But I am in agreement here.. CPU's are more than fast enough to handle Natural Language. And considering how many cycles we waste with such things as CPULoad Epplet (do we REALLY need to see a representation of our CPU load, which is mostly sitting below 0.10, as a graphical flame?), I don't think it's that big of a deal.
Then consider the fact that if this were to catch on, we'd probably see Natural Language Interface accelerators.. Look at the 3d market.. 3 years ago that was a HELL of a lot of calculations.. Quake 3 was defenitely too CPU-intensive for the CPU's of the era.. But now we have 3D Acclerator, Hardware T&L, GPU's and all sorts of other neat buzzwords..
I have seen the future, and some clever marketing type has come up with the name 'HLA 9000' (Human Language Accelerator)..
Full disclosure might be bad, but let's face it, if no one mentioned that Microsoft has bugs, do you think they'd bother fixing them, or even looking for them?
Just like everything else one can imagine, full disclosure has it's bad points. The trick is to choose the set of bad points that creates the least amount of real-world trouble.
Personally, I'd rather know what the bugs are, know that someone is doing something about them, and actually have the ability to hold the vendor accountable. That's one of the reasons companies love buying from big vendors (IBM, Sun, etc): Accountability. You can't hold IBM accountable for a bug you don't know exists.. Until someone rm -rf's you and leaves a humorous note as to how they did it, that is..
If Napster acknowledges that their service was created with the specific intent of sharing copyrighted MP3s, then it is a poor argument.
But, if Napster can prove that their service is intended to be a way for users to share all sorts of files and information on the Internet, then the RIAA's argument is that Napster should be held accountable for their users' abusive actions.
I suppose a line must be drawn somewhere, but I'm not sure that this is necessarily the right place. Napster should not *encourage* pirating copyrighted material. This is a given. But should the RIAA be so focused on shutting Napster down permanently? I don't think so. Napster CAN be used for good.
If you ask me, the RIAA shutting down Napster is a little overboard.
And on another note:
In Canada, you are not allowed to let someone drive away from your house drunk. If he gets in an accident, you are liable.
If Napster is found to be liable for the content it's users make available on their service, then shouldn't Microsoft be liable for what it's users share using Windows file sharing?
And shouldn't AOL be held accountable for the files and information it's users transfer?
Slashdot Mirror
But I am in agreement here.. CPU's are more than fast enough to handle Natural Language. And considering how many cycles we waste with such things as CPULoad Epplet (do we REALLY need to see a representation of our CPU load, which is mostly sitting below 0.10, as a graphical flame?), I don't think it's that big of a deal.
Then consider the fact that if this were to catch on, we'd probably see Natural Language Interface accelerators.. Look at the 3d market.. 3 years ago that was a HELL of a lot of calculations.. Quake 3 was defenitely too CPU-intensive for the CPU's of the era.. But now we have 3D Acclerator, Hardware T&L, GPU's and all sorts of other neat buzzwords..
I have seen the future, and some clever marketing type has come up with the name 'HLA 9000' (Human Language Accelerator)..
--
Just like everything else one can imagine, full disclosure has it's bad points. The trick is to choose the set of bad points that creates the least amount of real-world trouble.
Personally, I'd rather know what the bugs are, know that someone is doing something about them, and actually have the ability to hold the vendor accountable. That's one of the reasons companies love buying from big vendors (IBM, Sun, etc): Accountability. You can't hold IBM accountable for a bug you don't know exists.. Until someone rm -rf's you and leaves a humorous note as to how they did it, that is..
--
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say.
And now here's Napster's fine print:
Users are responsible for complying with all applicable federal and state laws applicable to such content, including copyright laws.
So, if I'm correct, if I were to post DeCSS source directly in here, Slashdot would still be liable..
Kind of makes you wonder.. All it would take is the MPAA deciding Slashdot was the enemy..
--
But, if Napster can prove that their service is intended to be a way for users to share all sorts of files and information on the Internet, then the RIAA's argument is that Napster should be held accountable for their users' abusive actions.
I suppose a line must be drawn somewhere, but I'm not sure that this is necessarily the right place. Napster should not *encourage* pirating copyrighted material. This is a given. But should the RIAA be so focused on shutting Napster down permanently? I don't think so. Napster CAN be used for good.
If you ask me, the RIAA shutting down Napster is a little overboard.
And on another note:
In Canada, you are not allowed to let someone drive away from your house drunk. If he gets in an accident, you are liable.
--
And shouldn't AOL be held accountable for the files and information it's users transfer?
--