FWIW, apparently the Linux kernel has a few design issues with clock-speed switching. Some code depends on the clock frequency for timing features, and doesn't yet have a facility for changing frequencies on the fly. I think I read something about this in kernel traffic a few weeks/months ago.
I'm an ex-Pittsburgher. When I first moved to San Diego, I thought that Fry's was just about the coolest store I'd run across. Yet another cool thing about life outside of Pittsburh.
Now, I'm less certain. Fry's is actually a pretty mediocre geek store - maybe it's better clasified as a pseudo-geek store.
First, Fry's good points:
They've got tons of cool electronic circuit components, which is a plus if you're an EE-type, but it's wasted on most CS geeks.
The best thing I think you can say about Fry's is that it's so damn big that you can usually find a close approximation of some product that you want to buy.
About as big a stock of Linux products that you're likely to find in a retail store.
Pemmican Beef Jerkey located conveniently close to the checkout lines.
The downside is that you're still limited to their selection and pricing, which is limited by their business model. To elaborate:
Their selection of computer components, for instance, is usually overpriced and out-of-date, especially if you pay attention to the news on the Web, and price comparison services for online retailers.
They have all kinds of cool things, but they're relying on your ignorance of the market to get you to buy a sub-optimal product. It's really not Fry's fault, they're just trying to sell cutting edge products through a really slow distribution network.
Fry's has to buy in bulk, and tends to get shipments of the newest toys a few weeks behind specialty shops. (High end video cards, newest microprocessor revisions, etc). They've probably got the newest stuff in a warehouse someplace, but by the time they can get it to retail outlets, I could have had it shipped to me from an online dealer. Fry's needs an online store!
Web research on products is the way to go, IMHO. If you're a geek, you'd be nuts to ignore the up to date and free product comparisons and price comparisons avaiable on the web. Had I paid more attention to the web a couple of years ago, I wouldn't have bought a 430TX based motherboard (64 Mbyte effective RAM limit).
That's pretty much my take. I'm a Pitt EE grad, and things are no better from my perspective. FORE wasn't a sure thing when I graduated, and the rest of the EE & CompEng jobs that I saw were big into industrial controls and the like, which wasn't very interesting to me.
I ended up taking embedded software jobs in Chicago and then San Diego. Pittsburgh has plenty of jobs, but at the time I left, there wasn't anything very interesting available. It's a shame - I've left a lot of family and friends behind, and I've lost my tolerance for cold weather:)
What kind of Santa ignores a child? He didn't ignore them - he refused to toss candy to them that someone else had paid for. That's a big difference in my book. Santa's just a person, after all. Either way, you don't stone him.
I wonder what China's legal system defines guilt as? It would also be interesting to find out about their rules for introduction of evidence, questioning of witnesses, police procedures, etc.
A lot of the assumptions that I'd make when looking at the original story have a lot to do with the picture of the communist governments that the media has provided. I almost get the picture that that the legal system operates sort of like a military court martial, with a lot more variability on procedures and punishments.
Can anyone speak on this? I found a link on Google to this page that has some analysis that I'm going to look over. I'm not certain that I want to buy completely into a single source - and it is a little dated. Can anyone follow up on this?
I guess I find it a little easier to separate the Kirk character from Shatner the actor. Regardless of any respect or affection that I'd feel for the Kirk portrayed early in the ST:TOS, the quality of Shatner's performances in the last several Star Trek films had sunk to the point where I'd rather not hear about Kirk any more.
Perhaps the character will be revisited in the future in interesting performances, and probably more importantly, more interesting stories. I don't think that earlier performances of Shatner justify continually pulling his role out of mothballs.
The story of an aging captain dealing with "retirement" were handled very well in "The Wrath of Khan" and "The Search for Spock". After these films, it almost seems that those issues were forgotten in the interests of milking some more money out of the series. To be sure, "The Voyage Home" was a blast, but the later films seemed to be a little too formulaic.
I don't think I'm alone here, and I don't think that most who share my opinion are showing particularly jaded attitudes. I guess that's enough about that from me - we may just have a fundamental difference of opinion here.
As a tangent, I can understand your concerns about the so-called overacting in the original series (I never really saw "woodeness"). I'd probably be more inclined to attribute that to the show's director (directors?) rather than to Shatner or any of the other actors. Most of the emotional moments on the show were a little heavy on soliloquy (and it worked well, I think).
I don't know if that's due to directing style or as a method to deal with the limits of the studio. There seemed to be some limitations on camerawork and sets for a lot of the in-studio shots. It seems to me that without really immersive sets, the right thing to do is to get up in the characters' faces with still shots, and let them spruce up the dialogue with demonstrative delivery. There's not much point in moving camera angles in featureless gray rooms. I think that some of the planet-bound sets (particular, "City on the Edge of Forever") take some of the pressure off of the individual actors' performances, and let the director weave more interesting scenes.
I wouldn't be surprised if the so called boring, drawn out scense in "Star Trek the Motion Picture" were an overreaction to the limits induced by the original sets. I think it's too bad that that experiment was ruled unsuccessful. With a little judicious editing, I think that movie is among the best Trek ever filmed.
The ITU is pushing for a WCDMA air interface with GSM-derived protocol (IMT-2000). Their timetable is a year or two later than the US's TIA organization, which is working on 3G standards that will have IS95-like protocol (IS-2000).
However, there are carriers in the U.S. who use the 1900MHz version of GSM today, and some of them will want an upgrade path compatible with their GSM-based networking. So most likely there will be many standards used by different carriers in the U.S.
Sure it's exciting, but can you put one in a cellphone? That sounds like a great set-top-box chip, but probably not a cellphone chip.
Phones have other constraints, like power consumption and cost, that aren't issues in bigger devices.
If the chip goes through your battery in a few minutes, then it's not a useful portable device.
If the chip costs more than the rest of the phone's components combined, you've got a lot of incentive to use a cheaper chip!
If the chip's features require megabytes of RAM & ROM to use them all, and you can make a less exotic phone that uses a fraction of the RAM & ROM, well, you see the point...
I'd be surprised if any real ghosts show up, but I wouldn't be very surprised to see people doing the usual sorts of things in front of it. Or doing unusual sorts of things, at least for the location;)
Unfortunately, an impartial society can't pass judgement on the intangible benefits of what is legally a one-sided exchange, since one party does not consent to it. Money is everthing, at least legally, if that is the coin that the owner chooses to accept.
What power? I choose not to purchase goods from Microsoft? I avoid watching/licensing movies that I do not want to see. We all have choices - nothing has been taken away from us.
You have no freedom to copy, at least neither legally nor ethically. You've signed away nothing. You may copy, but you violate laws and the ethics on which the laws are based.
If you disagree with the ethics, you have the freedom to attempt to change the law. But until the law changes, copying is theft.
Maybe. If the market demands the end of the big movie, great. I don't think anyone will argue that point.
If the market moves that way fairly, then it makes sense. But I'd be surprised if the market moves that way due to theft or "copyright infringement". When anti-competitive trends threaten business, the government usually makes a ruling based on a free market with legal competition. I believe this to be a good thing - do you?
Actually, my respect for Slashdot grows when I get a chance to see opinions like this. When I disagree, I can argue against them. It's better to know where people are coming from, even if you can't be sure of their sincerity, than to avoid their opinions altogether.
Word games are wonderful, are they not? I was convinced that upon copying a movie, you stole my ability to establish a contract with you on fair ground. Certainly, the stolen goods are not tangible, but then, neither is dignity. Ideas do have value - the question is, what value do you place on them?
"When I go to the theatre, I want to pay money to be entertained."
That's really beside the point. You are being offered a license to view a movie for a price. Entertainment isn't guaranteed. If that is too risky a proposition, you need not pay. You may find alternative entertainment. If you view the movie without paying, you have comitted theft, have you not?
Of course you'd be willing to copy a movie that you'd see only once. You're willing to eschew ethics in the absence of law enforcement. And of course, MP3's would be horribly off-topic!;)
Alternatives do exist. There are small budget films. You can wait for films to end up in the bargain bin. You can rent a film with a group of friends to split the costs to a reasonable level.
You can choose other forms of entertainment. You can go to a club and listen to live musicians. You can listen to a radio, you can play your own music. People got by just fine before the wonders of electronics gave entertainers the ability to record performances.
How is the license to watch a film fundamentally different from a burger purchased at McDonald's, when you talk about the rights of the owner? Any time you purchase food at a restaurant, you're taking a risk on the quality of the food. That does not justify the theft of the food, however. Instead, you have the right to not purchase it if eating it is too risky a propostion. You can limit risk by choosing the restaurant, perhaps by avoiding McDonald's altogether.
The thing is, you are likely to be punished for stealing food. People may choose to give it to you for free if you are hungry, as some people recognize your right to avoid hunger. The same can be said of entertainment. But when license is not given freely, you must rely on the charity of others. To do otherwise is to be a parasite, a.k.a. a thief.
Even more interesting, Orwell decided to sell his manuscript, his ideas, using the normal social contract, as opposed to distributing it freely. He did have that option, but chose otherwise. Do you suppose why he did this?
Absolutely. Let's stick to Moral arguments, or at least to Ethics.
Your proposed bargaining position is akin to that of a ransomer. Whether you choose to ransom people, goods, or IP is irrelevant. Ethically, you are not bargaining from a position of good faith. Certainly, from a practical perspective, an anonymous ransomer has a strong position, but certainly the position is not ethical.
The thing is, people are entertained by big budget, overly marketed fiascos. It seems to me that you'd have even less incentive to want to pirate these films - because they aren't "good films". A desire to pirate them would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?
If you want to pay 2 dollars, you have the freedom to attempt to negotiate that price. The theatre owner also has the right to reject your price and offer you another. Capitalism works, and it protects the consumer by providing choice. Anarchy (i.e., indiscriminate theft) works against all, and the average consumer in particular.
"If I buy a license to get a movie, I should not have to pay until after I have seen the movie. Entertainment is not guaranteed, so why should my money be guaranteed?"
I would think because the terms of the contract offered to you permit no other interpretation, should you choose to accept those terms. If you would like to pay after seeing the movie, you have the freedom to negotiate with the service provider for such a contract. The service provider has the right to reject your terms, and may not take money from you illegally.
Slashdot Mirror
FWIW, apparently the Linux kernel has a few design issues with clock-speed switching. Some code depends on the clock frequency for timing features, and doesn't yet have a facility for changing frequencies on the fly. I think I read something about this in kernel traffic a few weeks/months ago.
Now, I'm less certain. Fry's is actually a pretty mediocre geek store - maybe it's better clasified as a pseudo-geek store.
First, Fry's good points:
The downside is that you're still limited to their selection and pricing, which is limited by their business model. To elaborate:
That's pretty much my take. I'm a Pitt EE grad, and things are no better from my perspective. FORE wasn't a sure thing when I graduated, and the rest of the EE & CompEng jobs that I saw were big into industrial controls and the like, which wasn't very interesting to me.
:)
I ended up taking embedded software jobs in Chicago and then San Diego. Pittsburgh has plenty of jobs, but at the time I left, there wasn't anything very interesting available. It's a shame - I've left a lot of family and friends behind, and I've lost my tolerance for cold weather
What kind of Santa ignores a child? He didn't ignore them - he refused to toss candy to them that someone else had paid for. That's a big difference in my book. Santa's just a person, after all. Either way, you don't stone him.
I wonder what China's legal system defines guilt as? It would also be interesting to find out about their rules for introduction of evidence, questioning of witnesses, police procedures, etc.
A lot of the assumptions that I'd make when looking at the original story have a lot to do with the picture of the communist governments that the media has provided. I almost get the picture that that the legal system operates sort of like a military court martial, with a lot more variability on procedures and punishments.
Can anyone speak on this? I found a link on Google to this page that has some analysis that I'm going to look over. I'm not certain that I want to buy completely into a single source - and it is a little dated. Can anyone follow up on this?
Voodoo Extreme had the story around 7:30 PST. They're usually pretty good about major Linux game news, especially for a primarily Windows site.
I guess I find it a little easier to separate the Kirk character from Shatner the actor. Regardless of any respect or affection that I'd feel for the Kirk portrayed early in the ST:TOS, the quality of Shatner's performances in the last several Star Trek films had sunk to the point where I'd rather not hear about Kirk any more.
Perhaps the character will be revisited in the future in interesting performances, and probably more importantly, more interesting stories. I don't think that earlier performances of Shatner justify continually pulling his role out of mothballs.
The story of an aging captain dealing with "retirement" were handled very well in "The Wrath of Khan" and "The Search for Spock". After these films, it almost seems that those issues were forgotten in the interests of milking some more money out of the series. To be sure, "The Voyage Home" was a blast, but the later films seemed to be a little too formulaic.
I don't think I'm alone here, and I don't think that most who share my opinion are showing particularly jaded attitudes. I guess that's enough about that from me - we may just have a fundamental difference of opinion here.
As a tangent, I can understand your concerns about the so-called overacting in the original series (I never really saw "woodeness"). I'd probably be more inclined to attribute that to the show's director (directors?) rather than to Shatner or any of the other actors. Most of the emotional moments on the show were a little heavy on soliloquy (and it worked well, I think).
I don't know if that's due to directing style or as a method to deal with the limits of the studio. There seemed to be some limitations on camerawork and sets for a lot of the in-studio shots. It seems to me that without really immersive sets, the right thing to do is to get up in the characters' faces with still shots, and let them spruce up the dialogue with demonstrative delivery. There's not much point in moving camera angles in featureless gray rooms. I think that some of the planet-bound sets (particular, "City on the Edge of Forever") take some of the pressure off of the individual actors' performances, and let the director weave more interesting scenes.
I wouldn't be surprised if the so called boring, drawn out scense in "Star Trek the Motion Picture" were an overreaction to the limits induced by the original sets. I think it's too bad that that experiment was ruled unsuccessful. With a little judicious editing, I think that movie is among the best Trek ever filmed.
If only it were that simple :)
The ITU is pushing for a WCDMA air interface with GSM-derived protocol (IMT-2000). Their timetable is a year or two later than the US's TIA organization, which is working on 3G standards that will have IS95-like protocol (IS-2000).
However, there are carriers in the U.S. who use the 1900MHz version of GSM today, and some of them will want an upgrade path compatible with their GSM-based networking. So most likely there will be many standards used by different carriers in the U.S.
Sure it's exciting, but can you put one in a cellphone? That sounds like a great set-top-box chip, but probably not a cellphone chip.
Phones have other constraints, like power consumption and cost, that aren't issues in bigger devices.
If the chip goes through your battery in a few minutes, then it's not a useful portable device.
If the chip costs more than the rest of the phone's components combined, you've got a lot of incentive to use a cheaper chip!
If the chip's features require megabytes of RAM & ROM to use them all, and you can make a less exotic phone that uses a fraction of the RAM & ROM, well, you see the point...
I'm talking about theft - you're talking about duplication. I say that's the same thing - you say it isn't.
I'd be surprised if any real ghosts show up, but I wouldn't be very surprised to see people doing the usual sorts of things in front of it. Or doing unusual sorts of things, at least for the location ;)
Unfortunately, an impartial society can't pass judgement on the intangible benefits of what is legally a one-sided exchange, since one party does not consent to it. Money is everthing, at least legally, if that is the coin that the owner chooses to accept.
What power? I choose not to purchase goods from Microsoft? I avoid watching/licensing movies that I do not want to see. We all have choices - nothing has been taken away from us.
You have no freedom to copy, at least neither legally nor ethically. You've signed away nothing. You may copy, but you violate laws and the ethics on which the laws are based.
If you disagree with the ethics, you have the freedom to attempt to change the law. But until the law changes, copying is theft.
Maybe. If the market demands the end of the big movie, great. I don't think anyone will argue that point.
If the market moves that way fairly, then it makes sense. But I'd be surprised if the market moves that way due to theft or "copyright infringement". When anti-competitive trends threaten business, the government usually makes a ruling based on a free market with legal competition. I believe this to be a good thing - do you?
Theft is not ethical, even though it is possible.
Actually, my respect for Slashdot grows when I get a chance to see opinions like this. When I disagree, I can argue against them. It's better to know where people are coming from, even if you can't be sure of their sincerity, than to avoid their opinions altogether.
Word games are wonderful, are they not? I was convinced that upon copying a movie, you stole my ability to establish a contract with you on fair ground. Certainly, the stolen goods are not tangible, but then, neither is dignity. Ideas do have value - the question is, what value do you place on them?
"When I go to the theatre, I want to pay money to be entertained."
That's really beside the point. You are being offered a license to view a movie for a price. Entertainment isn't guaranteed. If that is too risky a proposition, you need not pay. You may find alternative entertainment. If you view the movie without paying, you have comitted theft, have you not?
Of course you'd be willing to copy a movie that you'd see only once. You're willing to eschew ethics in the absence of law enforcement. And of course, MP3's would be horribly off-topic! ;)
Alternatives do exist. There are small budget films. You can wait for films to end up in the bargain bin. You can rent a film with a group of friends to split the costs to a reasonable level.
You can choose other forms of entertainment. You can go to a club and listen to live musicians. You can listen to a radio, you can play your own music. People got by just fine before the wonders of electronics gave entertainers the ability to record performances.
How is the license to watch a film fundamentally different from a burger purchased at McDonald's, when you talk about the rights of the owner? Any time you purchase food at a restaurant, you're taking a risk on the quality of the food. That does not justify the theft of the food, however. Instead, you have the right to not purchase it if eating it is too risky a propostion. You can limit risk by choosing the restaurant, perhaps by avoiding McDonald's altogether.
The thing is, you are likely to be punished for stealing food. People may choose to give it to you for free if you are hungry, as some people recognize your right to avoid hunger. The same can be said of entertainment. But when license is not given freely, you must rely on the charity of others. To do otherwise is to be a parasite, a.k.a. a thief.
Even more interesting, Orwell decided to sell his manuscript, his ideas, using the normal social contract, as opposed to distributing it freely. He did have that option, but chose otherwise. Do you suppose why he did this?
But ethically! Isn't that it's own reward? :)
Absolutely. Let's stick to Moral arguments, or at least to Ethics.
Your proposed bargaining position is akin to that of a ransomer. Whether you choose to ransom people, goods, or IP is irrelevant. Ethically, you are not bargaining from a position of good faith. Certainly, from a practical perspective, an anonymous ransomer has a strong position, but certainly the position is not ethical.
The thing is, people are entertained by big budget, overly marketed fiascos. It seems to me that you'd have even less incentive to want to pirate these films - because they aren't "good films". A desire to pirate them would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?
If you want to pay 2 dollars, you have the freedom to attempt to negotiate that price. The theatre owner also has the right to reject your price and offer you another. Capitalism works, and it protects the consumer by providing choice. Anarchy (i.e., indiscriminate theft) works against all, and the average consumer in particular.
"If I buy a license to get a movie, I should not have to pay until after I have seen the movie. Entertainment is not guaranteed, so why should my money be guaranteed?"
I would think because the terms of the contract offered to you permit no other interpretation, should you choose to accept those terms. If you would like to pay after seeing the movie, you have the freedom to negotiate with the service provider for such a contract. The service provider has the right to reject your terms, and may not take money from you illegally.