And the military should also design all their own integrated circuits and processors too? If not, how do they know their communication and encryption chips don't have backdoors built into them?
How about this: when the shit hits the fan, there will be three Red Chinese for every one of you. And they'll all have machine guns.
You better start being fucking nicer to China. When Jiang says jump, you make like a fucking frog, okay?
How about: No. Your "might makes right" reasoning is as stupid as it is appalling. To quote the oft quoted Patrick Henry, "Give me libery or give me death!"
Can I burn both DVD-R and DVD+R? How about DVD-RW and DVD+RW? Different standards, and both probably won't survive five years from now.
What about reader compatibility?
And settop box compatibility?
And kind of important as well, software support?
Nero will probably work on Win32, but can I use the thing under Linux as well? Do I need to apply twelve different patches to cdrecord and dance a little jig, write my own frontend, etc to get it to work?
How about if I get the urge and give FreeBSD or Solaris (x86)?
At least when CD-R/W became popular it was known there was only one target to aim for.
There are these questions and more if you know what I mean. I guess I have to look on google's newsgroup search to see what bizzaro problems people are having.
I'm aware of and won't argue that other nations, particularly European ones, have far more extensive social welfare programs than the United States. But that doesn't change that about 1 in 20 people here (last time I read a statistic on it) heavily rely on the government for food, shelter, medical care, etc. That's not a small amount of people, and the government is taking care of them all. That could be called "nannying" whether or not you think the US federal gov't does a good job of it.
The 80s creed as you put it is widely misunderstood. Although there are probably some people who are primarily motivated by compassion and wanting to help others, most are motivated by their own rational self-interest.
(For example of this motivation, imagine you work 40 hours a week for some business. Your boss walks up to you and says, "Look, cranos, times have been tough lately and the company is really hurting right now. So, I need you to come in ten hours a week extra for a total of 50. And, like I said times are tough, so the company can still only pay you for 40." Chances are you wouldn't volunteer your time, and even if you would for some reason, most people probably wouldn't. Such is human nature.
Ignoring for a moment the plenthora of victimless crimes that infest the law in the US, the law's purpose should be to prevent persons from infringing on the rights of others. The law is the same for every person. A person acting in the way best for himself with respect to the rights of others would be said to be acting in his own rational self-interest.)
It is the belief of Libertarians as I understand it, that the best possible outcome for the most people is by the government not interfering in every aspect of people's lives. There is no claim that would create a utopia, only that it will result in the greatest possible benefit for the most people. Utopia isn't generally held to be truly possible.
So, there are two causes of the current health care problems in this country. The first point of contention, would be that government health care systems don't work particularly well, and that they violate everyone through grossly excessive taxation. Which is usually about double what it is in the US in countries with gov't provided health care.
If people here didn't pay 33% or more of their incomes in taxes, a few things would happen. They would save more, which means more money available for those looking to borrow (and consistently lower interest rates making owning a house a realistic possibility for many more people). And, employers often shoulder a cost that's over two times the employee's earnings when taxes (and the associated administrative costs) are added in. Eliminating that would free up an even greater amount of money that used to be sucked in by gov't to be used ineffciently. (The government has no real motivation to use resources efficiently.)
Businesses, which now would have more money, could also afford to pay employees better, hire more employees, and offer benefits.
The second point, provides direct relief to those who can't currently afford health care, food, and shelter. People donate substantially more to nonprofit charitable organizations when they have more disposable income. The 1990s saw a huge increase with the booming economy. And it was before the government decided it was its duty to take care of everyone that organizations like the Red Cross, Good Will, Salvation Army, SPCA, and others got their starts.
The US also has the FDA to thank for its astronomically priced drugs, due to its long process to get a drug to market. There are drugs available in Europe that won't be in the US for years. And because of that long delay, drug companies who want to make a profit have to charge more to recover their R&D costs before the patent expires and the price drops with competing clone drugs.
And of course the constant litigation against doctors drives up their malpractice insurance premiums, and those costs get passed along as well. (This month, the state legislature in Pennsylvania passed a bill prohibiting "venue shopping in malpractice cases. Plantiffs would sue in Philadelphia because settlements with big town juries tend to be over 10x larger.)
With even just these last two issues addressed health care would be much more affordable for everyone in this country.
yes, and so do you. What do you think a court system is in your picture... a socialized justice system, and the police? you seem to support a socialized police force. You can try to use socialism as a bad word, a negative connotation, but that doesn't change that you are arguing what should be socialized, not IF anything should be socialized. Everyone seems to agree that some infrastructure should be socialized, inlcluding you. No?
But you're jumping to conclusions. A socialized police force is the epitome of what would not be found in the "free state." Enormous power is placed in the hands of a single person, and it is far too frequently abused. Moreover, police are usually just tools for those wielding political power to coerce innocent people. (The war on drugs, assaults on peaceful protesters at WTO meetings, and the list goes on and on.)
With the vast majority of offenses committed today no longer existing (no more victimless crimes like drug/weapon offenses, prostitution, speeding), police would be largely unneeded. As was done in the past, group of citizens can police themselves.
More permanent places for housing criminals can be privately run as many states are doing now successfully. The focus of justice should be in direct restitution to victims, not revenge.
Judges can be paid professionals (as can lawyers) who don't require gov't licensing. If they don't act honestly and impartially, they will develop a reputation for such and people will not pay for their services.
If you've encountered the legal system (civil or criminal), you know it isn't free now even when you are in the right. There are court costs for both plantiff and defendant. So this isn't much of a departure from the system we have now in that respect.
you mean "legally", and you are wrong. Private security forces can use force, and have in the past, for example, the use of Pinkertons against striking workers... oh, do you mean, "any more"? If so, perhaps you would admit this is because of the rights ensured by the governments, because it's certainly not the self restraint of corporations or their private ownership.
Sure private security companies can use force, and those exercising go to jail if it abused. Unless you're discussing a criminal organization like the mafia, no corporation I've ever heard of used force on someone to make him buy something. But with gov't there have been plenty of cases were a person or persons have strong objections to the uses of their tax dollars, and for refusing to give up their money were imprisoned and/or fined.
Perhaps you're unaware of it, but the government is the principal violator of worker's rights. President Cleveland crushed the Pullman Strike and had the union leaders arrested. That's not the only such occurence of gov't telling workers what to do or else. The government regularly passes down injumctions saying to go back to work or go to jail. I'm unaware of a corporation ever imprisoning someone for refusing to work.
Nothing about the proposed "free State" implies lawlessness. A person still will not be allowed to rob another (or murder, rape, etc). There would still be courts. The government will be held to these same standards in this state as well. If it is wrong for me to walk up to a person on the street, ask her is she has $100, and then demand or take it from her, then it is wrong for the government to do as well. Nothing changes if I take a vote of everyone in the state and they all agree that I should have her $100. The law should be uniform, and applied to everyone the same way.
These forms of "government" did not always exist. These are forms of government where people accrued enough wealth and power to demand the rest, and declare themselves a government. This is also how a corporation can limit the freedom of libertarians in the libertarean system which seeks to limit control... simply by acquiring a critical mass of control of the infrastructure. If I privately own the marketplace I can prohibit you from taking part. If this is a viable strategy (not prohibited) it is a strategy that will be undertaken, which history shows.
Except that the corporation cannot force anyone to use its infrastructure. Pissed off customers don't come back.
As for easily bought off politicians... how is a system where it's not even NECESSARY to buy them off automatically better?
The nature of the power wielded by politicians is (obviously) political/legal. It allows them to make arbitrary demands, and use force to make people obey them. The most obvious example would be taxes. When an ordinary person demands something arbitrarily and seizes without consent it, he's called a criminal. If the people reserve that authority to do that from the government, then it ceases to exist. If a company forces people to do something, then those running it will be prosecuted as the criminals they are.
There's quite simply nothing to buy off, as such vulgar authority would not be granted to anyone in the first place in the free state.
I'm against "being governed" but I am for "social infrastructure under democratic control".
The US is a nanny state, because of systems like welfare, social security, and other social programs that "take care of" everyone as a nanny cares for children who can't fend for themselves.
I'd love to hear you explain how the current legal enviroment regarding illicit drugs and alcohol is logically consistent.
Alcohol: - Has known, serious short term and long term health issues. - It is the cause of many deadly motor vehicle accidents. - Is widely abused, and is associated with violent domestic behavior. - It has no known benefits that aren't accessible through non-intoxicating means. (Aspirin helps the cardiac system, etc.)
Yet, alcohol is completely legal.
Cigarrettes don't even have the single redeeming quality of mildly promoting cardiac health. Yet, they are legal.
Now, why is it that a person can get piss drunk so long as they don't cause any trouble for anyone else, make alcohol, and sell/distribute alcohol, but it is completely illegal to do the same with marijuana? A drug that isn't known for causing violent behavior.
Now, I'll sit back and watch bemused as you reply with insults, character attacks, or otherwise dodge the issue.
You're full of crap and you obviously haven't read (or can't understand the information on the site linked to in the story) the article.
There was no talk whatsoever of seceding, buying land from the federal government, or any of that other crap you rattle on about.
And, contrary to your vile, liberal, fascist beliefs and purported belief in "democracy", there was no hostile takeover proposed. You see, in a "democracy" what the majority votes on is what goes. If that bothers you so much, you'd do better to hide your marxist/fascist roots in the future, wouldn't you?
Past failures have been of coalitions of people trying to do stuff, right?
A key difference here would be that the "Libertarian ideal" of Government as I understand it is when asked what the government should do it's "Don't just stand there, do nothing!"
Whether you realize it or not, only the government can use force and violence on innocent people.
Ford or GM have never jailed anyone for buying a Toyota. If you aren't happy with the quality of Ford's automobiles or are put off by their business practices you have complete freedom to not purchase one.
If you aren't happy with how your State or Federal taxes are spent, try not paying them. Your ass will be in jail or your money will be taken from you (or both).
If you really believe corporations are so powerful, I'd think a strong central government would be the last thing you would want. It's a nexus of control run by easily bought off politicians. (Both Republicans and Democrats are easily bought, go read www.OpenSecrets.org if you don't believe me.)
Perhaps you can clarify what powers a corporation has (it can't vote), and how coroporations would go about limiting the freedoms Libertarians hold in principle?
I also find myself perplexed as to how private ownership of most everything can be equated to feudalism. Feudalism is a system of government whereby the government owns all the land, means of production, and the citizens are somehow indebted to the governor (or "King", lord, count, noble, or whatever). That sounds much more like primitive Communism/Stalinism to me than a free market with genuine private ownership.
"The MHz Myth" is all fine and dandy, but at some point your superior architecture isn't going to prevail over raw clockspeed. And at this point looking at the numbers it's getting pretty silly to claim so.
A game with no serial number to prevent making copies and playing them online is also a game I purchased two copies of. One for myself when it came out, and a second for $20 as a X-mas present for a friend. If developers make products worth buying, then they will sell many copies. cd-keys, and more draconian digital signing and activation nonsense only inconveniences legitimate purchasers when they try to use their *uncracked* licensed copies.
Since I'm not some upstanding citizen like a ex-Congressman, or a Medal of Honor awardee, or a mother with child, or some other "commendable" member of society I don't want to wait 6 hours to get on a plane and be selected for a cavity search because my zipper is setting off the metal detector.
Oh wait, all those "commendable" people were harrassed too...maybe I don't want to fly because the "security measures" are worse now than before 9/11/01. But I do feel safer knowing that someone else is being bored reading my email too.
"Will they consider it enforceable if the licence says "use this code without my permission and you must give away all the source code to everything you bundled with it"? Also in doubt."
That's not what they are saying. All they are laying claim to is the DLL file which contains the stolen GPLed code.
If you take my code, compile it, and sell it, that doesn't make it yours.
Athlon performance?
on
GCC 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Have all the problems that arose in 3.0 regarding performance on AMD Athlon processors been resolved? memcpy() among other things were quite slow when compared to similar processors with GCC 3, and with GCC 2.95.
And the real question of course remains...
on
Atomic Scale Memory
·
· Score: 1
When and where can I buy some! How about some economies of scale too, so I can buy some and still get a car.
Seeing as this is still basically proof of concept, and I previously thought it was possible, I'm not all that impressed.
I'd suggest using a VIA Eden board. The 533Mhz one runs without a fan on the heatsink.
You can get very small cases for it on Caseoutlet.com and barebone systems there using it as well.
Using the case with an external (a la laptop) AC power adapter, you could have a system with no moving parts other than the drives. If you splurged and don't need lots of storage, you could even get a 512MB ATA Flash disk.
Put a filter on the fan on the back and that'll greatly reduce the likelihood of salt water getting in.
I plan on building myself something like this in the near future for a PC Set-top box. I hope that helps!
Read his "statement" linked to on the Politech link in the story.
"I am a big fan of P2P networks and the technology behind them," Berman continued. "I think these networks have terrific potential for all kinds of legitimate applications, including the legal distribution of copyrighted works. However, it should remain the creator's choice to distribute their works through a P2P network, not a pirate's. P2P piracy must be cleaned up, and cleaned up now."
Now, while leafing through the $186K in brib--err, contributions the entertainment industry he just needs to consider: Who in her right mind will use a P2P service to legally exchange public domain or free [as in speech] files when her own data can be destroyed, her computer rendered inoperable, and have no legal recourse against the bastards who did it to her?
I've had a PSX since about a year after it came out and got a PS2 the very day it came out, so I have also had a PS Underground subscription for close to that time for the regular demo discs it comes with. Recently, it started being bundled with the Playstation Magazine. They are doing a PS2 Broadband thing as that's due out soon, and listed configurations of how to hook up a PS2 to the Internet.
The one that may interest you is using a Linksys Wireless Ethernet Bridge here
magazines got their articles from indepedent authors and paid them accordingly. however, some unscrupulous editors would steal articles from other magazines and not compensate the authors. as such, these magazines could charge cheaper prices and would outsell those legitimate magazines that did pay their authors.
The unscrupulous editors are producers of other magazines, not consumers buying magazines. That's different than someone downloading an MP3 off Napster. That's like someone downloading the new Eminem album and then burning a stack of discs and distributing it for $10 a copy.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been John Smith living on Nosy Boulevard, Sometown, USA (12345) for almost 20 years now!
And the military should also design all their own integrated circuits and processors too? If not, how do they know their communication and encryption chips don't have backdoors built into them?
Hiding behind anonymity, how bold.
How about this: when the shit hits the fan, there will be three Red Chinese for every one of you. And they'll all have machine guns.
You better start being fucking nicer to China. When Jiang says jump, you make like a fucking frog, okay?
How about: No. Your "might makes right" reasoning is as stupid as it is appalling. To quote the oft quoted Patrick Henry, "Give me libery or give me death!"
In 4 * 2^54 years!!!
That's 72,057,594,037,927,936 years.
Give or take a few of course.
COMPATIBILITY!!!!
Can I burn both DVD-R and DVD+R? How about DVD-RW and DVD+RW? Different standards, and both probably won't survive five years from now.
What about reader compatibility?
And settop box compatibility?
And kind of important as well, software support?
Nero will probably work on Win32, but can I use the thing under Linux as well? Do I need to apply twelve different patches to cdrecord and dance a little jig, write my own frontend, etc to get it to work?
How about if I get the urge and give FreeBSD or Solaris (x86)?
At least when CD-R/W became popular it was known there was only one target to aim for.
There are these questions and more if you know what I mean. I guess I have to look on google's newsgroup search to see what bizzaro problems people are having.
I'm aware of and won't argue that other nations, particularly European ones, have far more extensive social welfare programs than the United States. But that doesn't change that about 1 in 20 people here (last time I read a statistic on it) heavily rely on the government for food, shelter, medical care, etc. That's not a small amount of people, and the government is taking care of them all. That could be called "nannying" whether or not you think the US federal gov't does a good job of it.
The 80s creed as you put it is widely misunderstood. Although there are probably some people who are primarily motivated by compassion and wanting to help others, most are motivated by their own rational self-interest.
(For example of this motivation, imagine you work 40 hours a week for some business. Your boss walks up to you and says, "Look, cranos, times have been tough lately and the company is really hurting right now. So, I need you to come in ten hours a week extra for a total of 50. And, like I said times are tough, so the company can still only pay you for 40." Chances are you wouldn't volunteer your time, and even if you would for some reason, most people probably wouldn't. Such is human nature.
Ignoring for a moment the plenthora of victimless crimes that infest the law in the US, the law's purpose should be to prevent persons from infringing on the rights of others. The law is the same for every person. A person acting in the way best for himself with respect to the rights of others would be said to be acting in his own rational self-interest.)
It is the belief of Libertarians as I understand it, that the best possible outcome for the most people is by the government not interfering in every aspect of people's lives. There is no claim that would create a utopia, only that it will result in the greatest possible benefit for the most people. Utopia isn't generally held to be truly possible.
So, there are two causes of the current health care problems in this country. The first point of contention, would be that government health care systems don't work particularly well, and that they violate everyone through grossly excessive taxation. Which is usually about double what it is in the US in countries with gov't provided health care.
If people here didn't pay 33% or more of their incomes in taxes, a few things would happen. They would save more, which means more money available for those looking to borrow (and consistently lower interest rates making owning a house a realistic possibility for many more people). And, employers often shoulder a cost that's over two times the employee's earnings when taxes (and the associated administrative costs) are added in. Eliminating that would free up an even greater amount of money that used to be sucked in by gov't to be used ineffciently. (The government has no real motivation to use resources efficiently.)
Businesses, which now would have more money, could also afford to pay employees better, hire more employees, and offer benefits.
The second point, provides direct relief to those who can't currently afford health care, food, and shelter. People donate substantially more to nonprofit charitable organizations when they have more disposable income. The 1990s saw a huge increase with the booming economy. And it was before the government decided it was its duty to take care of everyone that organizations like the Red Cross, Good Will, Salvation Army, SPCA, and others got their starts.
The US also has the FDA to thank for its astronomically priced drugs, due to its long process to get a drug to market. There are drugs available in Europe that won't be in the US for years. And because of that long delay, drug companies who want to make a profit have to charge more to recover their R&D costs before the patent expires and the price drops with competing clone drugs.
And of course the constant litigation against doctors drives up their malpractice insurance premiums, and those costs get passed along as well. (This month, the state legislature in Pennsylvania passed a bill prohibiting "venue shopping in malpractice cases. Plantiffs would sue in Philadelphia because settlements with big town juries tend to be over 10x larger.)
With even just these last two issues addressed health care would be much more affordable for everyone in this country.
yes, and so do you. What do you think a court system is in your picture... a socialized justice system, and the police? you seem to support a socialized police force. You can try to use socialism as a bad word, a negative connotation, but that doesn't change that you are arguing what should be socialized, not IF anything should be socialized. Everyone seems to agree that some infrastructure should be socialized, inlcluding you. No?
But you're jumping to conclusions. A socialized police force is the epitome of what would not be found in the "free state." Enormous power is placed in the hands of a single person, and it is far too frequently abused. Moreover, police are usually just tools for those wielding political power to coerce innocent people. (The war on drugs, assaults on peaceful protesters at WTO meetings, and the list goes on and on.)
With the vast majority of offenses committed today no longer existing (no more victimless crimes like drug/weapon offenses, prostitution, speeding), police would be largely unneeded. As was done in the past, group of citizens can police themselves.
More permanent places for housing criminals can be privately run as many states are doing now successfully. The focus of justice should be in direct restitution to victims, not revenge.
Judges can be paid professionals (as can lawyers) who don't require gov't licensing. If they don't act honestly and impartially, they will develop a reputation for such and people will not pay for their services.
If you've encountered the legal system (civil or criminal), you know it isn't free now even when you are in the right. There are court costs for both plantiff and defendant. So this isn't much of a departure from the system we have now in that respect.
you mean "legally", and you are wrong. Private security forces can use force, and have in the past, for example, the use of Pinkertons against striking workers... oh, do you mean, "any more"? If so, perhaps you would admit this is because of the rights ensured by the governments, because it's certainly not the self restraint of corporations or their private ownership.
Sure private security companies can use force, and those exercising go to jail if it abused. Unless you're discussing a criminal organization like the mafia, no corporation I've ever heard of used force on someone to make him buy something. But with gov't there have been plenty of cases were a person or persons have strong objections to the uses of their tax dollars, and for refusing to give up their money were imprisoned and/or fined.
Perhaps you're unaware of it, but the government is the principal violator of worker's rights. President Cleveland crushed the Pullman Strike and had the union leaders arrested. That's not the only such occurence of gov't telling workers what to do or else. The government regularly passes down injumctions saying to go back to work or go to jail. I'm unaware of a corporation ever imprisoning someone for refusing to work.
Nothing about the proposed "free State" implies lawlessness. A person still will not be allowed to rob another (or murder, rape, etc). There would still be courts. The government will be held to these same standards in this state as well. If it is wrong for me to walk up to a person on the street, ask her is she has $100, and then demand or take it from her, then it is wrong for the government to do as well. Nothing changes if I take a vote of everyone in the state and they all agree that I should have her $100. The law should be uniform, and applied to everyone the same way.
These forms of "government" did not always exist. These are forms of government where people accrued enough wealth and power to demand the rest, and declare themselves a government. This is also how a corporation can limit the freedom of libertarians in the libertarean system which seeks to limit control... simply by acquiring a critical mass of control of the infrastructure. If I privately own the marketplace I can prohibit you from taking part. If this is a viable strategy (not prohibited) it is a strategy that will be undertaken, which history shows.
Except that the corporation cannot force anyone to use its infrastructure. Pissed off customers don't come back.
As for easily bought off politicians... how is a system where it's not even NECESSARY to buy them off automatically better?
The nature of the power wielded by politicians is (obviously) political/legal. It allows them to make arbitrary demands, and use force to make people obey them. The most obvious example would be taxes. When an ordinary person demands something arbitrarily and seizes without consent it, he's called a criminal. If the people reserve that authority to do that from the government, then it ceases to exist. If a company forces people to do something, then those running it will be prosecuted as the criminals they are.
There's quite simply nothing to buy off, as such vulgar authority would not be granted to anyone in the first place in the free state.
I'm against "being governed" but I am for "social infrastructure under democratic control".
Oh, you mean socialism.
The US is a nanny state, because of systems like welfare, social security, and other social programs that "take care of" everyone as a nanny cares for children who can't fend for themselves.
I'd love to hear you explain how the current legal enviroment regarding illicit drugs and alcohol is logically consistent.
Alcohol:
- Has known, serious short term and long term health issues.
- It is the cause of many deadly motor vehicle accidents.
- Is widely abused, and is associated with violent domestic behavior.
- It has no known benefits that aren't accessible through non-intoxicating means. (Aspirin helps the cardiac system, etc.)
Yet, alcohol is completely legal.
Cigarrettes don't even have the single redeeming quality of mildly promoting cardiac health. Yet, they are legal.
Now, why is it that a person can get piss drunk so long as they don't cause any trouble for anyone else, make alcohol, and sell/distribute alcohol, but it is completely illegal to do the same with marijuana? A drug that isn't known for causing violent behavior.
Now, I'll sit back and watch bemused as you reply with insults, character attacks, or otherwise dodge the issue.
You're full of crap and you obviously haven't read (or can't understand the information on the site linked to in the story) the article.
There was no talk whatsoever of seceding, buying land from the federal government, or any of that other crap you rattle on about.
And, contrary to your vile, liberal, fascist beliefs and purported belief in "democracy", there was no hostile takeover proposed. You see, in a "democracy" what the majority votes on is what goes. If that bothers you so much, you'd do better to hide your marxist/fascist roots in the future, wouldn't you?
Past failures have been of coalitions of people trying to do stuff, right?
A key difference here would be that the "Libertarian ideal" of Government as I understand it is when asked what the government should do it's "Don't just stand there, do nothing!"
Whether you realize it or not, only the government can use force and violence on innocent people.
Ford or GM have never jailed anyone for buying a Toyota. If you aren't happy with the quality of Ford's automobiles or are put off by their business practices you have complete freedom to not purchase one.
If you aren't happy with how your State or Federal taxes are spent, try not paying them. Your ass will be in jail or your money will be taken from you (or both).
If you really believe corporations are so powerful, I'd think a strong central government would be the last thing you would want. It's a nexus of control run by easily bought off politicians. (Both Republicans and Democrats are easily bought, go read www.OpenSecrets.org if you don't believe me.)
Perhaps you can clarify what powers a corporation has (it can't vote), and how coroporations would go about limiting the freedoms Libertarians hold in principle?
I also find myself perplexed as to how private ownership of most everything can be equated to feudalism. Feudalism is a system of government whereby the government owns all the land, means of production, and the citizens are somehow indebted to the governor (or "King", lord, count, noble, or whatever). That sounds much more like primitive Communism/Stalinism to me than a free market with genuine private ownership.
"The MHz Myth" is all fine and dandy, but at some point your superior architecture isn't going to prevail over raw clockspeed. And at this point looking at the numbers it's getting pretty silly to claim so.
G4 : P4
Frontside bus 133 : 533
Clockspeed 1000 : 2800
Memory bandwidth 1.06 GB/s : 4.20 GB/s
Both have powerful SIMD instructions.
Remember if two Photoshop filters don't convince you of the G4s superiority you're obviously just a troll.
A game with no serial number to prevent making copies and playing them online is also a game I purchased two copies of. One for myself when it came out, and a second for $20 as a X-mas present for a friend. If developers make products worth buying, then they will sell many copies. cd-keys, and more draconian digital signing and activation nonsense only inconveniences legitimate purchasers when they try to use their *uncracked* licensed copies.
Since I'm not some upstanding citizen like a ex-Congressman, or a Medal of Honor awardee, or a mother with child, or some other "commendable" member of society I don't want to wait 6 hours to get on a plane and be selected for a cavity search because my zipper is setting off the metal detector.
Oh wait, all those "commendable" people were harrassed too...maybe I don't want to fly because the "security measures" are worse now than before 9/11/01. But I do feel safer knowing that someone else is being bored reading my email too.
"Will they consider it enforceable if the licence says "use this code without my permission and you must give away all the source code to everything you bundled with it"? Also in doubt."
That's not what they are saying. All they are laying claim to is the DLL file which contains the stolen GPLed code.
If you take my code, compile it, and sell it, that doesn't make it yours.
Have all the problems that arose in 3.0 regarding performance on AMD Athlon processors been resolved? memcpy() among other things were quite slow when compared to similar processors with GCC 3, and with GCC 2.95.
When and where can I buy some! How about some economies of scale too, so I can buy some and still get a car.
Seeing as this is still basically proof of concept, and I previously thought it was possible, I'm not all that impressed.
I'd suggest using a VIA Eden board. The 533Mhz one runs without a fan on the heatsink.
You can get very small cases for it on Caseoutlet.com and barebone systems there using it as well.
Using the case with an external (a la laptop) AC power adapter, you could have a system with no moving parts other than the drives. If you splurged and don't need lots of storage, you could even get a 512MB ATA Flash disk.
Put a filter on the fan on the back and that'll greatly reduce the likelihood of salt water getting in.
I plan on building myself something like this in the near future for a PC Set-top box. I hope that helps!
Who in her right mind will use a P2P service to legally exchange public domain or free [as in speech] files when her own data can be destroyed, her computer rendered inoperable, and have no legal recourse against the bastards who did it to her?
I've had a PSX since about a year after it came out and got a PS2 the very day it came out, so I have also had a PS Underground subscription for close to that time for the regular demo discs it comes with. Recently, it started being bundled with the Playstation Magazine. They are doing a PS2 Broadband thing as that's due out soon, and listed configurations of how to hook up a PS2 to the Internet.
The one that may interest you is using a Linksys Wireless Ethernet Bridge here
taking a pull from some ripple while reading slashdot
boy does that bring back memories!
Possible simple solution: have him describe the implementation and let someone else acutally write the code.
..Is Richard Stallman submitted this story to get it called GNU/Linux in the story's headline ;)
magazines got their articles from indepedent authors and paid them accordingly. however, some unscrupulous editors would steal articles from other magazines and not compensate the authors. as such, these magazines could charge cheaper prices and would outsell those legitimate magazines that did pay their authors.
The unscrupulous editors are producers of other magazines, not consumers buying magazines. That's different than someone downloading an MP3 off Napster. That's like someone downloading the new Eminem album and then burning a stack of discs and distributing it for $10 a copy.