Remember that Microsoft is the one that A) voted AGAINST legislation for DRM and B) has opted to make it a consumer choice as to whethor or not you want Windows to boot in "DRM" mode or not. If you're not in DRM mode, you simply can't play purchased digial music. Big deal - I'm not buying crippled music. However, you can still play all of your "insecure" MP3's and WMA's.
We can't compare it on the 3.0 engine because the manual transmission only comes with Quattro, and Multitronic only comes with the FrontTrak drive train. One other thing to note is that the multitronic adds a good 110 pounds to the cars curb weight. This all being said, this is just the first generation of multitronic. I have full confidence that Audi will blow the sox off of a manual by the second or third generation of this technology.
Look at the stats. In some situations the multitronic can outshift a professional on a 5 speed, but this is generally not the case. It also get's slightly less mileage on certain engines.
I have WMP 9.0 Beta and I opted to not even install the DRM portion let alone enable it. And, if you've read any of the EFF interviews with MS, MS has clearly stated that they want to give the consumer the option to use DRM, not force it down their throats.
Nice conspiracy theory though - at least it gets you karma on/.
Ahhh Yes, the S4... nice car but I can't afford the Insurnace/Gas/Upkeep. Of course, the RS4 or the RS6 Avant is my ultimate dream. A nice family stationwagon to a cop, yet it'll run with Porche's and Ferrari's.
You have to admit that the Tiptronic is incredible for an automatic. Sure, 6 on the floor is always better, but for an automatic transmission it beats out many in it's class.
Audi's can easily handle the torque, and that's mainly because they aren't belt driven. Currently they are only available on the A4's (in the US), which boasts 221 lb/ft of torque in the 3.0litre V6 model. A belt driven CVT would definitely snap with this amount of power.
Electro-Hydraulic transmissions are computer controlled. F1's are essentially automatic. If you watch F1 you'll notice that only one or two drivers use the paddles to shift. However, drivers can also change the characteristics of the shifting system using controls in the cockpit. This is what I ment by "hinting" the transmission.
F1's are optimized for the track and even then the driver sometimes "hints" the transmission. There are also a couple of drivers who still prefer to use a manual. For consumer cars, a 5 or 6 speed is the way to go.
The only thing in consumer cars that can come close to a manual is Audi's Multitronic. Although similar in some ways to belt driven variable shifters found in many hdro-electric cars, Audi's transmission is far more advanced and is designed for performance in mind. Although it gets virtually the same gas mileage and performance as a 5 speed, it's still a tad bid slower and it adds a bit more weight to the car. Audi's other incredible transmission, the Tiptronic, is also very good, but a good driver in a 5 speed will smoke it even in "sports mode".
Oh, so you really meant to ban IIS, which is, after all, the software that contributed to most of these worms. Ironically, www.resnet.ucsb.edu is running IIS 5.0 on that very same evil Windows 2000 OS.
It's not as ironic as you may think. Most of the works that you speak of exploit default configurations (samples directory public, IDC's, etc.). I properlly configured IIS box, with a few exceptions, is reasonably secure.
I don't have room for an external mouse on a bus or plane. I need a fully functional pointing device BUILT IN to a laptop. I have no problem buying a Mac desktop then buying a nice 3 button w/scroll wheel mouse afterwords. But with a laptop, it must be built in. It's a bigger issue then Mac fanatics would like it to be. Apple needs to drop their ego and upgrade their one click pointing devices at least on the Ti's. Maybe it makes sense to keep things simpler on the iBook, but simpler!=efficient and the Ti's being a workstation need to be efficient.
I would guess than on alot of tasks the PIII 1.4 Ghz compares favorably to a P4 2.6 Ghz or so.
P4's are crappy chips, but the problem is the earlier P4's were much worse per clock so it took a 1.4Ghz P4 to match a 1Ghz P3. After the Northwoods this was less of an issue. You'd probably need a 1.8-2ghz to compete with the P31.4. Optimise for SSE2 and you'd need even less.
Still, the comparison to the G4 was silly to use overpriced P3's. Compare them with similarly priced AthlonXP's and you'll rediculously blow them out of the water.
The XBox uses x86. It uses an Intel (maybe an AMD for their next rev). It uses PCI (like PowerPC and x86), it uses AGP (like PowerPC and x86), it uses IDE (like PowerPC and x86) etc. Is my XBox compatible with PC's? Nope.*
* For the dense nerds - I'm talking out of the box. Consumers don't soldier chips to thier systems to install Linux.
Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is
on
Microsoft Buys Rare
·
· Score: 2
What, as opposed to Sony paying MILLIONS to ensure that GTA3 would be exclusive to the PS2 (in the console market) until 2004?
Halo with the XBox controller (not the S, I strongly dislike the S) is actually incredible once you get used to it. Sure, you can't whip around like in quake, but the controls with the analog sticks is very good. The problem is, once you're used to the KB/Mouse combo, it's very hard to get used to the XBox controller. Personally, it took me many hours of playing before I was comfortable with it. Now that I am, though, I have loads of fun playing 8-12 player Halo at "Lan parties". Sure, it's nice to have one screen dedicated for FPS, but it's much easier to have 3 XBoxes for 12 people, and not worry about network settings, video settings, computer crashes.
Open standards (HTTP, Web Services, etc.) make a ton of sense. OSS, in certain cases (see: Apple) can make sense. Hiring 40,000 programmers, UI designers, Human Factors specialists, etc. at an average salary of $60K to produce code that get's published for free to the world does not make business sense.
I'm in this community and I share my code with others (in newsgroups and published articles) all the time. No one is anti open source, not even Microsoft. Ballmer is just an idiot who doesn't always properly define open source. Microsoft is anti-GPL, and they also want to protect the intellectual property that they've spent billions on. However, when it came to.NET, they released the source code via the Shared Source license (not true OSS, I know). Because of the nature of.NET they felt it made business sense. And that's what it comes down to. Complete and utter OSS generally doesn't make business sense. Look at Apple. They don't open up OSX - they'd go out of business. But they did embrace the concept to an extent with Darwin. It's all about balance and not about extremes.
I just have to say again, that I'm very dissapointed in your post, the moderation of it, and the lack of intellectual honesty. You may hate MS, and all things MS, even us developers. But to make the blind assumption that the community is a bunch of closed source bigots is just as bad as myself making the assumption that Linux is hard to use without ever even trying it. We have a strong community that shares ideas and code all the time - we just don't base our businesses on that philosophy.
The MX series of the GF4's do not support the full line of graphical features of even the GF3's let alone the GF4's - the "GF4MX" series is a very misleading name.
This is not, true, however, with the GF2 MX series of cards. These are a great value (esp. the 64meg ones) for light or even casual gamers.
Personally, if you want the best possible graphics on the latest game engines all for a reasonable price, I think that you should seriously consider the GF4 Ti4400. The ATI's seem to be getting better driver support as well so their higher end (8500's or 9000's) may warrent a good look as well.
Yes, but you are not selling it as a for-profit business. You are selling it as an individual - a consumer. This isn't about protecting consumer rights - you have the rights outlined in fair use clauses. This is about the right for a business to modify an art and profit off of it.
Moderators - mod my post as redundant - seriously, I've had to post this like 3 times;-).
How can anyone here seriously take the position that the consumer is wrong here?
Repeat after me. This isn't about protecting consumer rights. A consumer CAN and SHOULD be able to modify and copy any art that they purchase for their own use. If a consumer wants to fast forward past a sex scene, they can. If they want to rip the DVD to their hard drive and filter out the vulgar language, they can. If they want to buy a product that makes this easy for them, they can. What we're arguing about is the rights of a business to profit off of the mutilated works of someone else. As an artist, I can appreciate why this is such a big issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember that Microsoft is the one that A) voted AGAINST legislation for DRM and B) has opted to make it a consumer choice as to whethor or not you want Windows to boot in "DRM" mode or not. If you're not in DRM mode, you simply can't play purchased digial music. Big deal - I'm not buying crippled music. However, you can still play all of your "insecure" MP3's and WMA's.
but hey, like so many other things, YMMV
:-).
In the most literal sense, yes
From Audi's 2002 A4 Brochure:
A4 1.8T FrontTrak:
Performance (0-60):
-5 speed: 7.8sec
-Multitronic: 7.8sec
Economy (city/highway):
-5 speed: 22/31
-Multitronic: 20/29
We can't compare it on the 3.0 engine because the manual transmission only comes with Quattro, and Multitronic only comes with the FrontTrak drive train. One other thing to note is that the multitronic adds a good 110 pounds to the cars curb weight. This all being said, this is just the first generation of multitronic. I have full confidence that Audi will blow the sox off of a manual by the second or third generation of this technology.
Look at the stats. In some situations the multitronic can outshift a professional on a 5 speed, but this is generally not the case. It also get's slightly less mileage on certain engines.
I have WMP 9.0 Beta and I opted to not even install the DRM portion let alone enable it. And, if you've read any of the EFF interviews with MS, MS has clearly stated that they want to give the consumer the option to use DRM, not force it down their throats.
/.
Nice conspiracy theory though - at least it gets you karma on
Ahhh Yes, the S4... nice car but I can't afford the Insurnace/Gas/Upkeep. Of course, the RS4 or the RS6 Avant is my ultimate dream. A nice family stationwagon to a cop, yet it'll run with Porche's and Ferrari's.
You have to admit that the Tiptronic is incredible for an automatic. Sure, 6 on the floor is always better, but for an automatic transmission it beats out many in it's class.
Audi's can easily handle the torque, and that's mainly because they aren't belt driven. Currently they are only available on the A4's (in the US), which boasts 221 lb/ft of torque in the 3.0litre V6 model. A belt driven CVT would definitely snap with this amount of power.
Electro-Hydraulic transmissions are computer controlled. F1's are essentially automatic. If you watch F1 you'll notice that only one or two drivers use the paddles to shift. However, drivers can also change the characteristics of the shifting system using controls in the cockpit. This is what I ment by "hinting" the transmission.
F1's are optimized for the track and even then the driver sometimes "hints" the transmission. There are also a couple of drivers who still prefer to use a manual. For consumer cars, a 5 or 6 speed is the way to go.
The only thing in consumer cars that can come close to a manual is Audi's Multitronic. Although similar in some ways to belt driven variable shifters found in many hdro-electric cars, Audi's transmission is far more advanced and is designed for performance in mind. Although it gets virtually the same gas mileage and performance as a 5 speed, it's still a tad bid slower and it adds a bit more weight to the car. Audi's other incredible transmission, the Tiptronic, is also very good, but a good driver in a 5 speed will smoke it even in "sports mode".
Oh, so you really meant to ban IIS, which is, after all, the software that contributed to most of these worms. Ironically, www.resnet.ucsb.edu is running IIS 5.0 on that very same evil Windows 2000 OS.
It's not as ironic as you may think. Most of the works that you speak of exploit default configurations (samples directory public, IDC's, etc.). I properlly configured IIS box, with a few exceptions, is reasonably secure.
I don't have room for an external mouse on a bus or plane. I need a fully functional pointing device BUILT IN to a laptop. I have no problem buying a Mac desktop then buying a nice 3 button w/scroll wheel mouse afterwords. But with a laptop, it must be built in. It's a bigger issue then Mac fanatics would like it to be. Apple needs to drop their ego and upgrade their one click pointing devices at least on the Ti's. Maybe it makes sense to keep things simpler on the iBook, but simpler!=efficient and the Ti's being a workstation need to be efficient.
*blush*. Sorry 'bout that :-)
I would guess than on alot of tasks the PIII 1.4 Ghz compares favorably to a P4 2.6 Ghz or so.
P4's are crappy chips, but the problem is the earlier P4's were much worse per clock so it took a 1.4Ghz P4 to match a 1Ghz P3. After the Northwoods this was less of an issue. You'd probably need a 1.8-2ghz to compete with the P31.4. Optimise for SSE2 and you'd need even less.
Still, the comparison to the G4 was silly to use overpriced P3's. Compare them with similarly priced AthlonXP's and you'll rediculously blow them out of the water.
The XBox uses x86. It uses an Intel (maybe an AMD for their next rev). It uses PCI (like PowerPC and x86), it uses AGP (like PowerPC and x86), it uses IDE (like PowerPC and x86) etc. Is my XBox compatible with PC's? Nope.*
* For the dense nerds - I'm talking out of the box. Consumers don't soldier chips to thier systems to install Linux.
What, as opposed to Sony paying MILLIONS to ensure that GTA3 would be exclusive to the PS2 (in the console market) until 2004?
I was and am serious. Thanks for the personal insult though - it adds much credibility to your comments.
Halo with the XBox controller (not the S, I strongly dislike the S) is actually incredible once you get used to it. Sure, you can't whip around like in quake, but the controls with the analog sticks is very good. The problem is, once you're used to the KB/Mouse combo, it's very hard to get used to the XBox controller. Personally, it took me many hours of playing before I was comfortable with it. Now that I am, though, I have loads of fun playing 8-12 player Halo at "Lan parties". Sure, it's nice to have one screen dedicated for FPS, but it's much easier to have 3 XBoxes for 12 people, and not worry about network settings, video settings, computer crashes.
However, the X-box is nothing more then a compact computer.
Thank you for explaining to us the definition of a console - a narrow purpose computer.
Open standards (HTTP, Web Services, etc.) make a ton of sense. OSS, in certain cases (see: Apple) can make sense. Hiring 40,000 programmers, UI designers, Human Factors specialists, etc. at an average salary of $60K to produce code that get's published for free to the world does not make business sense.
I'm in this community and I share my code with others (in newsgroups and published articles) all the time. No one is anti open source, not even Microsoft. Ballmer is just an idiot who doesn't always properly define open source. Microsoft is anti-GPL, and they also want to protect the intellectual property that they've spent billions on. However, when it came to .NET, they released the source code via the Shared Source license (not true OSS, I know). Because of the nature of .NET they felt it made business sense. And that's what it comes down to. Complete and utter OSS generally doesn't make business sense. Look at Apple. They don't open up OSX - they'd go out of business. But they did embrace the concept to an extent with Darwin. It's all about balance and not about extremes.
I just have to say again, that I'm very dissapointed in your post, the moderation of it, and the lack of intellectual honesty. You may hate MS, and all things MS, even us developers. But to make the blind assumption that the community is a bunch of closed source bigots is just as bad as myself making the assumption that Linux is hard to use without ever even trying it. We have a strong community that shares ideas and code all the time - we just don't base our businesses on that philosophy.
s/PS2/XBox/ and you have a point. The PS2's graphics are more compareable to a highend Geforce or maybe a GF2MX.
Second the MX comment:
The MX series of the GF4's do not support the full line of graphical features of even the GF3's let alone the GF4's - the "GF4MX" series is a very misleading name.
This is not, true, however, with the GF2 MX series of cards. These are a great value (esp. the 64meg ones) for light or even casual gamers.
Personally, if you want the best possible graphics on the latest game engines all for a reasonable price, I think that you should seriously consider the GF4 Ti4400. The ATI's seem to be getting better driver support as well so their higher end (8500's or 9000's) may warrent a good look as well.
Hogwash. Business and Consumer rights have always been defined differently. This is not anti-business nor is it irrational.
Yes, but you are not selling it as a for-profit business. You are selling it as an individual - a consumer. This isn't about protecting consumer rights - you have the rights outlined in fair use clauses. This is about the right for a business to modify an art and profit off of it.
TV stations recieve special permission and/or special "TV edits" of the movies that they air.
Moderators - mod my post as redundant - seriously, I've had to post this like 3 times ;-).
How can anyone here seriously take the position that the consumer is wrong here?
Repeat after me. This isn't about protecting consumer rights. A consumer CAN and SHOULD be able to modify and copy any art that they purchase for their own use. If a consumer wants to fast forward past a sex scene, they can. If they want to rip the DVD to their hard drive and filter out the vulgar language, they can. If they want to buy a product that makes this easy for them, they can. What we're arguing about is the rights of a business to profit off of the mutilated works of someone else. As an artist, I can appreciate why this is such a big issue.