1. If IP isn't respected, it won't be profittable for corporations to spend multi-millions discovering new drugs, or making big budget movies, or writing hugely complicated commercial software.
These are the assertions that are lacking evidence. Waving your hand and saying "because they will", is not evidence.
Specifically for blockbuster movies, I did mention Terminator 4. I'm not going to cite studies or surveys attempting to prove the National Endowment for the Arts wouldn't fund it if it were up to them, because there are no studies.
With respect to drug research and software development, I also gave my logic as to why.
2. Considering the pro-IP stance is the dominant, well known one in the USA, I expect you to know where I'm coming from already.
3. This is slashdot, not your debate class. Assertions backed by general logic with less-than-bulletproof evidence is the usual.
So my stance is that assertions backed by logic = evidence. The link to wikipedia cites proof by assertion as simply repeating arguments or slogans regardless of contradiction. That's not what I'm doing. You would prefer studies, but all I'm inclined to spend my time on is logic.
I don't know how you define excessive profits, but I think you're quite wrong about the film and software industry. While pharmaceutical companies make tons of profits, studios and software do not.
Orion pictures went under around 1990. Remember MGM? Sony had some big losses in the mid 90s as well. These days Paramount has cut back their number of yearly releases because they can't afford more like the bigger studios. I'd say overall studios do not make excessive profits, and it takes good management and creative teams for them to profit at all.
The software industry has thousands of dead businesses. They no longer exist for dozens of different reasons, but fierce competition is a big one of them. Only a handful of companies like MS, Oracle, Adobe, and Macromedia have ever been consistently very profitable. The rest have had periods of severe losses.
All men and women are mortal. They fear death and illness. Whatever the form of it, the support will always be given. Probably more people would give more money for research then corporations spend today, if these people knew there is none but themselves who can make research continue.
Not gonna happen. Because lets say Americans give pharma companies 100 billions dollars in profits this year. Except that happens by many people struggling to afford food, gas, and other qualities of life. There are seniors who spend most of their social security checks on drugs. If R&D was publicly funded, these people would put more of their money into food, utility bills, or presents for their children. Donations would not match what the pharma companies make today. After all, there are plenty of Americans who want legislation restricting what drugs cost, like in Canada and Europe. Americans already want to pay less, they're not about to donate even more if research was publicly funded.
People are greedy, and they'd forget how things were today. They'd get complacent about the situation. It takes a big push, like in California, to get funding for stem cell research going.
Because you are apparently incapable of seeing the dots that were connected to arrive at those conclusions? Those are the arguments.
I'll break it down for you in baby bites.
If IP isn't respected, it won't be profittable for corporations to spend multi-millions discovering new drugs, or making big budget movies, or writing hugely complicated commercial software.
Now there are obvious counter-arguments that governments and philanthropists could fund the drug research. The counter-counter argument is that's unlikely to happen with the same magnitude of university-corporate research.
The counter-argument to the software is using open-source. Except again, production is unlikely to match the output of businesses when profit is the motive instead of altruism.
For the movies, sure there is funding for the arts and filmmaking, but I don't see any government ever paying for the production of Terminator 4.
I have a CF card that I use with one of the handful of mp3 players that use them. A few weeks ago I visited my family and took the player and my camera which uses SD. I left the camera cable at home. My uncle and I wanted to try and view my photos on his TV. He has a Canon SLR that takes CF. So I attempted to use the multi-card reader on his printer to copy the pictures from the SD card to the CF. After formatting my CF in his camera, Win2k said the card was write-protected and could not copy my pictures to it. It also wouldn't let me format it. I used my mp3 player to format the card, but Windows still says it's write-protected. Anyone know how I can restore my card? It's only 256MB, but I'm peeved because it's my card, non Canon's. It could have been a 2GB and worth much more. I know this is offtopic. Mods, please maybe just leave this comment be at +1?
Does that mean if you watch a widescreen movie on that 90GX2, the black bars aren't a very noticeable dark gray? Sure CRTs have them too, but in my limited observations the bars were brighter on LCDs.
If people see a murder, rape, or attack about to happen, in a more ideal society they could intervene to stop those bad things from happening without consequences. Consequences like the people intervening getting hurt, retaliated against, or misinterpreting the situation.
This is a clear situation however. Asshat is using too much bandwidth, and an ordinary person should be able to stop it. If we could all stop speeders, knowing we wouldn't get hurt, and knowing the law-breaker had no good reason for breaking the law, then soon the only people speeding would be those with good reasons. Then the law could get changed because the 80% of the people who actually want to legally go 75mph would tell their legislators to do change the law.
Then they changed their form so they no longer accept feature requests for iTunes, only iPods. As for my request, iTunes 6 doesn't remember where I was in a playlist after closing the program, does version 7?
It only took Apple three or four years to incrementally improve their Shuffle feature. I'm sure I just need to wait another year or two for my request to get implemented.
Maybe in another two or three years enough people will have asked Steve Jobs to get the Shuffle feature to play songs sooner that haven't played in a while. Now that version 7 (are the bugs fixed yet?) notes when a track was skipped, maybe version 8 will actually do this.
Right. I want a controllable Shuffled mode to mix up the order. I don't want true Random play. I think that's what a lot of people want. Perhaps even a majority.
I don't even necessarily want 1 of those 10 songs played every 100. Last year I made a multi-thousand-song playlist in iTunes. After shuffling it and listening mostly through, I was noticing when tracks by Wolfstone played. I went back and realized that about 80% of those tracks had played in the first half of the playlist. Because the last 20% were spaced so far apart in the second half, and playing so rarely, it was catching my ear.
So I ended up wishing the distribution had been more even. Not exactly 50-50 even, but 80-20 was too skewed. More like 65-35 would probably be enough. And of course the songs I hadn't listened-through in a long time should have been weighted to play sooner in the list than the more recently heard ones.
Never-the-less, letting power-users control the randomness would be a nice feature. Say I have ten songs from an artist. When I make a playlist of a thousand songs, and the aforementioned ten all get played within the first three-hundred, that's not desirable to me. That means in the last 700 songs I'm not going to hear that artist, and that could mean weeks or months of playtime.
Apple does include an option for the minimum number of songs before playing an artist again, but that doesn't necessarily fix the problem. The songs should be spread out. I'm okay with two of the same artist back-to-back as long as they're not all played too close together or worse, overplayed.
Just because randomly an artist may temporarily get played more often isn't a good way of doing things.
Additionally, iTunes and other programs don't give an option to weight the play-order based on how long it's been since a song played. If I just heard a song last week, the program should play another by that artist that I haven't heard in three months. Now I don't mean it should always play the oldest-played song first, otherwise they'd be stuck in a loop. But weight the order towards older-played.
Finally, iTunes doesn't make a note in its database if I've skipped a song before it finished or early on. How many times have users skipped a song because he or she wasn't in the mood for it, or heard it too recently? It would be better if iTunes tracked both last-played, and last-attempted-played. So when it makes a playlist, it puts songs I haven't heard for a while in early, and songs it recently attempted-to-play in later.
Just because what I'm asking for is 10+ times more computationally costly than what iTunes and iPods currently do doesn't mean it's hard. CPUs are more than powerful enough to do this in the background while playing songs.
That quote makes it sound like it supports different loops that can be sequenced together. Meaning a dancing animation could have loops of moves that play in a scripted order, instead of always the same routine repeating. That make for a smaller, and more dynamic file.
If the game renders at 60 fields per second in 1080i, it will render approximately 30 frames per second in 1080p. Is there a problem with this? Users lose the faster refresh in exchange for no combing. In a game fast enough for the combing to be noticeable, I'd want 1080p so I didn't have to see that.
That minor crash would be corrected by the dev teams from the closing companies going off to start their own new studios to work on a Wii game. Any smart studio should see by now that the Wii will be a success and so it's a solid backup plan.
Technology changes too fast to expect five years of compatible chips.
AMD supported Socket A from 650MHz Athlons to the Athlon 3300+ That took about three or four years. Asking for five years is simply unrealistic. The AM2 socket boards will support AM3 cpus coming in 2007 and 2008. It's just that AM3 boards will support DDR3 RAM instead of the DDR2 used now. So the AM2 socket will be useful for at least three years, and probably four.
Your numbers don't add up. A 2.4GHz Athlon 64 is still going for $109 and was over $200 before Intel released the 6400.
How much did you pay for your 7600GT? The cheapest Newegg has them for is about $150. Maybe you're thinking of the 7600GS, which is $100.
So if you found a packaged deal of chip, ram, and mobo for $200, you still have another $150 for the video card. Yes you met the $340 price point, but not $229.
Presumably you bought a 7600GT because you're into gaming. You don't need it if you're not. So a 3800+ X2 gets you about 33% more FPS than the 3800+ you have. The benchmarks show the Core 2 Duo 6400 gets about 25-30% better fps than the 3800+ X2. So the 6400 is potentially 67% faster than your chip in games where the fps are CPU limited.
As for heat, the 6400 has a thermal dispersion of 65W, versus 62W for the 3800+. That's basically a tie. If your CPU cooler is an aftermarket model like Zalman, instead of the stock AMD, you could use your cooler with a 6400 and have no heat problems.
So in conclusion, you saved some money, but your performance is about 60% of the Core 2 Duo 6400.
if you're on a pre-pay, those phones are only good for that plan.
Not true. If a phone has been unlocked for $10 or so, it can be used on any compatible network. Meaning I could eBay a Cingular phone and use it with T-Mobile-To-Go and pay by the month.
Furthermore, for $75 I could eBay a used Motorola V330 that had been used with a T-Mobile 2-year contract. Then I could use it with T-Mobile-To-Go. I'd get a good phone for a great price that is more capable than the Samsung SGH-209. T-Mobile sells that one new for $99.
I happened to be researching them last week before buying.
The Panther was even less powerful than the Jaguar. Focusing on the Jag was the right way to go.
The 32X never should have been released. In fact, that comparison works. There's a semi-reasonable argument that Sony should scrap the PS3 and ride the PS2 for a few years. Just like Sega should have scrapped the 32X and coasted on the Sega CD/Genesis combo for a year until the Saturn came out.
I'm pretty sure CR does not allow their name to be used in advertisements without their approval. So it would be more like "The leading consumer review magazine's number one pick for antivirus software."
Slashdot Mirror
1. If IP isn't respected, it won't be profittable for corporations to spend multi-millions discovering new drugs, or making big budget movies, or writing hugely complicated commercial software.
These are the assertions that are lacking evidence. Waving your hand and saying "because they will", is not evidence.
Specifically for blockbuster movies, I did mention Terminator 4. I'm not going to cite studies or surveys attempting to prove the National Endowment for the Arts wouldn't fund it if it were up to them, because there are no studies.
With respect to drug research and software development, I also gave my logic as to why.
2. Considering the pro-IP stance is the dominant, well known one in the USA, I expect you to know where I'm coming from already.
3. This is slashdot, not your debate class. Assertions backed by general logic with less-than-bulletproof evidence is the usual.
So my stance is that assertions backed by logic = evidence. The link to wikipedia cites proof by assertion as simply repeating arguments or slogans regardless of contradiction. That's not what I'm doing. You would prefer studies, but all I'm inclined to spend my time on is logic.
I don't know how you define excessive profits, but I think you're quite wrong about the film and software industry. While pharmaceutical companies make tons of profits, studios and software do not.
Orion pictures went under around 1990. Remember MGM? Sony had some big losses in the mid 90s as well. These days Paramount has cut back their number of yearly releases because they can't afford more like the bigger studios. I'd say overall studios do not make excessive profits, and it takes good management and creative teams for them to profit at all.
The software industry has thousands of dead businesses. They no longer exist for dozens of different reasons, but fierce competition is a big one of them. Only a handful of companies like MS, Oracle, Adobe, and Macromedia have ever been consistently very profitable. The rest have had periods of severe losses.
All men and women are mortal. They fear death and illness. Whatever the form of it, the support will always be given. Probably more people would give more money for research then corporations spend today, if these people knew there is none but themselves who can make research continue.
Not gonna happen. Because lets say Americans give pharma companies 100 billions dollars in profits this year. Except that happens by many people struggling to afford food, gas, and other qualities of life. There are seniors who spend most of their social security checks on drugs. If R&D was publicly funded, these people would put more of their money into food, utility bills, or presents for their children. Donations would not match what the pharma companies make today. After all, there are plenty of Americans who want legislation restricting what drugs cost, like in Canada and Europe. Americans already want to pay less, they're not about to donate even more if research was publicly funded.
People are greedy, and they'd forget how things were today. They'd get complacent about the situation. It takes a big push, like in California, to get funding for stem cell research going.
Because you are apparently incapable of seeing the dots that were connected to arrive at those conclusions? Those are the arguments.
I'll break it down for you in baby bites.
If IP isn't respected, it won't be profittable for corporations to spend multi-millions discovering new drugs, or making big budget movies, or writing hugely complicated commercial software.
Now there are obvious counter-arguments that governments and philanthropists could fund the drug research. The counter-counter argument is that's unlikely to happen with the same magnitude of university-corporate research.
The counter-argument to the software is using open-source. Except again, production is unlikely to match the output of businesses when profit is the motive instead of altruism.
For the movies, sure there is funding for the arts and filmmaking, but I don't see any government ever paying for the production of Terminator 4.
More like proof by elaboration. Au Matar's post is half-way worthless because he states his stance/philosophy without any reasons why s/he said that.
Bunions post has the same problem.
Cliffski's post actually has reasons and examples for preserving IP. NOT a worthless post.
Your logic is worthless. Good link though.
I have a CF card that I use with one of the handful of mp3 players that use them. A few weeks ago I visited my family and took the player and my camera which uses SD. I left the camera cable at home. My uncle and I wanted to try and view my photos on his TV. He has a Canon SLR that takes CF. So I attempted to use the multi-card reader on his printer to copy the pictures from the SD card to the CF. After formatting my CF in his camera, Win2k said the card was write-protected and could not copy my pictures to it. It also wouldn't let me format it. I used my mp3 player to format the card, but Windows still says it's write-protected. Anyone know how I can restore my card? It's only 256MB, but I'm peeved because it's my card, non Canon's. It could have been a 2GB and worth much more. I know this is offtopic. Mods, please maybe just leave this comment be at +1?
Does that mean if you watch a widescreen movie on that 90GX2, the black bars aren't a very noticeable dark gray? Sure CRTs have them too, but in my limited observations the bars were brighter on LCDs.
If people see a murder, rape, or attack about to happen, in a more ideal society they could intervene to stop those bad things from happening without consequences. Consequences like the people intervening getting hurt, retaliated against, or misinterpreting the situation.
This is a clear situation however. Asshat is using too much bandwidth, and an ordinary person should be able to stop it. If we could all stop speeders, knowing we wouldn't get hurt, and knowing the law-breaker had no good reason for breaking the law, then soon the only people speeding would be those with good reasons. Then the law could get changed because the 80% of the people who actually want to legally go 75mph would tell their legislators to do change the law.
Almost two years ago.
Then they changed their form so they no longer accept feature requests for iTunes, only iPods. As for my request, iTunes 6 doesn't remember where I was in a playlist after closing the program, does version 7?
It only took Apple three or four years to incrementally improve their Shuffle feature. I'm sure I just need to wait another year or two for my request to get implemented.
Maybe in another two or three years enough people will have asked Steve Jobs to get the Shuffle feature to play songs sooner that haven't played in a while. Now that version 7 (are the bugs fixed yet?) notes when a track was skipped, maybe version 8 will actually do this.
Right. I want a controllable Shuffled mode to mix up the order. I don't want true Random play. I think that's what a lot of people want. Perhaps even a majority.
I don't even necessarily want 1 of those 10 songs played every 100. Last year I made a multi-thousand-song playlist in iTunes. After shuffling it and listening mostly through, I was noticing when tracks by Wolfstone played. I went back and realized that about 80% of those tracks had played in the first half of the playlist. Because the last 20% were spaced so far apart in the second half, and playing so rarely, it was catching my ear.
So I ended up wishing the distribution had been more even. Not exactly 50-50 even, but 80-20 was too skewed. More like 65-35 would probably be enough. And of course the songs I hadn't listened-through in a long time should have been weighted to play sooner in the list than the more recently heard ones.
Never-the-less, letting power-users control the randomness would be a nice feature. Say I have ten songs from an artist. When I make a playlist of a thousand songs, and the aforementioned ten all get played within the first three-hundred, that's not desirable to me. That means in the last 700 songs I'm not going to hear that artist, and that could mean weeks or months of playtime.
Apple does include an option for the minimum number of songs before playing an artist again, but that doesn't necessarily fix the problem. The songs should be spread out. I'm okay with two of the same artist back-to-back as long as they're not all played too close together or worse, overplayed.
Just because randomly an artist may temporarily get played more often isn't a good way of doing things.
Additionally, iTunes and other programs don't give an option to weight the play-order based on how long it's been since a song played. If I just heard a song last week, the program should play another by that artist that I haven't heard in three months. Now I don't mean it should always play the oldest-played song first, otherwise they'd be stuck in a loop. But weight the order towards older-played.
Finally, iTunes doesn't make a note in its database if I've skipped a song before it finished or early on. How many times have users skipped a song because he or she wasn't in the mood for it, or heard it too recently? It would be better if iTunes tracked both last-played, and last-attempted-played. So when it makes a playlist, it puts songs I haven't heard for a while in early, and songs it recently attempted-to-play in later.
Just because what I'm asking for is 10+ times more computationally costly than what iTunes and iPods currently do doesn't mean it's hard. CPUs are more than powerful enough to do this in the background while playing songs.
How does Auto stitch's tech compare to commercial programs like Stitcher?
Then why has he implemented policies that help them?
That quote makes it sound like it supports different loops that can be sequenced together. Meaning a dancing animation could have loops of moves that play in a scripted order, instead of always the same routine repeating. That make for a smaller, and more dynamic file.
If the game renders at 60 fields per second in 1080i, it will render approximately 30 frames per second in 1080p. Is there a problem with this? Users lose the faster refresh in exchange for no combing. In a game fast enough for the combing to be noticeable, I'd want 1080p so I didn't have to see that.
Zalman flower coolers and fan are not loud at the slower speeds.
That minor crash would be corrected by the dev teams from the closing companies going off to start their own new studios to work on a Wii game. Any smart studio should see by now that the Wii will be a success and so it's a solid backup plan.
The results of the benchmarks are that the $230 E6400 is better than or equal to the $346 5000+.
The $190 E6300 is better than or equal to the $253 4600+.
If someone isn't going to pay $190 for the E6300 they quite obviously need to buy an Athlon 64 for best performance per dollar.
Technology changes too fast to expect five years of compatible chips.
AMD supported Socket A from 650MHz Athlons to the Athlon 3300+ That took about three or four years. Asking for five years is simply unrealistic. The AM2 socket boards will support AM3 cpus coming in 2007 and 2008. It's just that AM3 boards will support DDR3 RAM instead of the DDR2 used now. So the AM2 socket will be useful for at least three years, and probably four.
Core 2 Duo 6400s are now down to $229, from $340.
Your numbers don't add up. A 2.4GHz Athlon 64 is still going for $109 and was over $200 before Intel released the 6400.
How much did you pay for your 7600GT? The cheapest Newegg has them for is about $150. Maybe you're thinking of the 7600GS, which is $100.
So if you found a packaged deal of chip, ram, and mobo for $200, you still have another $150 for the video card. Yes you met the $340 price point, but not $229.
Presumably you bought a 7600GT because you're into gaming. You don't need it if you're not. So a 3800+ X2 gets you about 33% more FPS than the 3800+ you have. The benchmarks show the Core 2 Duo 6400 gets about 25-30% better fps than the 3800+ X2. So the 6400 is potentially 67% faster than your chip in games where the fps are CPU limited.
As for heat, the 6400 has a thermal dispersion of 65W, versus 62W for the 3800+. That's basically a tie. If your CPU cooler is an aftermarket model like Zalman, instead of the stock AMD, you could use your cooler with a 6400 and have no heat problems.
So in conclusion, you saved some money, but your performance is about 60% of the Core 2 Duo 6400.
It's close enough to silent for most intents and purposes.
The two more fans can be about 15 to 20db.
For Windows, use Nero DriveSpeed to limit the DVD drive from spinning faster than 4x and it'll be silent.
For the hard drive, get one that's particularly quiet, then use acoustic management software to silence the clicking noise.
if you're on a pre-pay, those phones are only good for that plan.
Not true. If a phone has been unlocked for $10 or so, it can be used on any compatible network. Meaning I could eBay a Cingular phone and use it with T-Mobile-To-Go and pay by the month.
Furthermore, for $75 I could eBay a used Motorola V330 that had been used with a T-Mobile 2-year contract. Then I could use it with T-Mobile-To-Go. I'd get a good phone for a great price that is more capable than the Samsung SGH-209. T-Mobile sells that one new for $99.
I happened to be researching them last week before buying.
The Panther was even less powerful than the Jaguar. Focusing on the Jag was the right way to go.
The 32X never should have been released. In fact, that comparison works. There's a semi-reasonable argument that Sony should scrap the PS3 and ride the PS2 for a few years. Just like Sega should have scrapped the 32X and coasted on the Sega CD/Genesis combo for a year until the Saturn came out.
My comment above was a joke. No need to bring up quotes Bill Gates didn't actually say.
If you mean 640kbps, then that's enough for most web-surfers. They'll get by, and pages will load fast enough.
I'm pretty sure CR does not allow their name to be used in advertisements without their approval. So it would be more like "The leading consumer review magazine's number one pick for antivirus software."