Clawhammer and Willamette (using PC800) have similar amounts of memory bandwidth 2.7GB/s vs 3.2GB/s. The Clawhammer, with its ondie memory controller, will probably have half the latency of the P4+Rambus. Hammer is also supposed to have higher IPC, putting it way over the top.
Because of the number of games using the Q3A engine, I don't think it is a bad benchmark of gaming performance.
The rest of the year should be interesting: If AMD hits 1.6 and that scales to the speed of a 3.2GHz Willamette, then it should be very close performancewise with Intel claiming to be ramping Northwood up to 3Ghz for year end.
A good computer is one that is useful for what applications it is needed to do. There is lots of software out there still in use that requires x86 or porting to a new architecture.
If x86 is doing everything that most everyone using it wants, what incentive is there to change it on another ISA's technical merits. Starting with the Pentium Pro, x86 CPUs have had respectable performance compared to other architectures and continue to.
When you talk to System Builders, you'll find out that Windows is THE most expensive component that goes into an average computer. As a percentage, it has risen dramatically over recent years as margins on systems have dropped. Things like CPUs, Memory, Motherboards, HDDs, etc have dropped in price:performance greatly as well.
Windows on the otherhand, has increased in price. Now Microsoft is going a step further than increasing prices, and making the cost of using/owning a Windows-based PC perpetual with its subscription services its planning.
So what if someone is going to install her OEM Win98SE to a new Celeron from Walmart!
"And don't forget Kerckhoff's assumption: If the strength of your new cryptosystem relies on the fact that the attacker does not know the algorithm's inner workings, you're sunk. If you believe that keeping the algorithm's insides secret improves the security of your cryptosystem more than letting the academic community analyze it, you're wrong. And if you think that someone won't disassemble your code and reverse-engineer your algorithm, you're naive. The best algorithms we have are ones that have been made public, have been attacked by the world's best cryptographers for years, and are still unbreakable." --Bruce Scheier; Applied Cryptography (Second Edition); page 7
This seems to apply perfectly to this latest FUD about open source software.
I only said that businesses could abuse it in my first sentence. You'll probably agree that there is a possibility that such a thing could occur. In the second half of the first sentence, I indicated that if the bill becomes law it could be used to correct wrong data by groups other than businesses. Doing so, could have good results. In the second sentence, I merely stated that enviromentalists wouldn't let businesses cheat.
I didn't suggest either side *was* dishonest, only that it is possible to be dishonest. You're jumping to conclusions.
Think about it for a while and it seems that while pro-business groups could abuse it, it would also provide power to other groups to do good things. Envirmental groups wouldn't just sit there and let businesses create false results anyway..
I saw this last week.
on
Review: Insomnia
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I thought it was excellent as well. And it really does show you that two hundred million dollars worth of CG isn't necessary to make a good movie. I highly recommend it.
A word of caution: If you go see this, it will make you want to go see Alaska because the place looks so beautiful =)
Hmmm... China and India's combined CO2 emissions total about 70% of the United States levels as of 1995. Looky here [geocities.com].
Which by the numbers in the article would mean they accounted for 25% the amount of the industrial nations. (36% [from the story] * 0.70)
Considering the US only accounted for about 11% more of the industrial nation aggregate than that and it is the "biggest polluter in the world" maybe other countries ought to clean up after themselves before getting high and mighty? >64% of the stuff isn't made by the US.
That also goes to show what skewed nonsense these numbers are. Unless developing nations C02 is of some different nature than US created C02, the aggregate numbers should include it. By not doing so, you ignore that there are several other countries combined making as much pollution as the horrible US and greatly inflating the percent created by the US. In this case, the US's 23%, by only including 80% of the total C02 output, inflates the US percentage by nearly 25% from 18%. (23% * 0.80 = ~18%)
Also look at the huge difference in the US and other countries with ton/km. Shouldn't this sort of thing be sorted by amount of space a country takes up? The world would have ended if the US polluted half as much as Japan or Germany per ton/km.
With skewed numbers and "the sky is falling" apocalyptic rational, I'm left wondering if there isn't something else at work here.
-- I'll forgive linking to Geocities, I think I had a site there in 1995 =)
[The third column on page 25-26 seems to have the data that I'll be discussing for the most part. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/pdf/hi st.pdf]
The budget surpluses from 1998-2001 weren't because of some sound fiscal policy suddenly enacted by President Clinton after 5 years in office, but rather were a natural result of the booming economy, the resulting bubble in the stock market, and the greater taxable incomes that resulted from it. When that bubble burst, the result was a sharp decrease in Federal tax revenues. You'll notice that the third column on page 26 indicates a surplus by 2006 and a decreasing Federal deficit every year up until that point. Which indicates a recovery period from the current recession.
The deficits or surpluses listed in the third column of the PDF are not aggregates, they are just the federal budget for that year. The federal government obviously isn't going to become more in debt by paying its previously accrued debts using money it doesn't have. To say it would would like saying that transferring the balance of one credit card to another is decreasing one's previously incurred debts. (While in reality the most one could hope for is a reduced interest rate. Something the Federal Government isn't going to see as it already has a lower rate than any normal person could hope to receive in a wet dream. The "Federal Funds Rate", iirc.)
Even if every penny of the 1998-2001 surpluses were spent on repaying the public debt it would still exist now even if it were interest free. The federal budget deficits this year and last year doesn't reflect that though, only that the federal government spent more than it took in during the past two years during this recession. (The third column doesn't concern the overall debt.)
It is also worth noting, that the current year's deficit can be considered responsible counter-cyclical fiscal policy. (Counter-cyclical refers to the business cycle, just to be clear on my intended meaning.) If the Federal Government leaves tax rates roughly the same, then it will receive increased tax revenues during booms and decreased tax revenues during busts. Both booms and busts are unavoidable parts of the business cycle. With the federal budget surplus from 1998-2001 the projected deficits from 2002-2004 will still leave an overall surplus of 359 billion dollars (69 + 125 + 236 + 127 - 106 - 80 - 13). By the 2007 estimate (with the projected surpluses from 2004-2007) on page 26, that will mean an overall surplus of 609 billion. That money could be used to pay down the existing debt, or pay off the interest on the existing debt (to keep it from increasing in porportion to real GDP), or increase funding for programs like social security. Or do a combination of the three. (I'll go into greater detail why the second possibility might be quite desirable if you wish.)
For the most part it is on the fringe far-right Republicans that support a balanced-budget Constitutional Amendment. A good reason not to, is that GDP, over the long run, has grown and that the federal goverment can incur a deficit for several years at a time (with a relatively constant level of spending) and still decrease the public debt because of the surpluses in booms.
A reason to believe that Bush's recent budget increases have not been too large to outgrow would be that there is a surplus predicted again for 2005. That he might further increase the budget and eliminate the future surpluses seems "woulda/coulda/shoulda" to me at this time. The fed also must be spending that money on something, most of which (including defense spending) are typically US owned businesses that will in turn pay back taxes. The imports that it buys will only insure that foreigners use the US dollars they received to buy US goods in the future.
Democrats won't allow Bush to waste much money with their control of the House and Senate.
You should also consider that the budget increases are not adjusted for inflation. This makes changes seem larger than they actually are.
-- P.S. This has been an interesting and informative discussion. I thank you for your time and sharing your opinions and insights with me. Please excuse any typos, whacky fragments or verb tense errors it is quite late here. =)
I will note that you are the only one in this conversation who is making ad hominem attacks on other Slashdot readers and moderators. Rather ironic, isn't it? You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh too much. You need to listen to NPR and you will find that liberals don't normally resort to the name-calling, defamation, and slander that is all too prominent on conservative radio programs. I've not attacked anyone's character, only learned from history. Try posting something that indicates you don't gobble up Global Warming and see what happens. I don't listen to talk radio or make generalizations about talk radio shows' content.
And there are Republicans who are pro-choice, but it does not mean that, broadly speaking, the Republican party does not take the opposite stance. True, but not particularly relevant.
I've spent a lot of time in California and, despite the view that you have apparently gotten from watching too much Access Hollywood, the majority of people in California are not in the entertainment industry. I must miss Access Hollywood while I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh:-P
I never wrote or implied the majority of people in California were in the entertainment industry. I stated it "is the center of the US Entertainment Industry." No reference was made to the porportion of Californians that are involved in it.
The size of the government is based on the cost, not the number of regulations in place. Perhaps I should have chosen better words. All the references I've read about the size of government are about the amount of programs the government is involved in. That includes regulating various things and social programs like welfare, social security, medicaid, headstart, etc.
The amount of regulations and social programs the government is involved in directly affect the budget it needs to operate. So, the amount of things the government does determines its size.
Besides, smaller government is the battle cry of the Republicans, not of the Democrats. I saw Al Gore give a speech saying he was for small government in the last election. He made it a point about how he was for small government.
The big difference is that Democrats try to collect enough tax revenue to pay for the cost of running the government. Funny, as Congress only had a Republican majority for the first time in quite a long time in '94 (year?. The election where Republicans led by Newt Gingrich campaigned with their Contract With America programs.) Budget deficits existed with Roosevelt, Johnson, Carter, Clinton's first term, and half of his second.
If you take a look at the numbers and charts, you'll notice that a major portion of the federal budget is spent on social welfare programs. As you are aware, social welfare programs find greatest support among Democrats.
Republicans, on the other hand, make massive tax cuts and then do deficit spending to make up the difference. As a result, in less than two years, George W. Bush has managed to wipe out the surplus that was built up under Clinton/Gore, plunging us back into deficit spending, and prolonging and deepening the recession. Oh please. The surplus was projected, it didn't exist yet. The only reason it existed on paper at all was because of the boom in the '90s and stock market bubble. I'd really love to shake Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton's hand for their excellent use of monetary and fiscal policy to rein in the rapid growth. I doubt Clinton really cared though as it kept people from caring about his many scandals.
When people woke up and realized that Yahoo stock wasn't worth $150 a share the bubble burst and people's expected incomes (and therefore spending shrank). All the capital gains tax that would be paid when making $120 per share on Yahoo stock is now a loss of $28 per share and a tax deduction reducing government tax revenue.
You may have missed it, but the far-left isn't a champion of small government or in the least bit opposed to copyright expansion. I'll provide a an example or two:
Hollings and Feinstein both of whom have been quoted here as being proponents of the DMCA and SSSCA/CBDTPA are liberal Democrats.
The State of California has long been considered a Democratic Party stronghold, and is the center of the US Entertainment Industry. Check which party won it the last several presidential elections.
Being "far-right" has little to do with being owned by ones financiers.
Real market-oriented policy will allow the citizens of the US the freedom to act in their own best interests while respecting the rights of others. The far-left usually seems quite eager to have the government regulate and control how things are done. How increasing government regulation can be considerings "small government" or "shrinking government" I'd like to know.
Now I can just sit back and watch the "You are an idiot/moron/other witty insult" ad hominem attacks pour in that "open-minded" people on the far-left are known for.
-- I'll address some of the far-left moderators considerations now too:
"Off-Topic": Mod the parent that too then, as my reply is in direct response to what he/she wrote.
"Flame-bait": I stated my opinion and presented evidence to support it. That's not a "You linux users are jealous of M$" post.
"Troll": Similarly to flame-bait, I supported my claim with evidence. I didn't just disagree in capital letters.
This concludes moderator-education, have a nice day.
I see a possible problem with your suggestion: law enforcement? It seems you'd be pushing law enforcement powers into the hands of media conglomerates. Unless you mean having the media corps catch people and then call the cops on them so to speak. Just something to consider..
You sort of fail to mention why it is that copyright should exist at all. Authors/Artists/Inventors don't have a natural property right to their creations. If they did, copyright wouldn't need to exist at all as their rights would already be covered in physical property protection laws.
It won't make any difference what I think, but I'll be voting against my Congressman and Senators in the coming election if they give an indication they plan on voting for this.
"Dear Honorable Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, To put it plainly, I believe this legislation is a serious mistake. It takes the same defeated before it leaves the gate approach as gun control, the war on drugs, and any number of laws that regulate inanimate objects.
This proposed legislation will also put the final nail in the Fair Use Doctrine's coffin. (I'm not being at all melodramatic either.)
In the recent past 2600 Magazine was sued by the United States and MPAA for distributing a program that decrypts DVD movies.* (here is a reasonably detailed description of the proceedings for anyone who's never heard of this case: http://www.wtlug.org/~pepper/mpaa_vs_2600.shtml) In the appeals, 2600 claimed that the DMCA was unconstitutional because it killed off fair use. But, it admitted that it was still possible to point a camcorder at a television screen and get a clip at lower quality. The federal appeals court judges ruled that a person doesn't have a right under fair use to necessarily make use of a work in its most pristine form. If this bill becomes law, it will not be possible to make fair use of a protected work in anyway.
The MPAA's report to this subcommittee also makes a rather disgusting presumption that any use that the Studios have not authorized is illegal. I've read the copyright code, and any uses not infringing are legal. Period. No "authorization" is or should be required.
*It should be noted that in order to watch a DVD movie it must be decrypted. Obviously then, DVD players decrypt DVD movies when they are watched. The encrypted data on DVDs is fully readable and in no other way protected. So, in order to "pirate DVD movies" byte for byte copying is all that is necessary. DeCSS doesn't help in the illegal distribution of copyrighted works."
I'll ask this about your poor widow scenario: Why should Bill Gates be punished for being successful? Better yet, to avoid off topic MS bashing, why should some other billionaire be punished for being successful?
Why shouldn't people be able to decide for themselves how much they want to work?
35 hours max/week? How is someone supposed to start his own business with that kind of limitation?
And what the hell does that ad hominem nonsense about "my car" have to do with addressing the question? A result of "evil industrialization" is that people can live in cities a few blocks from their office, not need a car, and make several times more than 17K/year.
Toss the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and you have a basically alright system. Beyond that, "life isn't fair get a helmet."
(Now I need about 57 people to respond to correct that quote for me, thanks.)
Now they can just accuse anyone who releases software for it that they don't approve of of violating the DMCA and not fulfilling the restrictive EULA they place on the specs. Call me a pessimist, but history seems to be screaming that in my ear.
That I'm going to miss running category 5 cable, who's with me? Now just to find out what these things cost... ok, I'll be running Cat5 for quite some time to come:-/
Were you born with half a brain, jackass? Learn to read, and try again. It is impossible for me to have said it more explicity: I DO NOT APPROVE OF THE GOVERNMENT BAILING OUT BUSINESSES FOR ANY REASON. Don't post after smoking cock/crack. Fucking retard.
Slashdot Mirror
Clawhammer and Willamette (using PC800) have similar amounts of memory bandwidth 2.7GB/s vs 3.2GB/s. The Clawhammer, with its ondie memory controller, will probably have half the latency of the P4+Rambus. Hammer is also supposed to have higher IPC, putting it way over the top.
Because of the number of games using the Q3A engine, I don't think it is a bad benchmark of gaming performance.
The rest of the year should be interesting: If AMD hits 1.6 and that scales to the speed of a 3.2GHz Willamette, then it should be very close performancewise with Intel claiming to be ramping Northwood up to 3Ghz for year end.
A good computer is one that is useful for what applications it is needed to do. There is lots of software out there still in use that requires x86 or porting to a new architecture.
If x86 is doing everything that most everyone using it wants, what incentive is there to change it on another ISA's technical merits. Starting with the Pentium Pro, x86 CPUs have had respectable performance compared to other architectures and continue to.
When you talk to System Builders, you'll find out that Windows is THE most expensive component that goes into an average computer. As a percentage, it has risen dramatically over recent years as margins on systems have dropped. Things like CPUs, Memory, Motherboards, HDDs, etc have dropped in price:performance greatly as well.
Windows on the otherhand, has increased in price. Now Microsoft is going a step further than increasing prices, and making the cost of using/owning a Windows-based PC perpetual with its subscription services its planning.
So what if someone is going to install her OEM Win98SE to a new Celeron from Walmart!
"And don't forget Kerckhoff's assumption: If the strength of your new cryptosystem relies on the fact that the attacker does not know the algorithm's inner workings, you're sunk. If you believe that keeping the algorithm's insides secret improves the security of your cryptosystem more than letting the academic community analyze it, you're wrong. And if you think that someone won't disassemble your code and reverse-engineer your algorithm, you're naive. The best algorithms we have are ones that have been made public, have been attacked by the world's best cryptographers for years, and are still unbreakable."
--Bruce Scheier; Applied Cryptography (Second Edition); page 7
This seems to apply perfectly to this latest FUD about open source software.
I only said that businesses could abuse it in my first sentence. You'll probably agree that there is a possibility that such a thing could occur. In the second half of the first sentence, I indicated that if the bill becomes law it could be used to correct wrong data by groups other than businesses. Doing so, could have good results. In the second sentence, I merely stated that enviromentalists wouldn't let businesses cheat.
I didn't suggest either side *was* dishonest, only that it is possible to be dishonest. You're jumping to conclusions.
Think about it for a while and it seems that while pro-business groups could abuse it, it would also provide power to other groups to do good things. Envirmental groups wouldn't just sit there and let businesses create false results anyway..
I thought it was excellent as well. And it really does show you that two hundred million dollars worth of CG isn't necessary to make a good movie. I highly recommend it.
A word of caution: If you go see this, it will make you want to go see Alaska because the place looks so beautiful =)
Hmmm... China and India's combined CO2 emissions total about 70% of the United States levels as of 1995. Looky here [geocities.com].
Which by the numbers in the article would mean they accounted for 25% the amount of the industrial nations. (36% [from the story] * 0.70)
Considering the US only accounted for about 11% more of the industrial nation aggregate than that and it is the "biggest polluter in the world" maybe other countries ought to clean up after themselves before getting high and mighty? >64% of the stuff isn't made by the US.
That also goes to show what skewed nonsense these numbers are. Unless developing nations C02 is of some different nature than US created C02, the aggregate numbers should include it. By not doing so, you ignore that there are several other countries combined making as much pollution as the horrible US and greatly inflating the percent created by the US. In this case, the US's 23%, by only including 80% of the total C02 output, inflates the US percentage by nearly 25% from 18%. (23% * 0.80 = ~18%)
Also look at the huge difference in the US and other countries with ton/km. Shouldn't this sort of thing be sorted by amount of space a country takes up? The world would have ended if the US polluted half as much as Japan or Germany per ton/km.
With skewed numbers and "the sky is falling" apocalyptic rational, I'm left wondering if there isn't something else at work here.
--
I'll forgive linking to Geocities, I think I had a site there in 1995 =)
My expert analysis says Carmack's probably a bit of the Karma troll.
[The third column on page 25-26 seems to have the data that I'll be discussing for the most part. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/pdf/hi st.pdf]
The budget surpluses from 1998-2001 weren't because of some sound fiscal policy suddenly enacted by President Clinton after 5 years in office, but rather were a natural result of the booming economy, the resulting bubble in the stock market, and the greater taxable incomes that resulted from it. When that bubble burst, the result was a sharp decrease in Federal tax revenues. You'll notice that the third column on page 26 indicates a surplus by 2006 and a decreasing Federal deficit every year up until that point. Which indicates a recovery period from the current recession.
The deficits or surpluses listed in the third column of the PDF are not aggregates, they are just the federal budget for that year. The federal government obviously isn't going to become more in debt by paying its previously accrued debts using money it doesn't have. To say it would would like saying that transferring the balance of one credit card to another is decreasing one's previously incurred debts. (While in reality the most one could hope for is a reduced interest rate. Something the Federal Government isn't going to see as it already has a lower rate than any normal person could hope to receive in a wet dream. The "Federal Funds Rate", iirc.)
Even if every penny of the 1998-2001 surpluses were spent on repaying the public debt it would still exist now even if it were interest free. The federal budget deficits this year and last year doesn't reflect that though, only that the federal government spent more than it took in during the past two years during this recession. (The third column doesn't concern the overall debt.)
It is also worth noting, that the current year's deficit can be considered responsible counter-cyclical fiscal policy. (Counter-cyclical refers to the business cycle, just to be clear on my intended meaning.) If the Federal Government leaves tax rates roughly the same, then it will receive increased tax revenues during booms and decreased tax revenues during busts. Both booms and busts are unavoidable parts of the business cycle. With the federal budget surplus from 1998-2001 the projected deficits from 2002-2004 will still leave an overall surplus of 359 billion dollars (69 + 125 + 236 + 127 - 106 - 80 - 13). By the 2007 estimate (with the projected surpluses from 2004-2007) on page 26, that will mean an overall surplus of 609 billion. That money could be used to pay down the existing debt, or pay off the interest on the existing debt (to keep it from increasing in porportion to real GDP), or increase funding for programs like social security. Or do a combination of the three. (I'll go into greater detail why the second possibility might be quite desirable if you wish.)
For the most part it is on the fringe far-right Republicans that support a balanced-budget Constitutional Amendment. A good reason not to, is that GDP, over the long run, has grown and that the federal goverment can incur a deficit for several years at a time (with a relatively constant level of spending) and still decrease the public debt because of the surpluses in booms.
A reason to believe that Bush's recent budget increases have not been too large to outgrow would be that there is a surplus predicted again for 2005. That he might further increase the budget and eliminate the future surpluses seems "woulda/coulda/shoulda" to me at this time. The fed also must be spending that money on something, most of which (including defense spending) are typically US owned businesses that will in turn pay back taxes. The imports that it buys will only insure that foreigners use the US dollars they received to buy US goods in the future.
Democrats won't allow Bush to waste much money with their control of the House and Senate.
You should also consider that the budget increases are not adjusted for inflation. This makes changes seem larger than they actually are.
--
P.S. This has been an interesting and informative discussion. I thank you for your time and sharing your opinions and insights with me. Please excuse any typos, whacky fragments or verb tense errors it is quite late here. =)
I will note that you are the only one in this conversation who is making ad hominem attacks on other Slashdot readers and moderators. Rather ironic, isn't it? You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh too much. You need to listen to NPR and you will find that liberals don't normally resort to the name-calling, defamation, and slander that is all too prominent on conservative radio programs.
:-P
I've not attacked anyone's character, only learned from history. Try posting something that indicates you don't gobble up Global Warming and see what happens. I don't listen to talk radio or make generalizations about talk radio shows' content.
And there are Republicans who are pro-choice, but it does not mean that, broadly speaking, the Republican party does not take the opposite stance.
True, but not particularly relevant.
I've spent a lot of time in California and, despite the view that you have apparently gotten from watching too much Access Hollywood, the majority of people in California are not in the entertainment industry.
I must miss Access Hollywood while I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh
I never wrote or implied the majority of people in California were in the entertainment industry. I stated it "is the center of the US Entertainment Industry." No reference was made to the porportion of Californians that are involved in it.
The size of the government is based on the cost, not the number of regulations in place.
Perhaps I should have chosen better words. All the references I've read about the size of government are about the amount of programs the government is involved in. That includes regulating various things and social programs like welfare, social security, medicaid, headstart, etc.
The amount of regulations and social programs the government is involved in directly affect the budget it needs to operate. So, the amount of things the government does determines its size.
Besides, smaller government is the battle cry of the Republicans, not of the Democrats.
I saw Al Gore give a speech saying he was for small government in the last election. He made it a point about how he was for small government.
The big difference is that Democrats try to collect enough tax revenue to pay for the cost of running the government.
Funny, as Congress only had a Republican majority for the first time in quite a long time in '94 (year?. The election where Republicans led by Newt Gingrich campaigned with their Contract With America programs.) Budget deficits existed with Roosevelt, Johnson, Carter, Clinton's first term, and half of his second.
If you take a look at the numbers and charts, you'll notice that a major portion of the federal budget is spent on social welfare programs. As you are aware, social welfare programs find greatest support among Democrats.
Republicans, on the other hand, make massive tax cuts and then do deficit spending to make up the difference. As a result, in less than two years, George W. Bush has managed to wipe out the surplus that was built up under Clinton/Gore, plunging us back into deficit spending, and prolonging and deepening the recession.
Oh please. The surplus was projected, it didn't exist yet. The only reason it existed on paper at all was because of the boom in the '90s and stock market bubble. I'd really love to shake Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton's hand for their excellent use of monetary and fiscal policy to rein in the rapid growth. I doubt Clinton really cared though as it kept people from caring about his many scandals.
When people woke up and realized that Yahoo stock wasn't worth $150 a share the bubble burst and people's expected incomes (and therefore spending shrank). All the capital gains tax that would be paid when making $120 per share on Yahoo stock is now a loss of $28 per share and a tax deduction reducing government tax revenue.
Lower incomes + decreased consumer spending + greatly decreased projected taxable incomes = projected surplus goes bye bye.
Deficit spending by the Federal Government won't deepen a recession, it will help alleviate it. It's a stabilizing effect of fiscal policy.
Like father, like son...
I didn't care for SR., and don't like JR. either.
"they also want to to pacify the enemy by spraying Valium"
..And everyone says the government is no good and no fun.
- Hollings and Feinstein both of whom have been quoted here as being proponents of the DMCA and SSSCA/CBDTPA are liberal Democrats.
- The State of California has long been considered a Democratic Party stronghold, and is the center of the US Entertainment Industry. Check which party won it the last several presidential elections.
Being "far-right" has little to do with being owned by ones financiers.Real market-oriented policy will allow the citizens of the US the freedom to act in their own best interests while respecting the rights of others. The far-left usually seems quite eager to have the government regulate and control how things are done. How increasing government regulation can be considerings "small government" or "shrinking government" I'd like to know.
Now I can just sit back and watch the "You are an idiot/moron/other witty insult" ad hominem attacks pour in that "open-minded" people on the far-left are known for.
--
I'll address some of the far-left moderators considerations now too:
- "Off-Topic": Mod the parent that too then, as my reply is in direct response to what he/she wrote.
- "Flame-bait": I stated my opinion and presented evidence to support it. That's not a "You linux users are jealous of M$" post.
- "Troll": Similarly to flame-bait, I supported my claim with evidence. I didn't just disagree in capital letters.
This concludes moderator-education, have a nice day.I see a possible problem with your suggestion: law enforcement? It seems you'd be pushing law enforcement powers into the hands of media conglomerates. Unless you mean having the media corps catch people and then call the cops on them so to speak. Just something to consider..
You sort of fail to mention why it is that copyright should exist at all. Authors/Artists/Inventors don't have a natural property right to their creations. If they did, copyright wouldn't need to exist at all as their rights would already be covered in physical property protection laws.
It won't make any difference what I think, but I'll be voting against my Congressman and Senators in the coming election if they give an indication they plan on voting for this.
"Dear Honorable Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
To put it plainly, I believe this legislation is a serious mistake. It takes the same defeated before it leaves the gate approach as gun control, the war on drugs, and any number of laws that regulate inanimate objects.
This proposed legislation will also put the final nail in the Fair Use Doctrine's coffin. (I'm not being at all melodramatic either.)
In the recent past 2600 Magazine was sued by the United States and MPAA for distributing a program that decrypts DVD movies.* (here is a reasonably detailed description of the proceedings for anyone who's never heard of this case: http://www.wtlug.org/~pepper/mpaa_vs_2600.shtml) In the appeals, 2600 claimed that the DMCA was unconstitutional because it killed off fair use. But, it admitted that it was still possible to point a camcorder at a television screen and get a clip at lower quality. The federal appeals court judges ruled that a person doesn't have a right under fair use to necessarily make use of a work in its most pristine form. If this bill becomes law, it will not be possible to make fair use of a protected work in anyway.
The MPAA's report to this subcommittee also makes a rather disgusting presumption that any use that the Studios have not authorized is illegal. I've read the copyright code, and any uses not infringing are legal. Period. No "authorization" is or should be required.
*It should be noted that in order to watch a DVD movie it must be decrypted. Obviously then, DVD players decrypt DVD movies when they are watched. The encrypted data on DVDs is fully readable and in no other way protected. So, in order to "pirate DVD movies" byte for byte copying is all that is necessary. DeCSS doesn't help in the illegal distribution of copyrighted works."
I'll ask this about your poor widow scenario: Why should Bill Gates be punished for being successful? Better yet, to avoid off topic MS bashing, why should some other billionaire be punished for being successful?
Why shouldn't people be able to decide for themselves how much they want to work?
35 hours max/week? How is someone supposed to start his own business with that kind of limitation?
And what the hell does that ad hominem nonsense about "my car" have to do with addressing the question? A result of "evil industrialization" is that people can live in cities a few blocks from their office, not need a car, and make several times more than 17K/year.
Maybe that would actually go over big... afterall, people loved those Tomagotchi's/Gigapets/whatever watch sized beeping LCDs.
And of course who could forget the sheep?
I'd think that they should be...
They aren't just stating facts (like a phonebook), so there is original writing which is creative.
Toss the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and you have a basically alright system. Beyond that, "life isn't fair get a helmet."
(Now I need about 57 people to respond to correct that quote for me, thanks.)
Now they can just accuse anyone who releases software for it that they don't approve of of violating the DMCA and not fulfilling the restrictive EULA they place on the specs. Call me a pessimist, but history seems to be screaming that in my ear.
That I'm going to miss running category 5 cable, who's with me? Now just to find out what these things cost... ok, I'll be running Cat5 for quite some time to come :-/
But they could be appearing in a flashback. Oops, this is probably a spoiler =)
Right. Go back under your bridge before the sun turns you to stone.
Were you born with half a brain, jackass? Learn to read, and try again. It is impossible for me to have said it more explicity: I DO NOT APPROVE OF THE GOVERNMENT BAILING OUT BUSINESSES FOR ANY REASON. Don't post after smoking cock/crack. Fucking retard.