"If nVidia gives you free cards, good for you. If you do something they don't like, they can stop giving you free cards. They can do whatever they damn well please. If you don't care if you get the cards or not, you can tell nVidia to piss off. If you do care, you dance to their tune." No shit dude, the article even STATES that nvidia is WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS to not give a card to a site. The ISSUE is whether or not a small site should post a favorable review based on a corporation's strong arming tactics. I guess it's not a question of whether or not you read the article, it's really a question of whether or not you used any braincells to think before you post.
Sigh, i wish people would bother to read the whole article before posting nonsense. The issue isn't whether or not the sites get free cards, but whether or not a small site should have to bend towards a corporation's wishes when posting up a positive review of a competitor's product.
It seems that the proof is in the pudding; A couple of sites HAVE come out against Nvidia on this (check the Hypothermia link). Didn't 3dfx do something similar when they were the 3d graphics king? You know i'm getting absolutely sick of corporations these days, whether in litigation or in press, they have way too much clout. Limited liability anyone?
The newsbit says that you can O/C the duron motherboard bus speed up to 183 Mhz (or something like that)... I heard that you can only O/C the bus up to something like 130 Mhz before your video cards start to fail? Sorry i'm an O/C newbie (i got a Pentium 2 hehe)... If this is true, i'm getting a duron asap:)
Are the p4's going to be backwards compatible with 32 bit programs? Sorry, i'd try to find it myself, but i got a final i have to pull an all nighter for... *SIGH*
Considering the way we're headed with integrating data, voice and video, i don't think a merger would mean much towards creating any type of monopoly or oligopoly. Don't believe me? There are several points to consider: 1) The telecommunications act of 1996 encourages competition in both long and local telephone services. There are litteraly thousands of long distance carriers in the united states. If AT&T and Sprint/MCI started charging insane rates, i'll just one of the joe schmoe carriers for service. 2) It is CHEAPER to carry voice over a packet switched network than it is to carry it on our current circuit switched network. Why is this significant? The current packet switched network is decentralized. Almost ANYONE could offer voice services if this becomes a reality. With our current infrastructure, most phone companies can charge 10 cents a minute and make a profit. However, if we integrate our voice networks in a packet switched network (i.e. the Internet), long distance carriers and every ISP out there could charge 1 cent per minute and STILL make a profit. Granted voice conversations are not quite practical in packet networks JUST YET (as packets aren't exactly the ideal way to handle voice given latency/packet loss), voice over ip is developing real fast to handle these issues. And of course the big backbone corporations are constantly upgrading our network infrastructure (OC-768 anyone?).
hehe that stopnapster.com site is hillarious. "CD sales are at an all time high. Isn't Napster actually helping recording artists? According to statistics compiled using Soundscan, an objective reporting process that measures actual retail and online sales, CD sales are up 16 percent nationally. However, the Soundscan statistics reveal that in areas near colleges and universities, where Napster is the rave, sales are off 4 percent, an effective 20 percent reversal. More than 100 colleges had to ban Napster because of constant MP3 downloads. Think there's a correlation?" They forgot to mention that purchase of cd's through the internet is more popular these days. " If Napster dies, then someone else will just come along and take their place. And those companies will ultimately be sued by the record industry as well. If the record industry is successful in their suit against Napster and wins substantial damages, then the other companies would be just plain stupid to go ahead with a business model that has proven to be illegal and would potentially cost them millions of dollars in lawsuits and settlements. Furthermore, applied to an extreme, this argument would suggest that we stop arresting people for murder because sooner or later, someone will come along and kill someone else, so what's the use?" Yep, go ahead and sue gnutella or freenet... oh wait, there's nobody to sue! ROFL, i had a good laugh reading the site. It's funny how technologically illeterate these people are (the site was done using a mac haha).
Will you shut up already MS fanboy? The fact that someone like you exists, sickens me. BTW, your first post was owned by the guy who replied right under you. GG.
Alright alright, we've heard how record sales are up and how people believe napster users are supposedly buying more music because they get to try it out with mp3's first. However, has anyone thought that if the record labels pushed ahead with legislation and 'watermark encryption'of mp3's that they might be shooting themselves in the foot? Recently, in a conference concerning digital music, Courtney Love lambasted record labels and portrayed them as the culprits who stole their work while defending napster. Love also seems to be embracing the mp3 revolution and has plans to distribute her music through her website while severing ties with her current label , Geffen. What i'm trying to say is, if the record labels and technology firms are able to come up with a way in order to watermark digital music in order to stop piracy and create music formats that enable people to download music but not distribute it, what use would artists have for record labels? In Love's case, she would be able to sell and promote her music easily on her on through the web if this revolution really takes off. Sure, unknown artists still might need the the marketing power of the record companies, but if you've already made it as rock star, why not embrace the technology instead?
Slashdot Mirror
This got a 2? This is redundant!!
Ironically, it actually costs more to make a cassette tape than it does a CD, yet tapes cost half as much...
"HA HA" :]
ah the ironies in life. Go napster! :P
"Hello World" :
"If nVidia gives you free cards, good for you. If you do something they don't like, they can stop giving you free cards. They can do whatever they damn well please. If you don't care if you get the cards or not, you can tell nVidia to piss off. If you do care, you dance to their tune." No shit dude, the article even STATES that nvidia is WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS to not give a card to a site. The ISSUE is whether or not a small site should post a favorable review based on a corporation's strong arming tactics. I guess it's not a question of whether or not you read the article, it's really a question of whether or not you used any braincells to think before you post.
Ok how the hell did this get a moderation of +2?
Sigh, i wish people would bother to read the whole article before posting nonsense. The issue isn't whether or not the sites get free cards, but whether or not a small site should have to bend towards a corporation's wishes when posting up a positive review of a competitor's product.
"Independence and integrity go hand in hand." You make it sound like the small sites are at fault. Lets not forget who the enemy is here.
It seems that the proof is in the pudding; A couple of sites HAVE come out against Nvidia on this (check the Hypothermia link). Didn't 3dfx do something similar when they were the 3d graphics king? You know i'm getting absolutely sick of corporations these days, whether in litigation or in press, they have way too much clout. Limited liability anyone?
The newsbit says that you can O/C the duron motherboard bus speed up to 183 Mhz (or something like that)... I heard that you can only O/C the bus up to something like 130 Mhz before your video cards start to fail? Sorry i'm an O/C newbie (i got a Pentium 2 hehe)... If this is true, i'm getting a duron asap :)
Looks like i won't be memorizing my IP addresses anymore :P hehe
Are the p4's going to be backwards compatible with 32 bit programs? Sorry, i'd try to find it myself, but i got a final i have to pull an all nighter for ... *SIGH*
Considering the way we're headed with integrating data, voice and video, i don't think a merger would mean much towards creating any type of monopoly or oligopoly. Don't believe me? There are several points to consider: 1) The telecommunications act of 1996 encourages competition in both long and local telephone services. There are litteraly thousands of long distance carriers in the united states. If AT&T and Sprint/MCI started charging insane rates, i'll just one of the joe schmoe carriers for service. 2) It is CHEAPER to carry voice over a packet switched network than it is to carry it on our current circuit switched network. Why is this significant? The current packet switched network is decentralized. Almost ANYONE could offer voice services if this becomes a reality. With our current infrastructure, most phone companies can charge 10 cents a minute and make a profit. However, if we integrate our voice networks in a packet switched network (i.e. the Internet), long distance carriers and every ISP out there could charge 1 cent per minute and STILL make a profit. Granted voice conversations are not quite practical in packet networks JUST YET (as packets aren't exactly the ideal way to handle voice given latency/packet loss), voice over ip is developing real fast to handle these issues. And of course the big backbone corporations are constantly upgrading our network infrastructure (OC-768 anyone?).
According to a previous slashdot article, mp3 isn't 'free' anymore.
That's one strange place to vacation my friend.
I think this sums up the general sentiments of the article best: "FUCK!"
hehe that stopnapster.com site is hillarious. "CD sales are at an all time high. Isn't Napster actually helping recording artists? According to statistics compiled using Soundscan, an objective reporting process that measures actual retail and online sales, CD sales are up 16 percent nationally. However, the Soundscan statistics reveal that in areas near colleges and universities, where Napster is the rave, sales are off 4 percent, an effective 20 percent reversal. More than 100 colleges had to ban Napster because of constant MP3 downloads. Think there's a correlation?" They forgot to mention that purchase of cd's through the internet is more popular these days. " If Napster dies, then someone else will just come along and take their place. And those companies will ultimately be sued by the record industry as well. If the record industry is successful in their suit against Napster and wins substantial damages, then the other companies would be just plain stupid to go ahead with a business model that has proven to be illegal and would potentially cost them millions of dollars in lawsuits and settlements. Furthermore, applied to an extreme, this argument would suggest that we stop arresting people for murder because sooner or later, someone will come along and kill someone else, so what's the use?" Yep, go ahead and sue gnutella or freenet... oh wait, there's nobody to sue! ROFL, i had a good laugh reading the site. It's funny how technologically illeterate these people are (the site was done using a mac haha).
... That was from a Saturday night live 'real audio' cartoon parody of speed racer :)
Go George Clooney,Go George Clooney,Go George Clooney GOOOOOOOOO... Sorry i couldn't resist :)
Will you shut up already MS fanboy? The fact that someone like you exists, sickens me. BTW, your first post was owned by the guy who replied right under you. GG.
Alright alright, we've heard how record sales are up and how people believe napster users are supposedly buying more music because they get to try it out with mp3's first. However, has anyone thought that if the record labels pushed ahead with legislation and 'watermark encryption'of mp3's that they might be shooting themselves in the foot? Recently, in a conference concerning digital music, Courtney Love lambasted record labels and portrayed them as the culprits who stole their work while defending napster. Love also seems to be embracing the mp3 revolution and has plans to distribute her music through her website while severing ties with her current label , Geffen. What i'm trying to say is, if the record labels and technology firms are able to come up with a way in order to watermark digital music in order to stop piracy and create music formats that enable people to download music but not distribute it, what use would artists have for record labels? In Love's case, she would be able to sell and promote her music easily on her on through the web if this revolution really takes off. Sure, unknown artists still might need the the marketing power of the record companies, but if you've already made it as rock star, why not embrace the technology instead?