That's really new to me. I used to have only Windows XP and since then I never looked at Windows again. Back then nobody had Windows XP 64bit. But maybe you need with Windows7 now more then 4G RAM for normal applications. My laptop never used more then 2.5G RAM and I'm a heavy user (VirtualBox, Eclipse, etc.). I would guess then most users should never use more then 2G RAM, even if you do some photo editing.
Who cares if it's a 32-bit or a 48 or a 17 bit architecture? 64bit architecture is 20 years old on the desktop but right now nobody is using it anyway. If I get a Notebook with an ARM, which can run OpenOffice, Email, Firefox and maybe Flash, for half the price and have a battery life of 8 hours and more I really don't care what architecture it have.
Developer pressure? I think it's more because the Android phone market share will soon go through the roof and more developer will just abandon the iPhone because of the stupid approval program, the restrictions and the costs to develop for it. If Apple is not allowing cross-platform development it will soon find itself in a niche.
My point is still valid. If I type "W" maybe I want weather, maybe I want "Wikipedia". Than I type "Wik", maybe I want "Wikipedia", maybe I want something completely different. Why should I be bothered with the stuff I don't care about?
Software should not be intelligent, it should do what I say. Maybe the software gets it 99% right, but the 1% that it gets wrong is so annoying that you are going to use a different software.
The auto completion in the search field is a good thing, because it's not too annoying if it's gets it wrong. But the reload of the whole site with stuff I don't care about can be really annoying.
I can already make backup copies of Playstation 3 game DVDs, so the backup is a backup, meaning I can use the copy instead of the original? All that without breaking any DRM? That are news to me.
First, what's the point to search on "L" "Li" "Lin" "Linu" "Linux" "Linux " "Linux U" "Linux US" "Linux USB"? Second, the whole page is moving and now I can't concentrate on a good search string. What do people with slow internet connections do? What do people with connections paid by traffic do, now they have to pay 10-100 times the traffic for no purpose or advantage.
Now I have to deactivate JS on google, thank you very much.
it's only 50.1% (now 51.2%) out of 736 MEPs. It's a freaking shame that it's not 100%. It will gone down like the SWIFT treaty, first it will not pass but then it will be slightly changed and passed anyway.
Of course I can do an illegal action to exercise a right. It's to the court to determent if my right outperforms the law I break.
For example there is a law against slander but there is a right for freedom of speech. Now if party A thinks it's slander it can sue party B with thinks it exercise the right of freedom of speech. It's to the court with party is right.
Another example is my right to protect me from harm and a law against murder. In the USA it's the right to bear arms and the law that restrict and control this right. The whole law book is full of rights and their limitations.
Here is the question if my right of a private backup copy is more important then the right of Sony to protect some "intellectual property". I think my right is more important because I don't do Sony any harm and I only wish to protect my property.
Because Sony put DRM protection on their software and the law forbids me to circumvent DRM it's in direct conflict with my right to make a private backup copy. It's like you have a right of free speech but there is a filter software installed with you are forbidden to circumvent.
There is a difference of a right in the law book and what you think you are entitled to. I'm entitled to 100,000$ but there is nowhere written in the law book that I have a right to 100,000$. But there is a law written that I have a right to private backup copies. Like there is a right of free speech there is a right for a private backup copy.
But if I exercise my rights Sony and others will go after me because I have to circumvent DRM. Because they lobby the government to make an amendment to the law that basically forbids the exercise of a given right. If that's not enough, they are lobby the government that we have to pay for a right that we are forbidden to exercise with the fee on every printer, CD and DVD we purchase.
You are still entitled by UK law to make a backup copy of any piece of software you buy legally.
The same law exist in Germany and I think in many other countries. Hell, I even pay in Germany a fee on all printers, CDs, DVDs and soon flash drivers for this right. Where are the civil rights groups and when they are going to sue Sony and many more companies to restrict my right to make a private backup copy and to use it?
On a television you can play your computer. Just plug the TV to the computer, I think all TVs have VGA, DVI, HDMI inputs. Then buy a controller and play all the games you like.
Yes, communism was a failed experiment back in Russia and the DDR. Communism is doing very well in China right now, but only because the party is allowing some form of free market.
But what have patents and copyrights to do with a free market? Patents and copyrights are a state based monopoly on a normally unlimited resource with the intention to promote science and art. Every liberals and supporter of free markets should be in favor of abandoning copyrights and patents.
But anyway, I believe more the Pirate Party then any of the slashdotters.
No it's not unrealistic. Copyrights have nothing to do with protecting of the work of the author. The fast majority of authors and musicians will never see a dime out of copyright. The only party that have a profit out of copyright are the big publisher that take over the rights of the creator and get a state monopoly on his work. Which is not surprising, because copyright was invented by the big publisher back in the 1710 with the Statute of Anne. From Wikipedia
As the world's first copyright statute it granted publishers of a book legal protection of 14 years with the commencement of the statute.
The act is not granting legal protection for the author of a book but for the publisher because only the publisher had the big expensive printing presses back in the 18 century. Before that the only publisher in Britain was the Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers. It holed the sole right to publish books and was empowered to seize "offending books" that violated the standards of content set by the Church and State.
300 years later we don't use printing presses anymore, now the author can be the publisher and we finally can get rid of copyrights. For more information please visit http://questioncopyright.org/
Today it is already the public sector (henceforth called "the government") that pays for the bulk of all drugs that are used in Europe, thanks to various systems for universal medical coverage. (See for example page 37 in this report from EFPIA, The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations.) It is the government that pays for the pharmaceutical research today, by paying high prices to the pharmaceutical companies for patented drugs
According to a report from the Swedish Food and Drugs Administration (pdf in Swedish), the price for drugs dropped on average 70% when they became free of patents (page 13 in the pdf).
The price for a substance will then drop to 30% if we get rid of the patents. Add 20% to fund future research according to the proposal presented here, and we have reduced the government's bill for drugs to 50% of what it is today. We would cut the cost in half, while still giving more money to pharmaceutical research.
By patenting the separate condenser Boulton and Watt, from 1769 to 1800, had almost absolute control on the development of the steam engine. They were able to use the power of their patent and the legal system to frustrate the efforts of engineers such as Jonathan Hornblower to further improve the fuel efficiency of the steam engine. By way of contrast, and fortunately, Trevithick did not patent his equally innovative high-pressure design.
Just go to the pharmacy industry, the bio-genetic industry (like Monsato), the software industry and tell me how the patents are promoting anything there.
As for copyright, how is a copyright for 100 years (or something) is going to promote art in a industry where the artists are signing every right they have on their work away to the big publishers? Art is not born in the vacuum, art is always build upon art, if you take away the public domain (like we have it now, works from 1920 are still under copyright and nobody can use them) you take away the pool of ideas the artists of today can draw. Like if Einstein's equation E=MC2 would be under 100 years copyright and 20 years patent protection. Last, if copyright is so important for art and ideas, how is the fashion industry exists that don't have any copyright at all?
If I steal your bicycle, I've taken something that isn't mine without permission, and it's disadvantaged you in some way. If I copy your song, I've taken something that isn't mine without permission, and it's disadvantaged the general public in some way. If I copy your money, I've taken something that isn't mine without permission, and it's disadvantaged the general public in some way...
Interesting you mention that. So by your logic, if I copy a work and release it the artist is hurt like the "general public" in your example. That would be true if not for the world we live in. The worst thing an artist (or author) is suffering is the unknown. He needs the big publisher to make him visible in the market, they promote him. For this promotion they sign every right away that they have on their work.
With the internet this promotion can every artist take in his/her hand. Just release your work for free to everyone and in a few weeks you have the same promotion effect like with the big publisher (actually the promotion effect is at magnitude more). What you have to loose? Either you sign every right that you have on your work to the big publisher or you release your work for free.
That is a no brainer. Let me repeat that: Either you sign every right you have on your work for about 100 years to the big publisher or you release it for free to everyone.
20 years ego you had no choice, only the big publisher had the record studios and the commercial power to promote you. Now everyone have broadband and a computer. Every kid in his basement have the same publishing power as the big publisher. Just give the kids your work and watch as your name is going to be known around the world.
Was copyright invented by writers and artists, to protect themselves?
No. Actually, it was invented by publishers, to preserve an information ownership monopoly based on a government censorship policy.
Do musicians, writers, and artists depend on copyright to earn a living?
The vast majority of musicians, writers, and artists will never see a dime of copyright royalties in their lives.
Is copying a copyrighted work the same as stealing it? If I steal your bicycle, now you have no bicycle. If I copy your song, now we both have it.
Would creativity dry up without copyright?
If there had been no worthwhile or enduring artistic work produced before copyright, this would be a more plausible argument. But the world before modern copyright was hardly a barren cultural desert: Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare, J.S. Bach, Li Bo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo...
You have one big fat apple "sticker" on the back. With that everybody knows your are a Apple whore. It's like a t-shirt with coca cola commercial that you have to wear everywhere.
You patent system is so broken. I patent now "Drinking beer". 1. step up from the char. 2. go to the kitchen. 3. open the refrigerator. 4. get the beer. 5. open the beer. 6. poor beer in glass. 7. drink the beer out of the glass. 8. go to toilet. I forgot to mention it is "on the computer".
How can you patent simple steps to solve a problem, which is called an algorithm?
fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt (Atta), and one from Lebanon.
Why didn't the USA invade Saudi Arabia, the UAE and/or Egypt? The war in Iraq and in Afghanistan are all illegal, because neither countries declared war on the USA. The act of terrorism is an act of civil individuals not an act of a government. You just invaded and bombed two countries because of 19 individuals, neither of them were citizens in Iraq or Afghanistan. You still bombing and killing Iraqi and Afghan civilians, woman and children. All of the people from 9/11 are death or in jail, why you still killing Iraqi and Afghan people?
Maybe Al Qaeda was in Iraq or Afghanistan. But you have no right at all invade a foreign country just because there is some extremist group. It's the matter of the government of Iraq or Afghanistan and if they are supporting an extremist group it's their choice. It's not 1900 anymore were you just declare war and invade countries.
If the government don't disclose anything and if the press is just too lame to investigate, who should do the job then? A democracy can only work if the people have the knowledge. If either the government or the press would do it's job right there would be no need for Wikileaks. Of course they endanger the people in Afghanistan, but actually the whole war is highly illegal. America just invaded two countries after a bombing attack of one terrorist group. It's like after some terror of the Irish National Liberation Army the UK just invade Ireland. Now every Islamic country is going to have nuclear just to be save from the US. Thanks to the US and the stupid "war on terror" the whole Islamic world will hate the US and the western countries.
Slashdot Mirror
That's really new to me. I used to have only Windows XP and since then I never looked at Windows again. Back then nobody had Windows XP 64bit. But maybe you need with Windows7 now more then 4G RAM for normal applications. My laptop never used more then 2.5G RAM and I'm a heavy user (VirtualBox, Eclipse, etc.). I would guess then most users should never use more then 2G RAM, even if you do some photo editing.
Anyway, it would be a great start if I can finally buy any ARM notebooks. So far I couldn't see any of them.
Who cares if it's a 32-bit or a 48 or a 17 bit architecture? 64bit architecture is 20 years old on the desktop but right now nobody is using it anyway. If I get a Notebook with an ARM, which can run OpenOffice, Email, Firefox and maybe Flash, for half the price and have a battery life of 8 hours and more I really don't care what architecture it have.
Developer pressure? I think it's more because the Android phone market share will soon go through the roof and more developer will just abandon the iPhone because of the stupid approval program, the restrictions and the costs to develop for it. If Apple is not allowing cross-platform development it will soon find itself in a niche.
My point is still valid. If I type "W" maybe I want weather, maybe I want "Wikipedia". Than I type "Wik", maybe I want "Wikipedia", maybe I want something completely different. Why should I be bothered with the stuff I don't care about?
Software should not be intelligent, it should do what I say. Maybe the software gets it 99% right, but the 1% that it gets wrong is so annoying that you are going to use a different software.
The auto completion in the search field is a good thing, because it's not too annoying if it's gets it wrong. But the reload of the whole site with stuff I don't care about can be really annoying.
I can already make backup copies of Playstation 3 game DVDs, so the backup is a backup, meaning I can use the copy instead of the original? All that without breaking any DRM? That are news to me.
Deactivate JavaScript for google?
Now I have to deactivate JS on google, thank you very much.
it's only 50.1% (now 51.2%) out of 736 MEPs. It's a freaking shame that it's not 100%. It will gone down like the SWIFT treaty, first it will not pass but then it will be slightly changed and passed anyway.
For example there is a law against slander but there is a right for freedom of speech. Now if party A thinks it's slander it can sue party B with thinks it exercise the right of freedom of speech. It's to the court with party is right.
Another example is my right to protect me from harm and a law against murder. In the USA it's the right to bear arms and the law that restrict and control this right. The whole law book is full of rights and their limitations.
Here is the question if my right of a private backup copy is more important then the right of Sony to protect some "intellectual property". I think my right is more important because I don't do Sony any harm and I only wish to protect my property.
Because Sony put DRM protection on their software and the law forbids me to circumvent DRM it's in direct conflict with my right to make a private backup copy. It's like you have a right of free speech but there is a filter software installed with you are forbidden to circumvent.
But if I exercise my rights Sony and others will go after me because I have to circumvent DRM. Because they lobby the government to make an amendment to the law that basically forbids the exercise of a given right. If that's not enough, they are lobby the government that we have to pay for a right that we are forbidden to exercise with the fee on every printer, CD and DVD we purchase.
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/copyright-law-personal-backup-of-video-games
You are still entitled by UK law to make a backup copy of any piece of software you buy legally.
The same law exist in Germany and I think in many other countries. Hell, I even pay in Germany a fee on all printers, CDs, DVDs and soon flash drivers for this right. Where are the civil rights groups and when they are going to sue Sony and many more companies to restrict my right to make a private backup copy and to use it?
On a television you can play your computer. Just plug the TV to the computer, I think all TVs have VGA, DVI, HDMI inputs. Then buy a controller and play all the games you like.
Yes, communism was a failed experiment back in Russia and the DDR. Communism is doing very well in China right now, but only because the party is allowing some form of free market.
But what have patents and copyrights to do with a free market? Patents and copyrights are a state based monopoly on a normally unlimited resource with the intention to promote science and art. Every liberals and supporter of free markets should be in favor of abandoning copyrights and patents.
But anyway, I believe more the Pirate Party then any of the slashdotters.
As the world's first copyright statute it granted publishers of a book legal protection of 14 years with the commencement of the statute.
The act is not granting legal protection for the author of a book but for the publisher because only the publisher had the big expensive printing presses back in the 18 century. Before that the only publisher in Britain was the Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers. It holed the sole right to publish books and was empowered to seize "offending books" that violated the standards of content set by the Church and State.
300 years later we don't use printing presses anymore, now the author can be the publisher and we finally can get rid of copyrights. For more information please visit http://questioncopyright.org/
Today it is already the public sector (henceforth called "the government") that pays for the bulk of all drugs that are used in Europe, thanks to various systems for universal medical coverage. (See for example page 37 in this report from EFPIA, The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations.) It is the government that pays for the pharmaceutical research today, by paying high prices to the pharmaceutical companies for patented drugs
According to a report from the Swedish Food and Drugs Administration (pdf in Swedish), the price for drugs dropped on average 70% when they became free of patents (page 13 in the pdf).
The price for a substance will then drop to 30% if we get rid of the patents. Add 20% to fund future research according to the proposal presented here, and we have reduced the government's bill for drugs to 50% of what it is today. We would cut the cost in half, while still giving more money to pharmaceutical research.
Support your Pirate Party.
The steam engine is the worst example for patents.
Do Patents Encourage or Hinder Innovation? The Case of the Steam Engine
By patenting the separate condenser Boulton and Watt, from 1769 to 1800, had almost absolute control on the development of the steam engine. They were able to use the power of their patent and the legal system to frustrate the efforts of engineers such as Jonathan Hornblower to further improve the fuel efficiency of the steam engine. By way of contrast, and fortunately, Trevithick did not patent his equally innovative high-pressure design.
Just go to the pharmacy industry, the bio-genetic industry (like Monsato), the software industry and tell me how the patents are promoting anything there.
As for copyright, how is a copyright for 100 years (or something) is going to promote art in a industry where the artists are signing every right they have on their work away to the big publishers? Art is not born in the vacuum, art is always build upon art, if you take away the public domain (like we have it now, works from 1920 are still under copyright and nobody can use them) you take away the pool of ideas the artists of today can draw. Like if Einstein's equation E=MC2 would be under 100 years copyright and 20 years patent protection. Last, if copyright is so important for art and ideas, how is the fashion industry exists that don't have any copyright at all?
Avatar was a 3D promotion movie. It's the only part of the movie that Cameron did good.
If I steal your bicycle, I've taken something that isn't mine without permission, and it's disadvantaged you in some way. If I copy your song, I've taken something that isn't mine without permission, and it's disadvantaged the general public in some way. If I copy your money, I've taken something that isn't mine without permission, and it's disadvantaged the general public in some way...
Interesting you mention that. So by your logic, if I copy a work and release it the artist is hurt like the "general public" in your example. That would be true if not for the world we live in. The worst thing an artist (or author) is suffering is the unknown. He needs the big publisher to make him visible in the market, they promote him. For this promotion they sign every right away that they have on their work.
With the internet this promotion can every artist take in his/her hand. Just release your work for free to everyone and in a few weeks you have the same promotion effect like with the big publisher (actually the promotion effect is at magnitude more). What you have to loose? Either you sign every right that you have on your work to the big publisher or you release your work for free.
That is a no brainer. Let me repeat that: Either you sign every right you have on your work for about 100 years to the big publisher or you release it for free to everyone.
20 years ego you had no choice, only the big publisher had the record studios and the commercial power to promote you. Now everyone have broadband and a computer. Every kid in his basement have the same publishing power as the big publisher. Just give the kids your work and watch as your name is going to be known around the world.
Was copyright invented by writers and artists, to protect themselves?
No. Actually, it was invented by publishers, to preserve an information ownership monopoly based on a government censorship policy.
Do musicians, writers, and artists depend on copyright to earn a living?
The vast majority of musicians, writers, and artists will never see a dime of copyright royalties in their lives.
Is copying a copyrighted work the same as stealing it?
If I steal your bicycle, now you have no bicycle. If I copy your song, now we both have it.
Would creativity dry up without copyright?
If there had been no worthwhile or enduring artistic work produced before copyright, this would be a more plausible argument. But the world before modern copyright was hardly a barren cultural desert: Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare, J.S. Bach, Li Bo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo...
Inform yourself on http://questioncopyright.org/faq, as a bonus you can download a free movie Sita Sings the Blues
You have one big fat apple "sticker" on the back. With that everybody knows your are a Apple whore. It's like a t-shirt with coca cola commercial that you have to wear everywhere.
They going to present the best video games on Windows?
You patent system is so broken. I patent now "Drinking beer". 1. step up from the char. 2. go to the kitchen. 3. open the refrigerator. 4. get the beer. 5. open the beer. 6. poor beer in glass. 7. drink the beer out of the glass. 8. go to toilet. I forgot to mention it is "on the computer".
How can you patent simple steps to solve a problem, which is called an algorithm?
fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt (Atta), and one from Lebanon.
Why didn't the USA invade Saudi Arabia, the UAE and/or Egypt? The war in Iraq and in Afghanistan are all illegal, because neither countries declared war on the USA. The act of terrorism is an act of civil individuals not an act of a government. You just invaded and bombed two countries because of 19 individuals, neither of them were citizens in Iraq or Afghanistan. You still bombing and killing Iraqi and Afghan civilians, woman and children. All of the people from 9/11 are death or in jail, why you still killing Iraqi and Afghan people?
Maybe Al Qaeda was in Iraq or Afghanistan. But you have no right at all invade a foreign country just because there is some extremist group. It's the matter of the government of Iraq or Afghanistan and if they are supporting an extremist group it's their choice. It's not 1900 anymore were you just declare war and invade countries.
Here are some statistics but only for 2002 to 2004 http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=796