in excess of the $350,000 Rambus has to pay now.
Re:Does anyone bother reading the articles any mor
on
Magnet Patent Suits
·
· Score: 2
Could we quit the knee-jerk rhetoric here? Every time someone gets a little too close to making an interesting point, people have to insert their personal bit of ideological rhetoric, and it's gotten to the point where you can predict a full 90% of the posts. Let's look at what he said: Yes, a Chinese company suddenly has the potential to drastically affect a large portion of the American computer-manufacturing market. Does anyone think *that* might have interesting repurcussions worth discussing?
Did he say "Chinese bad, Americans good"? No. You could claim he implied it, especially if you're overly sensitive. It IS an interesting point-- in today's interconnected economy, is it possible that politicians will come to view economic control as a weapon against other countries? And China's a good example, because it has shown a lack of restraint when it comes to controlling and/or nationalizing businesses on its soil. Additionally, both America and China currently have conservative leaders in power, who will tend to play a lot more hard-line brinkmanship than other administrations might.
To deny that the U.S. and China may come into conflict, and that economic weapons could be used, and that it could have an effect on the lives of people in the U.S. and China, and everywhere else-- to deny that possibility is ridiculous. Just as it would be ridiculous to automatically side with either country every time a conflict pops up, or to deny that there's a lot of propaganda flying about on both sides (or, finally, to ignore the fact that it's much easier and more efficient to distribute said propaganda with a state-run media).
Now, is that the case here? No, it's not. As you pointed out, "the list of defendants includes Sony, Philips, Toshiba and Samsumg". Additionally, there's no obvious reason for either country to escalate, nor is there any obvious control being exerted by the Chinese government over either of the involved companies. No, it seems quite obvious that in this case, they're simply doing what corporations do-- sue people to make more money.
Directly from the site: A lot of people have mentioned to me that this is a US (North American)-centric list. I completely agree; I stuck with what I knew. I would like to see the list expand to other countries and continents, but I had to start somewhere.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll just assume that wasn't there when you read the site. Regardless, the article's headline was intentional hyperbole-- it's neither every BBS that ever was, nor every US BBS that ever was. If you're going to pick nits and insult an entire country full of people in the same post, you should be quite surprised if you only get called flamebait once.
Sorry myamid, but you're the one who screwed up this time.:)
The Register:At the high end, ClawHammer will be AMD's first implementation of its 8th generation architecture. ClawHammer will feature the x86-64 technology aimed at rivalling Intel's IA-64 McKinley. Sampling in Q4 2001, ClawHammer will be SMP capable and go into production at the beginning of 2002.
Silicon Strategies:AMD also looks forward to bringing the 64-bit microprocessor generation to the desktop. A previously undisclosed version of AMD's 64-bit Hammer chip, Clawhammer, will begin sampling at the end of 2001 for desktops and server appliances and enter production in the first quarter of 2002. Sledgehammer, a 4- and 8-way capable part for servers, will sample in the first quarter of 2002 and ship a quarter later.
I'd link to more, but it's all reprintings of the same press release, more or less.
Yeah, yeah, same thing every story, but I find it useful, so here are the links:
Write your
Senator.
Write your Representative.
Remember, snail mail only-- e-mail really doesn't do shit. And include that return address everywhere, so they know you're in their district. And finally, if your state is considering other similarly draconian measures such as UCITA, write your state government as well (site at www.[two letter state code].gov).
Cambridge Dictionary Online:
satire: noun:
a way of criticizing people or ideas in a humorous way to show that they have faults or are wrong, or a piece of writing or play which uses this style
Slashdot Mirror
where do you people live, caves? in THE WORLD, we have LIGHTING, both via filament and the excitation of certain noble gases. and then, oh, wait, i almost forgot THE SUN. perhaps, on the side of the box, nintendo should have pointed out places where you can GET LIGHT.
What are the words you put in all caps? I find that, for the most part, I am unaware of their meanings. From "light", however, I can only assume you are referring to the things above the desks at work which all of the programmers leave off. I hear it's different in the other building, but we try not to go over there.
and you feel inclined to complain because you don't get an organic display, infinite battery, 10/100 port, bump mapping on the chip, and a built-in taser?
There's no 10/100 port!? How am I supposed to h4x0r it to run Lunix? (Or is FreeBSD the cool one these days?)
Aside from the explanation why backlighting won't help, you're missing the point-- the system is unplayable as sold.
Systems are being sold with less and less to reduce cost. No more bundled game; just one controller. But Nintendo seems to be taking a page from PC game manufacturers-- no usable product in the box (WW2Online and UO:Renaissance, for example, if you bought them the week of release).
I'm sure not including the screen itself would cut down on battery consumption, but they still included that. If they're not going to include an essential part of the system, they should say so, just like with batteries: "2 AA batteries required (not included), worm light required (not included)". Instead, both people I know who bought it got it home, said, "fuck! It's unplayable!", then went back to the store to discover the good wormlights were sold out. Go figure.
So, I was reading this post, thinking, "wow! All those Flamebait mods-- what's up with that? He's got some good-- er, wait, what's that? But do they really hold a candle to Full House or Pee Wee's Great Adventure or any of the other brilliant programs that have followed?"
Well, congrats on a good troll. Surprisingly well-written. But if it was your intention to have me fooled, you should've left out Full House.
While AOL obviously cannot be expected to advertise for other ISPs on, say, AOL, the fact that AOL Time Warner is locking their ads out of cable markets is blatantly monopolistic.
It's difficult for me to see how AOL Time Warner could think this wouldn't raise the ire of the Justice Department. Are they so confident that they'll be too tied up with MS for years to deal with this? Or do they know something we don't, and think they'll lose horrible on MS's appeal, and be too castrated to take on AOL Time Warner?
Remember, this isn't the only anti-competitive action they've taken in recent history, and they've even been investigated for some of them (Time Warner's discontinuation of ADSL was overridden by FTC, for example).
The only other thing I can think of is that they figure going after the little guys (they're reputed to be in negotiations with the big providers to do advertising) is a safe bet, because the mom and pops don't have the cash to lobby to bring this to antitrust's attention.
On /., someone says shit like this, and it goes down to -1 Flamebait (sometimes after going up to +5 insightful). But when someone from MS says it AGAIN (MS has been calling GPL evil for some time now, no?), it gets /. front page.
Why? What's the point of posting this? Sure, he's wrong, we all know that-- so we can post the same old pro-Open Source and/or GPL stuff we've been posting for years. Great, we all agree, and MS is still evil. This isn't news!
If you insist on posting this, could you at least make a category called "pointless, trivial crap that no one cares about" so we can all filter it out?
Whoah there. If you're implying that I can't count on The Register for accurate, unbiased, rumor-free reporting, I'm just not going to believe you.
The problem is not this: that AOL6.0 will be bundled with Windows XP.
:)
The problem is this: in exchange for exclusive Internet Explorer support.
Why is that a problem? Because of this: what happens to Netscape?
This is one of those rare times that the summary got all the important stuff.
WELL. I mean shit, why should we put our bags on the belt and walk through metal detectors at the airport because *some* people use bombs to blow up airplanes? They're stomping all over my right to privacy! Just because the FAA, the airlines, and the airports are losing money doesn't mean they can restrict MY rights in any way.
As other posters have pointed out (but I just couldn't help myself), that's the weakest part of your argument. I only have to go through the metal detector if I want to get on the airplane. I'm saying, "Hey, I'd like to use your services, airport.". And airport says, "Sure, you have to pay me some money, and walk through my metal detector.". I can say "sure", or I can say, "go fuck yourself".
In the RIAA case, however, it's entirely different. I could not want any of their music at all. I could simply want to use Aimster for its file-trading capabilities (which I do, on occasion; and never once has it been for a copyrighted work). So I say, "Hey Aimster, I'd like to use your services.". Aimster says, "Su--". RIAA interrupts, "Hey buddy, I'd like to check those packets first. Hey Aimster, go check those packets. Then check with us to see if it's okay. Hmm, these packets are looking a little fishy-- Aimster, we might have to shut you down entirely.".
Of course, that's far from the worst infringement. RIAA shuts down Aimster-- sure, no problem, one corporation kills another, not directly affecting my rights in any way. This is where something like DeCSS is much more clear cut-- that's where they pretty much come into my home and tell me what I can and can't do.
the second one.
With Napster, it was easy to say, "look, we did a bunch of searches, and we got 99% copyrighted material.". What are they going to do with Aimster, I wonder? The link didn't give any details, but I know that the RIAA isn't on my buddy list. Think they'll try to subpoena a lot of the information?
The patent for the "Multimedia time warping system" made me do quite the double-take. The first time you read it, it looks like a highly technical, restrictive patent on a non-obvious technology.
But that's where the double-take comes in. Look at the sorts of "restrictions" they're volunteering to put on their patent, so that it only covers their "non-obvious" technology:
User control commands are accepted and sent through the system. Watch out, you can fast-forward.
The video and audio components are stored on a storage device and when the program is requested for display, the video and audio components are extracted from the storage device and reassembled into an MPEG stream which is sent to a decoder. Damn, that's what my MPEG playback algorithm has been getting wrong-- I need to store my audio and video on a storage device! Damn, if they hadn't patented that bit, I would've stolen it.
The decoder converts the MPEG stream into TV output signals and delivers the TV output signals to a TV receiver. Those wizards at Tivo have done it again. Apparently, the secret to getting MPEG to play on TV is-- get this-- converting the MPEG stream into a TV-readable format.
The invention allows the user to store selected television broadcast programs while the user is simultaneously watching or reviewing another program. This, in fact, is a breakthrough. Have you ever tried to do this with your VCR? The instructions read something like: "During install, wall cord into first input, VCR cord from box to television. Then on watching, Input A the program watching, Input B the program being.". I don't know anyone who's ever done this-- they eventually gave up and watched TV upstairs.
It looks like the Patent Office, even if they have longer to review patents in the future, will run into the problem encountered in programming: it's easy to make a very complicated, confusing explanation for a very simple solution. Luckily for us (and, well, quite expensively for us), the courts have a lot more time to puzzle through all the bullshit.
OTOH, I hate it when a reviewer gets so caught up in technical problems running it, that you can't see what the game will be like once (if) you get it up and running. For example, Ultima IX. My current system can run it, no problem. Have I ever seen a review of the actual gameplay? No. Was it worth buying when it came out? No. But now I'm curious. And of course reviewers are loath to do a "second chance review" after all the patches, and for a very good reason-- they don't want to encourage these releases of beta products. Finish it, dammit, and then release it. But the issue remains-- if you're releasing a review so I can inform myself about a game, make sure you talk a bit about the gameplay.
Using GPL'd code may put you into severe financial jeopardy. Make sure to check with your local Microsoft representative to make sure you have paid the appropriate "GPL tax". Remember: this applies even if you don't own any Microsoft software.
There are stringent limitations on the ways you can redistribute GPL'd code. If you redistribute any GPL'd tool in whole or in part, you must put a link to Midori's home page in the About box of your program.
The GPL is "viral", and can cause your program to become GPL'd too. However, instead of including the code directly in your new program, use a C trick called "linking". To do this, all of the GPL'd code you wish to use must be in a "library". If it isn't, take all the parts you need and compile them into a library, then distribute that with your program.
If you follow these tips, you can make great use of other people's hard work-- without running the risk of having to share any of your own. Good luck!
That's actually what I think, too, and I meant to put it in its own sentence at the end. And then, of course, I forgot. That's what I get for not using preview. Between AOL's choices of fighting a pointless lawsuit, and putting a few text files on a hard drive no one will ever look at (except these crazy ass observer guys), I think their choice is pretty obvious.
Actually, it's an extremely clear-cut license violation. First, from the article:
While the inside of the Tech Pad was mildly interesting, most striking was what we didn't find. For software allegedly released by its manufacturer under the GPL, curiously missing were most of the things required by the license.
No notices of copyright holders. No disclaimer of warranty. No source code and no directions on where and how to get the source code. No copy of the GPL, or at least none accessible or viewable from the interface provided by Gateway or America Online. No notice in the interface or help files about what is and isn't covered under the license.
Now, from the GPL:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
I don't see how there's any way you could claim this is anything but an egregious violation of the license. If you'd like to review the license yourself, it's at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. AOL is likely assuming no one will have the money to properly sue them, or perhaps they think they'd be able to have the license found invalid, or possibly they think they're in the clear by putting it all in a box that's not supposed to be open.
All this article says, under all the overblown, sensationalist statements, can be reduced to one sentence buried halfway into the article: "But as it stands Linux on the desktop is not an entity that is usable by the average PC user when it comes to accomplishing their daily work.". That's a statement that most of us would agree with-- but most of us wouldn't bother to click over to and read.
So what we get is a bunch of flamebait surrounding a state of affairs that reporters have been covering for years. Here's an example of the senseless rhetoric: "Such is the way of all movements: either the professionals take over and the movement evolves, or the movement recedes." Wow. That would've been cut from Catch-22 for being too absurd.
Now, am I saying that everything on the Linux desktop is great? Of course not. The fact that this is essentially identical to articles about Linux two or three years ago should be of concern to anyone who wants Linux on more desktops. A lot of the software still isn't quite there. Mozilla isn't quite finished. A lot of lower-profile tools also aren't quite finished, or not polished yet. So a better question (and one this reporter completely fails to ask) is: is this a natural and expected development cycle for new and useful tools, or is there some inherent obstacle holding back these tools?
The hell I do! I haven't bemoaned that fact once! And no flaming, either-- just check, no other posts in this article at all.
Oh. Something just occurred to me-- I guess by "y'all", you weren't referring to me. Damn, I never did understand Texans.
If by "just fine", you mean already caused several other companies to cough up protection money in excess of the $350,000 Rambus has to pay now.
Could we quit the knee-jerk rhetoric here? Every time someone gets a little too close to making an interesting point, people have to insert their personal bit of ideological rhetoric, and it's gotten to the point where you can predict a full 90% of the posts. Let's look at what he said:
Yes, a Chinese company suddenly has the potential to drastically affect a large portion of the American computer-manufacturing market. Does anyone think *that* might have interesting repurcussions worth discussing?
Did he say "Chinese bad, Americans good"? No. You could claim he implied it, especially if you're overly sensitive. It IS an interesting point-- in today's interconnected economy, is it possible that politicians will come to view economic control as a weapon against other countries? And China's a good example, because it has shown a lack of restraint when it comes to controlling and/or nationalizing businesses on its soil. Additionally, both America and China currently have conservative leaders in power, who will tend to play a lot more hard-line brinkmanship than other administrations might.
To deny that the U.S. and China may come into conflict, and that economic weapons could be used, and that it could have an effect on the lives of people in the U.S. and China, and everywhere else-- to deny that possibility is ridiculous. Just as it would be ridiculous to automatically side with either country every time a conflict pops up, or to deny that there's a lot of propaganda flying about on both sides (or, finally, to ignore the fact that it's much easier and more efficient to distribute said propaganda with a state-run media).
Now, is that the case here? No, it's not. As you pointed out, "the list of defendants includes Sony, Philips, Toshiba and Samsumg". Additionally, there's no obvious reason for either country to escalate, nor is there any obvious control being exerted by the Chinese government over either of the involved companies. No, it seems quite obvious that in this case, they're simply doing what corporations do-- sue people to make more money.
Directly from the site:
A lot of people have mentioned to me that this is a US (North American)-centric list. I completely agree; I stuck with what I knew. I would like to see the list expand to other countries and continents, but I had to start somewhere.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll just assume that wasn't there when you read the site. Regardless, the article's headline was intentional hyperbole-- it's neither every BBS that ever was, nor every US BBS that ever was. If you're going to pick nits and insult an entire country full of people in the same post, you should be quite surprised if you only get called flamebait once.
Sorry myamid, but you're the one who screwed up this time. :)
The Register: At the high end, ClawHammer will be AMD's first implementation of its 8th generation architecture. ClawHammer will feature the x86-64 technology aimed at rivalling Intel's IA-64 McKinley. Sampling in Q4 2001, ClawHammer will be SMP capable and go into production at the beginning of 2002.
Silicon Strategies: AMD also looks forward to bringing the 64-bit microprocessor generation to the desktop. A previously undisclosed version of AMD's 64-bit Hammer chip, Clawhammer, will begin sampling at the end of 2001 for desktops and server appliances and enter production in the first quarter of 2002. Sledgehammer, a 4- and 8-way capable part for servers, will sample in the first quarter of 2002 and ship a quarter later.
I'd link to more, but it's all reprintings of the same press release, more or less.
Ah, you're right. I tried a few at the www.[twoletter].gov and they worked fine, but I just found some that don't. Ah, well.
Yeah, yeah, same thing every story, but I find it useful, so here are the links:
Write your Senator.
Write your Representative.
Remember, snail mail only-- e-mail really doesn't do shit. And include that return address everywhere, so they know you're in their district. And finally, if your state is considering other similarly draconian measures such as UCITA, write your state government as well (site at www.[two letter state code].gov).
Cambridge Dictionary Online:
satire: noun: a way of criticizing people or ideas in a humorous way to show that they have faults or are wrong, or a piece of writing or play which uses this style