I was under the impression that ipw2200 drivers still required a binary-only module to operate. Has this been changed, or do 2.6.14 kernel users just need to download that module now (rather than the whole driver package) in order to have a functional wireless card?
The combination of my DVD-rom + sata controller caused me to lose the/dev entry for my cdrom when moving from 2.6.(around 8) to the 2.6.++(around 8) using th same kernel configuration. In fact, no kernel configuration would give it back except using ide-cdrom. That didn't give me DMA support, so DVD playback was nearly impossible. This was before the new kernel numbering scheme, so this sort of thing really shouldn't have happened.
It wasn't a user configuration issue. To get DMA support back, you have to change a define in a header file for the SATA driver. That isn't something your average user should have to do, and it's definitely not something your average user is going to be able to figure out for him/herself. It's also not within my definition of "stable".
Definitely, although to be honest, I prefer to think of Flagg as his character in The Stand than the character that is revealed in the later books of the Dark Tower series.
That's what I did. It's almost necessary on the last boss you have to seal (the seal is ridiculous and must be executed very quickly). Even having the stylus ready, I wasn't fast enough to switch to it and complete the seal.
Well that's why it's up to the court to decide based upon the evidence, isn't it? Perhaps if the person created the tool couldn't show a single instance where s/he used it to exercise fair use, he should be found guilty (remember through all this that copyright infringement is illegal except in certain cases, almost all of which fall under fair use).
Don't know how I missed that, but it would seem that if "Nothing in this section shall affect... fair use", and the only way to exercise fair use is to create a tool which removes the copy protection, then that part of the clause must be illegal and would be found as such in court.
I do not believe that the creation of such tools is illegal. Only the distribution thereof. Fair Use is not affected because you can create the tools yourself.
In your reading of the DMCA (you did read it, right? You didn't just blindly repeat the rhetoric?) you missed this tidbit in the section on Circumvention of Copy Protection Systems:
`(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
I never said there was quality-sacrificing giong on--that was someone who replied to me. And my point stands--popular games might run better on this card if ATI decides to make a memory profile for them, but it tells us nothing about the general case.
Maybe. Or maybe they tweaked their drivers for Doom3 and Quake4? Haven't read the article, so don't flame me if this is mentioned, but it wasn't all that long ago that it came out that ATI had been doing this for other popular games/benchmarks. It was easy to do (tweaking for specific cases instead of improving performance in the general case) and it made them look like the best on paper--win/win for ATI.
For starters, perhaps you missed the sentence directly following the "illegal" sentence--that is, it kills people. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sentences that you quoted were intended to be taken together and formed the basis for the rest of the post. You took one out of context and focused on it. Bad debater! That's a very bad debater!
Now on to your rephrase....
First of all, sodomy doesn't kill people. That point itself invalidates your entire rewrite because the statement which is the basis for my argument is false in yours. A more appropriate analogy would be "sodomy with HIV" kills people. And that's fairly close in scope, as it is illegal and generally considered immoral to intentionally infect someone with HIV without their knowledge. And just as with the drunk driving example, the mere act of sodomy while infected with HIV is not a gauranteed death (although sodomy does have a fairly high infection rate--drunk driving probably has a much lower fatality rate). To further dismantle your rewrite, the entire last paragraph is near gibberish in most western societies (where drinking and driving itself is illegal). Fucking does not require a license. No tests of any sort are commonly performed before fucking, and it's fairly difficult and uncommon to have your ability to fuck taken away from you.
You would have done better to try to find another illegal activity which can kill, but might not be considered immoral. It's just really going to be hard to find an analogy to driving while under the influence because there are so many factors to consider--the fact that you are out of control, the fact that you are much more likey to cause death if you drive drunk, and the fact that everything leading up to putting the keys in the ignition is 100% legal (in most cases). I'd be really interested if someone could come up with an analogy that fits the above that has a good, solid argument to have the law overturned.
I haven't read the specs, so don't berate me too much if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the DVD side of a multi-format disc could only have one layer. Is that not accurate? If so, it significantly reduces the feasibility of these discs,
Xbox360s will be shipping with a regular DVD drive. Microsoft said that future revisions may have HD-DVD. This brings up two points:
1) Few if any games will ever be made to utilize HD-DVD because it effectively requires buying a new console. This significantly reduces the market for the game, as not many people will buy the new console.
2) Given 1, the only useful purpose for an HD-DVD XBox360 is to watch HD-DVDs. If HD-DVD as a format doesn't take off, Microsoft simply won't include HD-DVD drives in later revisions. They will, of course, have the option to include Blu-Ray, and could do so I suppose.
Blu-Ray definitely sounds better, but don't understimate the fact that HD and DVD are both in the current lexicon. Most of the public knows about DVD by now, and HD is growing by leaps and bounds. Combining the terms to form "HD-DVD" gives your average consumer an immediate understanding of what the product is, whereas they'll have to research (even if it's just asking the salesdroid) to figure out what Blu-Ray is. Your average consumer is not going to care about resolution, DRM, or any of the other technical details about the product. They're just going to want to make sure it works on their new HD television. That ought to give HD-DVD quite the leg-up.
So you want people to take personal responsibility and then not be charged with drinking and driving if they are found to have done so? You, sir, seem to be unwilling to take personal responsibility for your own actions.
You admit part of the problem yourself--delayed reaction times. That accident may not have occurred if the driver of one of the vehicles hadn't been drinking. Someone else may have been more at fault, but the drunk driver certainly has some culpability, and by the time the officer gets there, when all or most of the potential witnesses are 40 miles down the road, he has one guy who's intoxicated and one guy who sure as hell isn't going to admit that he was partially to blame. I guess we should only hire cops who can read minds--OH WAIT, THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE.
Get over yourself. Drinking and driving is illegal. It kills people. It's also very, very easily tested for. Other bad driving actions are not so easily tested for, and thus it is much harder to get convictions. The fact that there are a dozen other poor driving habits that can contribute to deaths on the road does not absolve or mitigate the dangers of drunken driving. Perhaps one day we'll have black boxes in all our cars that can tattle on us if we are using our cellphones while driving and we cause an accident--until that day comes, unfortunately some people who are in the wrong will get off. But for the here and now, we can tell if you've been drinking.
Oh, and don't try your little trick down here in Texas. Here, driving with a license (considered a privilidge, just like most states) requires that you take a breathalyzer on demand or you lose your license, period. It's simply the agreement you make when you get a license. You effectively waive your right to an attorney beforehand.
But if I'm not mistaken, shortly after the release of the code, a number of exploits cropped up. Whether this is coicidence or not is unknowable, however when dealing with nuclear weapons, national security, etc. you really need to be careful. One exploit could be devestating, and while you might have many people reviewing the code to make fixes, you'll also have many people looking to exploit the code. The only difference is, the people looking to exploit have one less step (search for exploit, find exploit, write code to exploit, exploit) than the collective group working to fix the bug (search for exploit, find exploit, write and submit code to patch, maintainer review of patch, patch). That extra time required to ensure that the new patch not only fixes the problem, but also doesn't open up a new or worse hole is all the time an enemy needs to exploit the system.
Wow, someone managed to beat the system and get off scot-free on a technicality when they should have had their license removed and been locked up. Congratulations, and thanks for spreading this loophole, thus allowing others to drink and drive with impunity.
The problem text presented on Slashdot (King/Chalice) doesn't state that the prisoners can work out a system ahead of time, making it truly an impossible problem.
I can't argue the 3am point, if you just HAVE to watch it then. But Amazon has Desparate Housewives for $38.99, 4 dollars more than iTunes. You get better quality, if you want to keep it, and if you don't want to keep it you can almost certainly sell it for more than that $4 extra you spent. You could probably get somewhere in the neighborhood of $15-20, depending on where/how you sell it. At a local shop, they're buying Lost DVDs for about $15. On Ebay, they go for anywhere between $10 and $30. Desperate Housewives is going for similar amounts. And we haven't even touched on just/renting/ the DVDs yet (which could end up costing more than buying, watching, reselling).
I guess it all comes down to how much your time is worth and whether or not you can plan ahead in order to save a little bit of money.
That kinda blows my mind. A 4 minute song costs $1. A 4 minute music video costs $2. A 22 minute tv show (That's so Raven) costs.. how much exactly? A 44 minute tv show (Lost, Housewives) costs $2.
There's something disctinctly troubling about that pricing scheme.
I discovered that after posting. But if you're watching a series as it airs, you're going to be paying $2/ep, coming out to $48.
A season-pass for the reduced rate would be great, except that you can't know ahead of time how long a show will last--plenty of them get cancelled mid-season. So while Lost probably won't be cancelled mid-season as it's got a fairly large following, the model I propose doesn't extend well into the general case, where just about every show on TV could be purchased on iTunes.
Of course, we (Americans, most notably) live in a "gotta have it now" culture. I guess that helps justify the increased price.
Renting the DVD is generally going to be a lower-quality experience, so it makes sense that it should be cheaper.
Buying an episode from iTunes is more expensive AND lower-quality. Sure, you get to keep it, but most people who want an archival copy will want higher quality than 320x240. Particularly if they EVER want to watch it on an HDTV.
I guess it depends upon your signal and how much quality you really want for watching the show again before it comes to DVD.
If you have a bad signal, you're right. You can't keep your setup (the middle step, specifically--good quality temporary archive) under my scenario. I don't see the need, either. If broadcast quality is ok for you, why not just record it? Use a VCR+small library of tapes, and cycle those as you get a more permanent archival solution. Sure, no one likes changing tapes a lot, but do you really watch the same episode of a show multiple times before it comes out on DVD? I personally don't have the time to.
And your last sentence really drives it home. I might consider the iTunes/downloadable TV solution if the shows were higher quality. But they're not. And I don't want to pay $34 for a low-quality season on iTunes and then $40 later for the high-quality version on DVD. And if I'm archiving it, I definitely want the best quality I can find.
Monthly for basic cable around here is $30. To watch an entire season of a television show, you're going to need about 8 months. That's $240 (here) for roughly 10 prime-time shows (assuming 2 shows per night, 5 nights a week--not unreasonable).
A la carte on iTunes, those 10 shows would $2 per episode, roughly 22 episodes. 10x2x22 is $440 for the convenience of watching it any time (doable with a PVR on normal TV) and commercial free (doable with a PVR if you expend a little effort).
Of course, the sweet spot is about 5 shows at $220. You're now paying less than that 8 months of cable. You're getting it commercial free, and you're getting it more-or-less on-demand. Of course, a few months after the end of the season, you could get the DVDs of the show (probably) at a slightly lower cost with a considerable boost in quality.
If you only want to watch a couple of shows and have no variety, can't get an OTA signal, and have no desire to own DVDs of the show, this is probably a good idea. But that's a lot of ifs you have to chain through before you're basically just wasting money.
That makes me curious: does ABC get any money from DVD sales? I would assume so, but I'm not sure.
Anyway, I wouldn't think ABC gets any money from your cable bill, either. I'm almost certain that they get their money for a show from advertising.
Also, in most place, there is the off-the-air solution, in which you pay for an antenna and get broadcast shows (Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, and maybe a couple of others) for free. I certainly don't mind supporting content I like, but the networks already have a model in place where you don't directly pay them, and so far they seem fine with this.
Slashdot Mirror
I was under the impression that ipw2200 drivers still required a binary-only module to operate. Has this been changed, or do 2.6.14 kernel users just need to download that module now (rather than the whole driver package) in order to have a functional wireless card?
The combination of my DVD-rom + sata controller caused me to lose the /dev entry for my cdrom when moving from 2.6.(around 8) to the 2.6.++(around 8) using th same kernel configuration. In fact, no kernel configuration would give it back except using ide-cdrom. That didn't give me DMA support, so DVD playback was nearly impossible. This was before the new kernel numbering scheme, so this sort of thing really shouldn't have happened.
It wasn't a user configuration issue. To get DMA support back, you have to change a define in a header file for the SATA driver. That isn't something your average user should have to do, and it's definitely not something your average user is going to be able to figure out for him/herself. It's also not within my definition of "stable".
Definitely, although to be honest, I prefer to think of Flagg as his character in The Stand than the character that is revealed in the later books of the Dark Tower series.
That's what I did. It's almost necessary on the last boss you have to seal (the seal is ridiculous and must be executed very quickly). Even having the stylus ready, I wasn't fast enough to switch to it and complete the seal.
Well that's why it's up to the court to decide based upon the evidence, isn't it? Perhaps if the person created the tool couldn't show a single instance where s/he used it to exercise fair use, he should be found guilty (remember through all this that copyright infringement is illegal except in certain cases, almost all of which fall under fair use).
Don't know how I missed that, but it would seem that if "Nothing in this section shall affect ... fair use", and the only way to exercise fair use is to create a tool which removes the copy protection, then that part of the clause must be illegal and would be found as such in court.
I do not believe that the creation of such tools is illegal. Only the distribution thereof. Fair Use is not affected because you can create the tools yourself.
In your reading of the DMCA (you did read it, right? You didn't just blindly repeat the rhetoric?) you missed this tidbit in the section on Circumvention of Copy Protection Systems:
m p/~c105TQi7RV:e11962:
`(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:1:./te
I never said there was quality-sacrificing giong on--that was someone who replied to me. And my point stands--popular games might run better on this card if ATI decides to make a memory profile for them, but it tells us nothing about the general case.
Maybe.
Or maybe they tweaked their drivers for Doom3 and Quake4? Haven't read the article, so don't flame me if this is mentioned, but it wasn't all that long ago that it came out that ATI had been doing this for other popular games/benchmarks. It was easy to do (tweaking for specific cases instead of improving performance in the general case) and it made them look like the best on paper--win/win for ATI.
For starters, perhaps you missed the sentence directly following the "illegal" sentence--that is, it kills people. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sentences that you quoted were intended to be taken together and formed the basis for the rest of the post. You took one out of context and focused on it. Bad debater! That's a very bad debater!
Now on to your rephrase....
First of all, sodomy doesn't kill people. That point itself invalidates your entire rewrite because the statement which is the basis for my argument is false in yours. A more appropriate analogy would be "sodomy with HIV" kills people. And that's fairly close in scope, as it is illegal and generally considered immoral to intentionally infect someone with HIV without their knowledge. And just as with the drunk driving example, the mere act of sodomy while infected with HIV is not a gauranteed death (although sodomy does have a fairly high infection rate--drunk driving probably has a much lower fatality rate).
To further dismantle your rewrite, the entire last paragraph is near gibberish in most western societies (where drinking and driving itself is illegal). Fucking does not require a license. No tests of any sort are commonly performed before fucking, and it's fairly difficult and uncommon to have your ability to fuck taken away from you.
You would have done better to try to find another illegal activity which can kill, but might not be considered immoral. It's just really going to be hard to find an analogy to driving while under the influence because there are so many factors to consider--the fact that you are out of control, the fact that you are much more likey to cause death if you drive drunk, and the fact that everything leading up to putting the keys in the ignition is 100% legal (in most cases). I'd be really interested if someone could come up with an analogy that fits the above that has a good, solid argument to have the law overturned.
I haven't read the specs, so don't berate me too much if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the DVD side of a multi-format disc could only have one layer. Is that not accurate? If so, it significantly reduces the feasibility of these discs,
Xbox360s will be shipping with a regular DVD drive. Microsoft said that future revisions may have HD-DVD. This brings up two points:
1) Few if any games will ever be made to utilize HD-DVD because it effectively requires buying a new console. This significantly reduces the market for the game, as not many people will buy the new console.
2) Given 1, the only useful purpose for an HD-DVD XBox360 is to watch HD-DVDs. If HD-DVD as a format doesn't take off, Microsoft simply won't include HD-DVD drives in later revisions. They will, of course, have the option to include Blu-Ray, and could do so I suppose.
Blu-Ray definitely sounds better, but don't understimate the fact that HD and DVD are both in the current lexicon. Most of the public knows about DVD by now, and HD is growing by leaps and bounds. Combining the terms to form "HD-DVD" gives your average consumer an immediate understanding of what the product is, whereas they'll have to research (even if it's just asking the salesdroid) to figure out what Blu-Ray is. Your average consumer is not going to care about resolution, DRM, or any of the other technical details about the product. They're just going to want to make sure it works on their new HD television. That ought to give HD-DVD quite the leg-up.
So you want people to take personal responsibility and then not be charged with drinking and driving if they are found to have done so? You, sir, seem to be unwilling to take personal responsibility for your own actions.
You admit part of the problem yourself--delayed reaction times. That accident may not have occurred if the driver of one of the vehicles hadn't been drinking. Someone else may have been more at fault, but the drunk driver certainly has some culpability, and by the time the officer gets there, when all or most of the potential witnesses are 40 miles down the road, he has one guy who's intoxicated and one guy who sure as hell isn't going to admit that he was partially to blame. I guess we should only hire cops who can read minds--OH WAIT, THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE.
Get over yourself. Drinking and driving is illegal. It kills people. It's also very, very easily tested for. Other bad driving actions are not so easily tested for, and thus it is much harder to get convictions. The fact that there are a dozen other poor driving habits that can contribute to deaths on the road does not absolve or mitigate the dangers of drunken driving. Perhaps one day we'll have black boxes in all our cars that can tattle on us if we are using our cellphones while driving and we cause an accident--until that day comes, unfortunately some people who are in the wrong will get off. But for the here and now, we can tell if you've been drinking.
Oh, and don't try your little trick down here in Texas. Here, driving with a license (considered a privilidge, just like most states) requires that you take a breathalyzer on demand or you lose your license, period. It's simply the agreement you make when you get a license. You effectively waive your right to an attorney beforehand.
But if I'm not mistaken, shortly after the release of the code, a number of exploits cropped up. Whether this is coicidence or not is unknowable, however when dealing with nuclear weapons, national security, etc. you really need to be careful. One exploit could be devestating, and while you might have many people reviewing the code to make fixes, you'll also have many people looking to exploit the code. The only difference is, the people looking to exploit have one less step (search for exploit, find exploit, write code to exploit, exploit) than the collective group working to fix the bug (search for exploit, find exploit, write and submit code to patch, maintainer review of patch, patch). That extra time required to ensure that the new patch not only fixes the problem, but also doesn't open up a new or worse hole is all the time an enemy needs to exploit the system.
Wow, someone managed to beat the system and get off scot-free on a technicality when they should have had their license removed and been locked up. Congratulations, and thanks for spreading this loophole, thus allowing others to drink and drive with impunity.
The problem text presented on Slashdot (King/Chalice) doesn't state that the prisoners can work out a system ahead of time, making it truly an impossible problem.
I can't argue the 3am point, if you just HAVE to watch it then. But Amazon has Desparate Housewives for $38.99, 4 dollars more than iTunes. You get better quality, if you want to keep it, and if you don't want to keep it you can almost certainly sell it for more than that $4 extra you spent. You could probably get somewhere in the neighborhood of $15-20, depending on where/how you sell it. At a local shop, they're buying Lost DVDs for about $15. On Ebay, they go for anywhere between $10 and $30. Desperate Housewives is going for similar amounts. And we haven't even touched on just /renting/ the DVDs yet (which could end up costing more than buying, watching, reselling).
I guess it all comes down to how much your time is worth and whether or not you can plan ahead in order to save a little bit of money.
That kinda blows my mind. A 4 minute song costs $1. A 4 minute music video costs $2. A 22 minute tv show (That's so Raven) costs .. how much exactly? A 44 minute tv show (Lost, Housewives) costs $2.
There's something disctinctly troubling about that pricing scheme.
I discovered that after posting. But if you're watching a series as it airs, you're going to be paying $2/ep, coming out to $48.
A season-pass for the reduced rate would be great, except that you can't know ahead of time how long a show will last--plenty of them get cancelled mid-season. So while Lost probably won't be cancelled mid-season as it's got a fairly large following, the model I propose doesn't extend well into the general case, where just about every show on TV could be purchased on iTunes.
Of course, we (Americans, most notably) live in a "gotta have it now" culture. I guess that helps justify the increased price.
Renting the DVD is generally going to be a lower-quality experience, so it makes sense that it should be cheaper.
Buying an episode from iTunes is more expensive AND lower-quality. Sure, you get to keep it, but most people who want an archival copy will want higher quality than 320x240. Particularly if they EVER want to watch it on an HDTV.
I guess it depends upon your signal and how much quality you really want for watching the show again before it comes to DVD.
If you have a bad signal, you're right. You can't keep your setup (the middle step, specifically--good quality temporary archive) under my scenario. I don't see the need, either. If broadcast quality is ok for you, why not just record it? Use a VCR+small library of tapes, and cycle those as you get a more permanent archival solution. Sure, no one likes changing tapes a lot, but do you really watch the same episode of a show multiple times before it comes out on DVD? I personally don't have the time to.
And your last sentence really drives it home. I might consider the iTunes/downloadable TV solution if the shows were higher quality. But they're not. And I don't want to pay $34 for a low-quality season on iTunes and then $40 later for the high-quality version on DVD. And if I'm archiving it, I definitely want the best quality I can find.
Monthly for basic cable around here is $30. To watch an entire season of a television show, you're going to need about 8 months. That's $240 (here) for roughly 10 prime-time shows (assuming 2 shows per night, 5 nights a week--not unreasonable).
A la carte on iTunes, those 10 shows would $2 per episode, roughly 22 episodes. 10x2x22 is $440 for the convenience of watching it any time (doable with a PVR on normal TV) and commercial free (doable with a PVR if you expend a little effort).
Of course, the sweet spot is about 5 shows at $220. You're now paying less than that 8 months of cable. You're getting it commercial free, and you're getting it more-or-less on-demand. Of course, a few months after the end of the season, you could get the DVDs of the show (probably) at a slightly lower cost with a considerable boost in quality.
If you only want to watch a couple of shows and have no variety, can't get an OTA signal, and have no desire to own DVDs of the show, this is probably a good idea. But that's a lot of ifs you have to chain through before you're basically just wasting money.
That makes me curious: does ABC get any money from DVD sales? I would assume so, but I'm not sure.
Anyway, I wouldn't think ABC gets any money from your cable bill, either. I'm almost certain that they get their money for a show from advertising.
Also, in most place, there is the off-the-air solution, in which you pay for an antenna and get broadcast shows (Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, and maybe a couple of others) for free. I certainly don't mind supporting content I like, but the networks already have a model in place where you don't directly pay them, and so far they seem fine with this.