Yes, of course. But what makes you think there's any ethics or morality involved here? Both companies would like to gain an unfair advantage and both want to prevent the other from doing so. It's how the system works.
Microsoft's motives should be completely irrelevant to the court.
All the court should care about is whether this venture is legal or not.
No idea why people are so keen on protecting Google though. This looks like they're trying to make a deal with a subset of publishers that will affect everyone, and give Google their own private version of copyright law.
The data transfer rate of a Blu-Ray disc is 54MB/s with maximum AV rate of 48MB/s. Few people need or want multiple lossless audio tracks. Even when they were still using MPEG2 a few titles were using 18MB/s for video. If bandwidth is an issue, the alternative languages and PiP stuff can be sacrificed.
Why do you assume that picture quality will be the first thing to go when clearly it's the most important aspect? Do you really think that the studios are completely ignorant of what the customer wants?
3D will most likely be added to Blu-Ray players and designed to be backwards compatible (I'm sure extra information can be encoded in a video stream even if the extra info is another video stream). This will need to be sent along an HDMI cable to a 3D capable TV. The TV will be able to decide how to handle the signal, and whether it uses a crude red/green filter, or a sophisticated head tracking projector technology, it will be up to the television to handle the display.
There are moves to add 3D support to Blu-ray. For now they just want to sell you a new TV. Selling you a new DVD player will wait for the next tech cycle.
My next comment is that I believe that people deserve to get compensated for their work. If you can't come around on that point, then there's not much else I can say to convince you of anything. You see, I believe that the idea that people should get compensated for their work is concept that average person would agree with. I believe that DRM has, up to this point, been a very poor execution of that concept.
I see this view as a little oversimplisitc. The fact is, people don't get compensated for their work. My 5 hour rap opera that I spent the last 4 years writing isn't going to make me rich. Stock, Aitkin and Waterman spend 40 minutes writing I Should Be So Lucky and made a fortune. Marketers and distributors make a decent amount from movies even though their creative input to the actual product was zero.
It's nice to have a system that encourages people to produce art. I don't see it as a reward for the artist. It's simply a carrot to encourage it for the benefit of all of us.
Don't really have a disagreement with the rest of your post. Just thought this was a little simplistic.
So that would work out to about $3 per copy of an infringed song, which is roughly triple damages, which, I understand, is typically for wilful infringement.
The law is reasonable. Applying it to non-commercial infringement isn't.
It's legal to tie someone up and throw them into the back of your car (assuming you have their permission). It's even legal to stage an armed robbery, as long as all concerned are aware it's staged. If most people saw ether of these happening, they'll call the police.
Someone is carrying what appears to be a huge gun in the street. This is not something you see every day. People who exercise their rights to open carry are usually at least slightly discreet and are typically dressed differently. Are they immediately meant to assume that this is just some Bungie employee taking a replica prop back to the office? It's not something that seems immediately obvious to me.
It's a game studio, not a movie studio. It looks like an office. The workers look like any workers of any other tech company. The place will look fairly normal. They don't have a lot of props.
I don't know what the legal system is like in NZ, but if it's anything like in the US, the vast majority of the settlement went to the lawyers, making the whole suit primarily a matter of principle.
Most of the world is a little different. Usually the system is loser pays. So the plaintiff can get damages and get the guilty party to pay for the fact that she had to sue them
Sorry, I'm just nitpicking the argument here. I'm not sure why it matters whether non-payment is a crime. Of course it is. But non-payment of any bill is a crime. It's nothing special about the TV licence. In that respect I don't see it as different from groceries. Not paying for them is a crime as well, and the government will punish you for it.
Certainly it's legally a tax and goes through the government but the fact that non-payment is a crime doesn't strike me as relevant.
I was responding to the statement of your GP, viz. "the government is not involved in the collection of the license [sic] fee", which is demonstrably false
Only in the same way that the government is involved in the collection of all other bills.
Also, the licence fee ends up in the Government's Consolidated Fund, which is then disbursed to the BBC as the Government has deemed necessary.
Indeed, but that's not a point you made.
Also, just because you brought it up: do you disagree that not paying the television licence fee is a crime? I would love to hear your justification for that one.
I believe that laws have been passed by a legitimately elected government that make it a crime. Society has deemed it useful to have a publicly funded broadcaster, and the way to fund this is to have a payment from those who use the service. People are not forced to pay this since nobody is forcing them top own a television.
No. You'll pay a fine. The government won't even prosecute you. |it will be a private prosecution by TV Licensing.
Not that I see your point. The government sets the amount Taxis are allowed to charge and if you don't pay for a taxi journey then you'll be charged with a crime by the government.
Why does a computer care how many megabytes or kibibytes it has internally? My computer knows it has 1073741824 bytes of memory. This is represented internally as (presumably) 32 binary bits. It also knows it has a hard drive of somewhere in the region of 80000000000 bytes. This is stored in (presumably) as 64 binary bits or a table containing an assortment of values that can calculate this.
The only time we want to divide by 10 is when we're displaying the result, and since we're converting to base 10 anyway, we're doing that division for every single digit. When we're looking at output, the extra cost of doing those divisions is pretty insignificant.
If he's the Scrum master then that's what he should do. I certainly will. Except all he need to do is say that they need to talk about it after the standup.
Since in this case they're fairly senior, that's not a problem. Even if they are, the difference in rank is small. An intern is not going to be in the same scrum as senior management.
A scrum master is not a manager. He's only mean to organise a handful of meetings and deal with impediments. These should not take any significant time.
And the second you have an "if" in GPU code, everything grinds to a halt. Conditions effectively break the GPU SIMD (single instruction multiple data) model and bring the pipeline to a halt.
This isn't totally accurate. Generally conditions are handled by conditional writeback. You simply ignore the result if the test fails. You effectively have to perform both branches of a condition so there's a performance hit over a CPU there but "if(x 0){x = -x)" isn't going to hurt your performance.
Yes. I can't imagine it would be worth it for businesses. You're spending a lot of cash on something that may well go to fairly junior employees who have no access to any information of any importance. Even if the Governor himself gets one, you can't be sure that he'll use it for anything that will be of any value to a third party.
A foreign government might be willing to splash out this sort of cash but I wonder how interested they are in individual state politics.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, of course. But what makes you think there's any ethics or morality involved here? Both companies would like to gain an unfair advantage and both want to prevent the other from doing so. It's how the system works.
Microsoft's motives should be completely irrelevant to the court.
All the court should care about is whether this venture is legal or not.
No idea why people are so keen on protecting Google though. This looks like they're trying to make a deal with a subset of publishers that will affect everyone, and give Google their own private version of copyright law.
The data transfer rate of a Blu-Ray disc is 54MB/s with maximum AV rate of 48MB/s. Few people need or want multiple lossless audio tracks. Even when they were still using MPEG2 a few titles were using 18MB/s for video. If bandwidth is an issue, the alternative languages and PiP stuff can be sacrificed.
Why do you assume that picture quality will be the first thing to go when clearly it's the most important aspect? Do you really think that the studios are completely ignorant of what the customer wants?
Okay... I think Metropolis might have been the wrong movie to try this with.
Precious? I thought most Blu-rays only used a third of the available bandwidth.
3D will most likely be added to Blu-Ray players and designed to be backwards compatible (I'm sure extra information can be encoded in a video stream even if the extra info is another video stream). This will need to be sent along an HDMI cable to a 3D capable TV. The TV will be able to decide how to handle the signal, and whether it uses a crude red/green filter, or a sophisticated head tracking projector technology, it will be up to the television to handle the display.
There are moves to add 3D support to Blu-ray. For now they just want to sell you a new TV. Selling you a new DVD player will wait for the next tech cycle.
My next comment is that I believe that people deserve to get compensated for their work. If you can't come around on that point, then there's not much else I can say to convince you of anything. You see, I believe that the idea that people should get compensated for their work is concept that average person would agree with. I believe that DRM has, up to this point, been a very poor execution of that concept.
I see this view as a little oversimplisitc. The fact is, people don't get compensated for their work. My 5 hour rap opera that I spent the last 4 years writing isn't going to make me rich. Stock, Aitkin and Waterman spend 40 minutes writing I Should Be So Lucky and made a fortune. Marketers and distributors make a decent amount from movies even though their creative input to the actual product was zero.
It's nice to have a system that encourages people to produce art. I don't see it as a reward for the artist. It's simply a carrot to encourage it for the benefit of all of us.
Don't really have a disagreement with the rest of your post. Just thought this was a little simplistic.
So that would work out to about $3 per copy of an infringed song, which is roughly triple damages, which, I understand, is typically for wilful infringement.
The law is reasonable. Applying it to non-commercial infringement isn't.
I've worked for several games companies. Not one of them required physical props.
Also, how would you know you were near Bungie studios? I imagine it's a pretty nondescript office building.
It's all about what you might reasonably expect.
It's legal to tie someone up and throw them into the back of your car (assuming you have their permission). It's even legal to stage an armed robbery, as long as all concerned are aware it's staged. If most people saw ether of these happening, they'll call the police.
Someone is carrying what appears to be a huge gun in the street. This is not something you see every day. People who exercise their rights to open carry are usually at least slightly discreet and are typically dressed differently. Are they immediately meant to assume that this is just some Bungie employee taking a replica prop back to the office? It's not something that seems immediately obvious to me.
It's a game studio, not a movie studio. It looks like an office. The workers look like any workers of any other tech company. The place will look fairly normal. They don't have a lot of props.
How are you going to organise a sufficient boycott that they'll notice? I can't be bothered joining and I'm aware of the issues.
I can see the Today Programme interview with the PRS (UK RIAA) now
The PRS are closer to ASCAP. The closest UK analogy to the RIAA is the BPI.
Not that any of you insensitive jerks remembered.
I don't know what the legal system is like in NZ, but if it's anything like in the US, the vast majority of the settlement went to the lawyers, making the whole suit primarily a matter of principle.
Most of the world is a little different. Usually the system is loser pays. So the plaintiff can get damages and get the guilty party to pay for the fact that she had to sue them
Sorry, I'm just nitpicking the argument here. I'm not sure why it matters whether non-payment is a crime. Of course it is. But non-payment of any bill is a crime. It's nothing special about the TV licence. In that respect I don't see it as different from groceries. Not paying for them is a crime as well, and the government will punish you for it.
Certainly it's legally a tax and goes through the government but the fact that non-payment is a crime doesn't strike me as relevant.
I was responding to the statement of your GP, viz. "the government is not involved in the collection of the license [sic] fee", which is demonstrably false
Only in the same way that the government is involved in the collection of all other bills.
Also, the licence fee ends up in the Government's Consolidated Fund, which is then disbursed to the BBC as the Government has deemed necessary.
Indeed, but that's not a point you made.
Also, just because you brought it up: do you disagree that not paying the television licence fee is a crime? I would love to hear your justification for that one.
I believe that laws have been passed by a legitimately elected government that make it a crime. Society has deemed it useful to have a publicly funded broadcaster, and the way to fund this is to have a payment from those who use the service. People are not forced to pay this since nobody is forcing them top own a television.
No. You'll pay a fine. The government won't even prosecute you. |it will be a private prosecution by TV Licensing.
Not that I see your point. The government sets the amount Taxis are allowed to charge and if you don't pay for a taxi journey then you'll be charged with a crime by the government.
Seems strange that Dell are the one's we should be concerned about. They must ship enough units that cost per unit for testing a new image is trivial.
Why does a computer care how many megabytes or kibibytes it has internally? My computer knows it has 1073741824 bytes of memory. This is represented internally as (presumably) 32 binary bits. It also knows it has a hard drive of somewhere in the region of 80000000000 bytes. This is stored in (presumably) as 64 binary bits or a table containing an assortment of values that can calculate this.
The only time we want to divide by 10 is when we're displaying the result, and since we're converting to base 10 anyway, we're doing that division for every single digit. When we're looking at output, the extra cost of doing those divisions is pretty insignificant.
If he's the Scrum master then that's what he should do. I certainly will. Except all he need to do is say that they need to talk about it after the standup.
Since in this case they're fairly senior, that's not a problem. Even if they are, the difference in rank is small. An intern is not going to be in the same scrum as senior management.
A scrum master is not a manager. He's only mean to organise a handful of meetings and deal with impediments. These should not take any significant time.
And the second you have an "if" in GPU code, everything grinds to a halt. Conditions effectively break the GPU SIMD (single instruction multiple data) model and bring the pipeline to a halt.
This isn't totally accurate. Generally conditions are handled by conditional writeback. You simply ignore the result if the test fails. You effectively have to perform both branches of a condition so there's a performance hit over a CPU there but "if(x 0){x = -x)" isn't going to hurt your performance.
Yes. I can't imagine it would be worth it for businesses. You're spending a lot of cash on something that may well go to fairly junior employees who have no access to any information of any importance. Even if the Governor himself gets one, you can't be sure that he'll use it for anything that will be of any value to a third party.
A foreign government might be willing to splash out this sort of cash but I wonder how interested they are in individual state politics.