In fact speach isn't even required to have language and culture, as evidenced by the various deaf groups that have risen though out time. Somthing else, much more important than the ability to make sounds, is required for human language.
"First, they decided to see if they could recreate on a PC the gaming industry's biggest hit at the time, Super Mario Brothers 3. This two-dimensional game ran on the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, which drove a regular television screen."
If they can't even get that right, how am I to believe what they say about frame buffering, Hmmmmmmmmmm?????
And forget the whole MP3 thing entirely. Frankly I think the ATRAC3 format is better quality, they're hell of a lot cheaper as far as media storage goes (you can pick up a minidisc for less than a buck)
Where they lack is in data transfer rates (at max 16x on lp4 from computer to MD and you have to go analog if you want to drop stuff back to a computer).
If you're just in it for music get a nomad. If you like quality or want to record get a minidisc recorder.
It's fair, but uninformative.
on
Going Up?
·
· Score: 1
"What if lighting strikes it?
The best way to deal with lightning is to avoid it hence the proposed location of the ribbon is in an area that receives little to no lightning."
That's a pretty good impersonation of a political waffel. Answering the question by avoiding it.
"It's a small thing really but what could it lead to if it's given the blessing and allowed to continue?"
Such a resulting scenario is so far down the line and the result of so many other "what ifs" that it is equivocal to not going outside because you might be run over by a truck full of migrant workings hired to pick peaches.
Besides something rings untrue about taking away other people's rights to protect your own (Given both rights being equal, of course. In this case your right to watch the R rated version, their right to watch an E rated version)
"It's censorship if you're allowed to publish an edited version of our movie, and not censorship if you are forcibly unable to publish said edited version."
Or even more so, our fundemental basis of preceving objective reality, rests in our own fundemental preceptions.
Wittgenstein and Kant touched on this a lot without even brining up the question of alien life. (Kant in the basis of objective preception and Wittgenstein in language games..)
It's an question of wheter our view of the universe is determined by the universe, or by our own structure (both mentaly/socialy and biologicaly)
Where we might see patterns and distingushing things on the basis of shading textature and space (It's a question of how a person ultimately distingusihes a vase from the table top it is on.) another "creature" may have a completely differnt methodolgy that we would fundementaly preceive as random.
An even greater question that rises is wheter the universe is "truely" reduciable to the base parts and laws and probablities that we and our instruments sugest it to be, or wheter our objective "reality" is no more real then the fairy tails we tell ourselves about the world as children.
This is not to say we question reality or our findings. Only that we question wheter our finds are universaly true and only understandable in our limited manner.
It was only a matter of time when the programmers of the ill faded art of p2p network coding died.
Odd, I didn't catch that in the obituaries. Where they all at an ill fated convention?
Is it really that usefull to leave your station on 24/7?
This is an honest question, not ment as a jab.
Sure people who run servers and actualy run usefull background processes 24/7, I can easily understand the attraction of uptime.
But if you're not doing those things (and many aren't) what's the point of keeping your comptuer on while you sleep?
Unless the answer is along the lines of "when I get up in the morning I don't want to wait for the kernel to boot." That I can fully understand. What with me being an American and wanting to have what I want now 10 minutes ago.
No, no, no.. rebooting is bad for the environment. You see while it only takes a little electricity to sustain a computer, it takes quite a bit more to "reboot" it. Why almost a 1/100 of a penny more. And that's 1/100 of a penny that could be going to save the panda's foundation.
So you see, uptime is good for pandas....for their foundation....
yes.
Sounds like typical NPR retoric
on
Blogspace vs. NPR
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
These are the same people who lobbied congress with Clear Channel when the FCC was going to open up short range radio channels for public use. (Schools, community centers, public groups would be able to transmit low power FM frequencies, so your town city or whatever could put up it's own public radio station.) NPR didn't speak up when the FCC was holding hearings asking for comments and conducting studies, they waited until after the FCC had made up it's mind to grant the frequencies, and then cried wolf, saying that they'd interfer with NPR's. The FCC said too little too late, and pointed to studies that were conducted showing contrary to NPR's unbased claim. So NPR lobbied congress and got them to stop the FCC.
NPR has always been a control freak. There's nothing new about that.
It's about giving the source with the binary. Free has nothing to do with it.
Sure, Wallmart could go burn themselves an iso and install it on all their computers, but chances are they're paying Mandrake somewhere between $5 and $10 per computer sold. Which is why Mandrake is supporting them. (both in a technical and a "moral" sense)
The law is a county law and perfectly legitimate. Bare in mind "government" just doesn't mean the Government of the United States of America, nor does it merly mean the Government of the State of ___. It also applies to even smaller divisions of people, even to the point of town ordinances. Some aren't legally binding as the next level up (city or state or national or whatever) laws supercede them.
In this case the government (the local government) *has* made rules about spending money on Microsoft products, that is to say, products that are produced by a company convicted of an anti-trust violation.
Same with any other company.
The law is constitutional (though could be challenged) as there is nothing unconstitutional about setting forth laws governing purchasing requirements.
Now of course, this is a single county, and the law is probably quite old, heralding from the Rockefeller days (total shot in the dark, just an unfounded assumption) Possibly it's not paid attention to anymore. Still it is a law, and if enough people in that county bring it to attention the county will either follow it, or revoke it.
But again, it's a single county. And quite possibly it might only mean that one can't buy products from Microsoft (not retailers) which makes it a moot point anyways. (I haven't read the law, as I can't access it). Either way it still won't have much effect on the rest of the world.
At least if they see this as a good thing. The whole reason that they originally said they needed DRM was because not enough people were adopting broadband, and it still remains one of their key arguments.
Now if the cap is only on uploads, then that's something different. If it's not they're being contradictory by saying they want to stream people movies and that capping broad band is a good thing.
The value is in a few things. But the most obvious (at face) is syndication and reruns. If such "popular" episodes are freely available elsewhere then they stand to lose revenue when they air that old episode of CSI because less people are likely to watch it (as they can get it else where) and advertisers aren't going to pay top dollar for a spot they know few are going to see. Effectively this kills the whole method of TV production as it stands now. (Consider how much out there *is* reruns). No one wants to (or even can I believe) come out with hit show after hit show, which is what would effectively have to happen for people to keep up with TV.
Of course, all this is bullshit at the moment. Few have the bandwidth (and far fewer the inclination) to digitize the shows they watch and make them available to the general public. But then, the network execs aren't planning for now, they're planning for days ahead. They see what things like Napster have done to the music industry and don't want it happening to them. (Let's leave out the side comments about how Napster and other programs "help" the music industry.. I don't think anyone has the honest facts on that, and besides this is all about perception.)
Eventually, if one takes the slippery slope down the road of enlightenment, what we'll all end up with is extremely watered down TV.
Napster's primary purpose was the transfer of person X's files to person Y. It was also quite obvious that Napster was primarily used for sending and receiving copyrighted files.
A ReplayTV 4000's primary purpose is to record broadcasts, just like a VCR, only digital (and all the benefits and detriments that go with digital media). It also has a secondary purpose to transmit shows to other ReplayTV's (let's leave aside the programs that let you mask as one for now).
Putting aside the question as to whether it's legal to send a friend a show you taped (via a cassette or a file transfer), consider that my ReplayTV will record a single hour of law and order at high quality at 2.4gb. Given that most broadband users have a caped upload on their cable modem (say 20kb ), consider how long it's going to take to propagate that file to 10 other people. Even in ideal settings (the college student with unlimited broadband who hosts a bunch of crap) the file is going to transfer *slower* then it would be to actually tape it to a VCR and give it to a friend.
One can mention things like DIVX compression schemes and the like. But they have nothing to do with Sonic Blue's DVRs. If you're going to bring up Napster and draw comparisons then you should consider how prolific piracy would have been on it had people been sharing 100meg wav files, and not 4meg mp3s.
What this comes down to is the Industry wanting to control technology. They want Sonic Blue (in the very least) to cease using a standard technology (TCP/IP) in their product.
"Simply because it's complicated doesn't mean it's not worth the effort. Wouldn't the same semantics problems be part of any law? Eventually, the law works out an appropriate set of boundaries and definitions"
Oh, I certianly agree. My point is just that, in fact. Making personal information into personal property is just a semantic change. It's a useful metahpor to explain what our goal is, and what corperations should and shouldn't be able to do with our information, but it's not a useful as far as implementation goes, in fact, it's counter productive because it requrires us to first explain how personal information is property, and then explain how it's differnt from other kinds of property, and then explain what our and other's rights are to that property. Instead we should simply say what personal information is, and then explain what our and other's rights are to it.
From a metaphorical point of view, explaining personal information as personal property is quite benificial.
From a leagal and practical point of view, it only adds unessacary steps.
And yeah, I'm just saying this cause I like to type, and hear what other people have to say. I like ideas esp. ones I don't complete agree with. =]
Ah. That's a bit more defining. Thanks for the clarification, however, the questions of implementation are still raised. Specifically, what's personal information? Your address your income your favorite color? There's still a rather large issue trying to define what's what.
*shrug* There's two sides to every coin. If such personal information (leaving aside what "personal information" is )considered "private" property then what exactly is public record, or for that matter any such information about X person. The litigation and issues that would stem from such a construct would be pretty damaging.
Esp. considering that corporations are considered a person under the law. Frankly I want to be able to investigate the shit they pull without being sued.
Now sure, one can make addendums and changes to differentiate and avoid such pitfalls, but why go with such a method in the first place when we have perfectly good privacy law. (That is to say we have a system set up where we can achieve the same goal but without creating new complications, not that our privacy law is adequate as it stands. )
Slashdot Mirror
In fact speach isn't even required to have language and culture, as evidenced by the various deaf groups that have risen though out time.
Somthing else, much more important than the ability to make sounds, is required for human language.
I feel bad, as I only point out the errors of others to create a superficial ego for my inadequacy as a human being.
Besides, I ran out of pie.
"First, they decided to see if they could recreate on a PC the gaming industry's biggest hit at the time, Super Mario Brothers 3. This two-dimensional game ran on the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, which drove a regular television screen."
If they can't even get that right, how am I to believe what they say about frame buffering, Hmmmmmmmmmm?????
I'm going to go get some pie instead.
And forget the whole MP3 thing entirely. Frankly I think the ATRAC3 format is better quality, they're hell of a lot cheaper as far as media storage goes (you can pick up a minidisc for less than a buck)
Where they lack is in data transfer rates (at max 16x on lp4 from computer to MD and you have to go analog if you want to drop stuff back to a computer).
If you're just in it for music get a nomad.
If you like quality or want to record get a minidisc recorder.
"What if lighting strikes it?
The best way to deal with lightning is to avoid it hence the proposed location of the ribbon is in an area that receives little to no lightning."
That's a pretty good impersonation of a political waffel. Answering the question by avoiding it.
Or is it just me?
"It's a small thing really but what could it lead to if it's given the blessing and allowed to continue?"
Such a resulting scenario is so far down the line and the result of so many other "what ifs" that it is equivocal to not going outside because you might be run over by a truck full of migrant workings hired to pick peaches.
Besides something rings untrue about taking away other people's rights to protect your own (Given both rights being equal, of course. In this case your right to watch the R rated version, their right to watch an E rated version)
"It's censorship if you're allowed to publish an edited version of our movie, and not censorship if you are forcibly unable to publish said edited version."
Bravo.
Related Quotes
Quotes delayed 20+ minutes
I love the fact that CALDERA is up six cents =]
INTL BUSINESS MACHINES IBM 67.26 -0.49
INTEL CORP INTC 16.83 -0.30
MICROSOFT CORP MSFT 45.52 -0.15
CALDERA INTERNATIONAL INC CALD 1.16 0.06
RED HAT INC RHAT 4.62 -0.02
SUN MICROSYSTEMS SUNW 3.75 -0.03
I like Microoft.
Good onomonopia
It can't be as bad as its wooden actors.
Or even more so, our fundemental basis of preceving objective reality, rests in our own fundemental preceptions.
Wittgenstein and Kant touched on this a lot without even brining up the question of alien life. (Kant in the basis of objective preception and Wittgenstein in language games..)
It's an question of wheter our view of the universe is determined by the universe, or by our own structure (both mentaly/socialy and biologicaly)
Where we might see patterns and distingushing things on the basis of shading textature and space (It's a question of how a person ultimately distingusihes a vase from the table top it is on.) another "creature" may have a completely differnt methodolgy that we would fundementaly preceive as random.
An even greater question that rises is wheter the universe is "truely" reduciable to the base parts and laws and probablities that we and our instruments sugest it to be, or wheter our objective "reality" is no more real then the fairy tails we tell ourselves about the world as children.
This is not to say we question reality or our findings. Only that we question wheter our finds are universaly true and only understandable in our limited manner.
It was only a matter of time when the programmers of the ill faded art of p2p network coding died.
Odd, I didn't catch that in the obituaries.
Where they all at an ill fated convention?
Is it really that usefull to leave your station on 24/7?
This is an honest question, not ment as a jab.
Sure people who run servers and actualy run usefull background processes 24/7, I can easily understand the attraction of uptime.
But if you're not doing those things (and many aren't) what's the point of keeping your comptuer on while you sleep?
Unless the answer is along the lines of "when I get up in the morning I don't want to wait for the kernel to boot." That I can fully understand. What with me being an American and wanting to have what I want now 10 minutes ago.
No, no, no.. rebooting is bad for the environment. You see while it only takes a little electricity to sustain a computer, it takes quite a bit more to "reboot" it. Why almost a 1/100 of a penny more. And that's 1/100 of a penny that could be going to save the panda's foundation.
...for their foundation. ...
So you see, uptime is good for pandas.
yes.
These are the same people who lobbied congress with Clear Channel when the FCC was going to open up short range radio channels for public use. (Schools, community centers, public groups would be able to transmit low power FM frequencies, so your town city or whatever could put up it's own public radio station.)
NPR didn't speak up when the FCC was holding hearings asking for comments and conducting studies, they waited until after the FCC had made up it's mind to grant the frequencies, and then cried wolf, saying that they'd interfer with NPR's. The FCC said too little too late, and pointed to studies that were conducted showing contrary to NPR's unbased claim. So NPR lobbied congress and got them to stop the FCC.
NPR has always been a control freak. There's nothing new about that.
It's about giving the source with the binary.
Free has nothing to do with it.
Sure, Wallmart could go burn themselves an iso and install it on all their computers, but chances are they're paying Mandrake somewhere between $5 and $10 per computer sold. Which is why Mandrake is supporting them. (both in a technical and a "moral" sense)
The law is a county law and perfectly legitimate. Bare in mind "government" just doesn't mean the Government of the United States of America, nor does it merly mean the Government of the State of ___. It also applies to even smaller divisions of people, even to the point of town ordinances. Some aren't legally binding as the next level up (city or state or national or whatever) laws supercede them.
In this case the government (the local government) *has* made rules about spending money on Microsoft products, that is to say, products that are produced by a company convicted of an anti-trust violation.
Same with any other company.
The law is constitutional (though could be challenged) as there is nothing unconstitutional about setting forth laws governing purchasing requirements.
Now of course, this is a single county, and the law is probably quite old, heralding from the Rockefeller days (total shot in the dark, just an unfounded assumption) Possibly it's not paid attention to anymore. Still it is a law, and if enough people in that county bring it to attention the county will either follow it, or revoke it.
But again, it's a single county. And quite possibly it might only mean that one can't buy products from Microsoft (not retailers) which makes it a moot point anyways. (I haven't read the law, as I can't access it). Either way it still won't have much effect on the rest of the world.
At least if they see this as a good thing.
The whole reason that they originally said they needed DRM was because not enough people were adopting broadband, and it still remains one of their key arguments.
Now if the cap is only on uploads, then that's something different. If it's not they're being contradictory by saying they want to stream people movies and that capping broad band is a good thing.
Yes, but you read slashdot, and that more than makes up for your daily suply of degeneration.
The value is in a few things. But the most obvious (at face) is syndication and reruns. If such "popular" episodes are freely available elsewhere then they stand to lose revenue when they air that old episode of CSI because less people are likely to watch it (as they can get it else where) and advertisers aren't going to pay top dollar for a spot they know few are going to see.
Effectively this kills the whole method of TV production as it stands now. (Consider how much out there *is* reruns).
No one wants to (or even can I believe) come out with hit show after hit show, which is what would effectively have to happen for people to keep up with TV.
Of course, all this is bullshit at the moment. Few have the bandwidth (and far fewer the inclination) to digitize the shows they watch and make them available to the general public. But then, the network execs aren't planning for now, they're planning for days ahead. They see what things like Napster have done to the music industry and don't want it happening to them. (Let's leave out the side comments about how Napster and other programs "help" the music industry.. I don't think anyone has the honest facts on that, and besides this is all about perception.)
Eventually, if one takes the slippery slope down the road of enlightenment, what we'll all end up with is extremely watered down TV.
No.
They can't charge for the wave lengths that they transmit television on anymore than Clear Channel can charge for it's radio waves.
They don't own them, the government does, and it granted them use of such airwaves for the good of the public.
If the FCC considers this public faith broken, it can take those rights away.
Napster's primary purpose was the transfer of person X's files to person Y. It was also quite obvious that Napster was primarily used for sending and receiving copyrighted files.
A ReplayTV 4000's primary purpose is to record broadcasts, just like a VCR, only digital (and all the benefits and detriments that go with digital media). It also has a secondary purpose to transmit shows to other ReplayTV's (let's leave aside the programs that let you mask as one for now).
Putting aside the question as to whether it's legal to send a friend a show you taped (via a cassette or a file transfer), consider that my ReplayTV will record a single hour of law and order at high quality at 2.4gb. Given that most broadband users have a caped upload on their cable modem (say 20kb ), consider how long it's going to take to propagate that file to 10 other people.
Even in ideal settings (the college student with unlimited broadband who hosts a bunch of crap) the file is going to transfer *slower* then it would be to actually tape it to a VCR and give it to a friend.
One can mention things like DIVX compression schemes and the like. But they have nothing to do with Sonic Blue's DVRs. If you're going to bring up Napster and draw comparisons then you should consider how prolific piracy would have been on it had people been sharing 100meg wav files, and not 4meg mp3s.
What this comes down to is the Industry wanting to control technology. They want Sonic Blue (in the very least) to cease using a standard technology (TCP/IP) in their product.
"Simply because it's complicated doesn't mean it's not worth the effort. Wouldn't the same semantics problems be part of any law? Eventually, the law works out an appropriate set of boundaries and definitions"
Oh, I certianly agree. My point is just that, in fact. Making personal information into personal property is just a semantic change.
It's a useful metahpor to explain what our goal is, and what corperations should and shouldn't be able to do with our information, but it's not a useful as far as implementation goes, in fact, it's counter productive because it requrires us to first explain how personal information is property, and then explain how it's differnt from other kinds of property, and then explain what our and other's rights are to that property. Instead we should simply say what personal information is, and then explain what our and other's rights are to it.
From a metaphorical point of view, explaining personal information as personal property is quite benificial.
From a leagal and practical point of view, it only adds unessacary steps.
And yeah, I'm just saying this cause I like to type, and hear what other people have to say. I like ideas esp. ones I don't complete agree with. =]
Ah. That's a bit more defining.
Thanks for the clarification, however, the questions of implementation are still raised. Specifically, what's personal information? Your address your income your favorite color? There's still a rather large issue trying to define what's what.
*shrug* There's two sides to every coin. If such personal information (leaving aside what "personal information" is )considered "private" property then what exactly is public record, or for that matter any such information about X person. The litigation and issues that would stem from such a construct would be pretty damaging.
Esp. considering that corporations are considered a person under the law. Frankly I want to be able to investigate the shit they pull without being sued.
Now sure, one can make addendums and changes to differentiate and avoid such pitfalls, but why go with such a method in the first place when we have perfectly good privacy law. (That is to say we have a system set up where we can achieve the same goal but without creating new complications, not that our privacy law is adequate as it stands. )