Imagine how well this thing could play Duke Nukem Forever ?!?! When does that game come out?;-)
Actually, this will be the "minimum requirements" to play DMF by the time it comes out. Obviously you need more RAM if you want to experience the advanced features...
Just wait for the new Viagra technologies slashdot articles.
1. Most/.ers are too young to worry about Viagra. 2. Most/.ers are too single to worry about Viagra.
Using a very special algorerythem (patent pending, tm, etc.) I have determined that: A. There are 12 married/.ers over 40, B. Four married posters under 40 B. Two guys that are dating (not each other) C. Two girls who reads Slashdot.
Of course, some AC posts might be from people who really do have accounts, so these numbers may be inflated.
If I remember right, there was some controversy with Oracle considering a dual core as two cpus, and they backed off. If we see 4 or more cores, the need for multiple sockets goes down, and I just wonder if MS will reconsider this licensing to prevent "lost revenue".
Unplugging/Plugging a PS/2 MOUSE can damage a system, but keyboards don't use PS/2 ports, just the same DIN plugs. The actual physical port/hardware is very different than an actual PS/2 (ie: ibm style) port.
I have plugged and unplugged keyboards all day long on many a server and computer and have never had a problem. I would never do that with a PS/2 mouse, however.
Actually it sounds like truth in advertising. StopBadware.org has clearly stated that their goal is to make it known what software does bad things, and list those things that it does, and what the software makers can do to NOT be listed as 'badware'. If AOL Free version does these things, then it should be listed.
All I see is StopBadware doing what they said they would do, no matter who it is, or who owns what. This is a good thing. Anything less would mean NO ONE could trust StopBadware.org.
For news or parody yes. For satire, sometimes. Using public figures (president, congressman, etc.) has generally been considered always ok. Using Tom Cruise's face to make fun of Scientology may be fun, and legal, but it will likely get you sued into oblivion simply because they have more money than you do.
Using it to sell your own product, however, is definately a no no. Again, the target or context is what makes it legal or not. The fact that you used the photo doesn't.
Some courts are leaning toward the idea that a celebrities "image" is copyright protected. That gets very borderline, and would not only stop you from using a photo you took on your vacation on your personal webpage, but almost stops NEWS from publishing images as well, without paying royalties.
And if I cover a song at a party with an admission, I'm selling something I don't own, nor do I have permission from the artist or any artist's representative.
In America, it is covered by paying royalties to the licensing agency, usually BMI or ASCAP. This is paid by EVERY night club and radio station. The fact that a small place gets away with it for a while or not is not relevent to the fact that it IS the law, and a system has existed to cover this for many decades. Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As to your other points, you are simply being contrary when you speak of US laws and acts not done on US soil. The discussion wasn't about what I personally thought, it was about the current law in the US. In this matter, I have a degree of experience that you are probably not aware of. Again, just because you disagree, or you are not aware of the systems and laws, that doesn't mean they don't exist.
The fact that he gets permission is a courtasy, to stay in good graces. It is NOT a legal requirement. If he didn't, he would still be legally able to do so, then, they would likely sue him, and after a long legal battle, he would win. He has just decided to get permission ahead of time to make life easier, not because the law requires it.
Just because they claim they are legal in the US (and no one agrees) doesn't mean it is legal. As a matter of fact, it is clearly infringement in virtually everyone's eyes except your, allofmp3.com, and their customers who don't really care. It is even threatening Russia's acceptance into the WTO. It is a simple case of Russia saying "Fuck America, we want the tax dollars this generates".
This isn't P2P sharing, this is selling something they don't own.
An example in a nutshell: The Michael Jackson song "Bad". Weird Al makes a song called "Fat" that is similar to the song "Bad" to make fun of the song "Bad" itself. That is parody.
Now pretend you and I use the same song "Bad" to make fun of George Bush, or IBM, or Microsoft or something EXCEPT the original song/artist/concept itself. That is satire. The song "Bad" is no longer the thing we are making fun of, we are just using it for another purpose. This is NOT fair use.
The difference is the target, not the vehicle. And yes, sometimes it gets cloudy, and what it is your are making fun of may not always be clear. Whether Wikipedia sees it this way, in a court of law (from my limited experience) this is how it is defined.
Or to make it shorter: It is Fair Use to use a copyrighted item to make fun the of the same copyrighted item (parody), but not Fair Use to use a copyrighted item to make fun of something else (satire).
Satire is NOT covered under Fair Use. Parody is covered. (ie: You can use Barney to make fun of Barney, but not to make fun of something else.) This is why many [company]sucks.org websites use parody as a means to protest against a company, as it is a well tested Fair Use exception.
Using the images of the copyright holder is considered Fair Use if it does not reduce their ability to make a profit (ie: you are giving away an image they charge for) or cause confusion about the intent of what you are doing (reasonable person wouldn't think that it is BARNEY who is saying he is the antichrist).
Changing the image of the copyright holder for the parody, or simply mocking up your own image based on their trademark or copyright is better/safer. The more of the copyrighted material you use in the parody, the closer you get to infringement. The fine line between parody and libel is sometimes up to courts to decide.
IANAL, but deal with this enough, and while there are exceptions, and anyone can sue you even when you are in the right, this is a rough guideline.
What pisses me off is/. didn't link to the site, and the article didn't link to it either. Either they are all afraid of getting sued, or they don't want me to SEE the actual site and make up my own mind whether the site is "parody" (fair use), "satire" (not fair use) or something else.
I did finally find it at this address and did a whois to make sure the domain is owned by Stuart Frankel. Not much here except some dead links (other threatened sites?) and what appears to be Fair Use to me, but IANAL.
You can't label every little thing, so unless there is a provable health reason to do so, labels should not be required.
I'm all for cloned beef, but I would demand proper labelling. Some people do not want to eat animals that have had growth harmones, or GM crops. They may not want to eat cloned cows. Personally, none of it bothers me, but still people have the right to KNOW where their food comes from, and they can make their own choices. ie: let the marketplace decide. Obviously, it would be REQUIRED for most exported foods anyway.
I don't need to know how many grams of protein or fat are in my steak, but I respect the right of others to know if the steak came from an "alternative" cow.
But the questions are: value to who, and who gets to profit from it? If I had the foresight to register "buy.com" many years ago, and someone wanted to give me $1 million, but the registrar wanted the same amount to reup it, then my investment or foresight would be for nothing, and the registrar is simply profiteering off my "risk".
There is plenty of squatting and such going on, but I would rather leave it to the courts and marketplace than a handful of registrars who are not adding ANY value to the names, just sitting in judgement and suppressing free expression by controlling prices.
The registrars do not OWN the names, the individuals do. To allow them to charge more for some names is so anti-capitalistic it is rediculous. This will allow them, over time, to force more domain names to default back to them, so they can RENT them out and maintain control over who uses them, and of course, what those people do with the domain name. If that isn't chilling free speech, I don't know what is.
Yea, glad to see I'm not the only one having that problem. The first and third link in the/. article were also the same, for no appearant reason. Like a recursively duped article.
Good point. Now it needs to be reinforced, many times, over time, to compensate for all the negative feeling people have about diesels. American car builders did a lot to damage the image of diesel engines in the late 70s and early 80s with their "conversion" engines, where they just plugged the spark plug holes, put in heavy rods, and shaved the heads to make diesel engines. They were loud, unreliable and generally short lived. That is why you see many older gas cars from 1980, but none of the same versions with the diesel engines still around.
Several makers sell diesels in the usa, but they must make them to usa emission standards which are very tough, and this has reduced the number that are available. Most American diesels are actually USA made, however. Cummins, Catapillar, etc. Part of the problem is also the amount of sulphur in the fuel, which is where biodiesel comes in. Since it has 0% sulphur, you can easily blend it to get lower sulphur fuel. The problem is, it gels at 32F/0C. The key is finding a safe additive that will lower the gel point so it can be used in colder climates. I hear that Eastman in Arkansas is working on this (used to be part of Kodak, bought out by another company recently).
Diesels generally get 20% better mileage simply because the fuel burns more efficiently. Combined with using biodiesel, this reduces the use of fossil fuels by itself.
American's still SEE diesels as noisy, dirty and slow. This is why making them cleaner, faster and "sexier" will help increase adoption. Hey, we buy what we like, and we like power. Ironically, diesels HAVE more power (or at least torque). Also, diesel engines add $3k to $5k to the price, so you have to give Americans a REASON to buy them. Better mileage helps. So would reducing the tax on diesel here, which is what is done in Europe. Ultimately, making them "sexy" will make the greatest difference with Americans.
IMHO, the fact that a diesel set a new record, and whomped all over the old record. From 236 to just over 350 (the next day, read other links above). This is not a tiny jump in performance.
Add to the current interest in biodiesel by the nerd community, and the understanding that before diesels become popular in America, two things must happen:
1. They must meet emission standards. European diesels currently can't be sold in the US as they are in the UE because our standards are much tougher (believe it or not).
2. They must be sexy. Diesels are seen as something you put in a big rig. Dodge trucks, followed by Ford and Chevy, are helping, but before you see them in passenger cars, "we" need to see that they can be fast and sexy.
So it isn't the most earth shattering news, but it is a significant jump in performance, and nerdworthy to those of us who think that a small part of the solution of our energy problems is biodiesel/diesel blends.
It took some rich enthusiasts to show you can fly across the ocean many years ago before we realized trans-atlantic flights. It took rich guys buying horseless carrages before we could buy family cars. It took rich nerdy guys buying $250 2400 baud modems and paying over $100 a month for limited internet access before I could buy my 70 year old mom a dell and get her cable modem. Same with VCR, Video cameras, etc. Porn and rich guys have contributed a lot to the things we take for granted now.
Maybe in 5 years, we will be able to buy a diesel powered Camero for $25k. The prototypes look pretty good...
You are correct that commodity items are not best purchased on any auction site, or physical auction. The wife is always asking me what I am looking for, so she can look it up on ebay, and have to tell her NO, that I actually do not WANT to buy a video card, or other commodity item on ebay, at any price. If I pay $150-$200 for a video card (my version of affordable) then I want a real guarantee, warranty, etc. Not some vague promise from "RealDeal2004" or whatever.
Now, when I want a more unusual item, I shop ebay. I picked up a Re-issue Fender Tele, sometimes ram for old systems that is hard to find (not totally commodity) or what I can "high risk parts". This an just simply unusual stuff that is not being sold anymore. Even then, I first check the "buy it now" because if I want it, I want it, and I know what I am willing to pay.
Most of the stuff I sell (guitars, etc) always have a reasonable start/reserve/buy it now. ie: Nice guitar is $600 new, I reserve for $350, buy it now for $375, start at $100. DOn't really want 20 bids starting at 1c and taking it up to 20 dollars by wankers. Of course, shipping is actual cost plus materials to pack.
And most of MY auctions sell the first time, with about half using the Buy It Now option. If I did like everyone else, and put the reserve and buy it now at $500, then yes, I might have to list it 4 times until I found a sucker. That is the difference: I am not looking for a sucker, I am looking for a buyer, this week.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine how well this thing could play Duke Nukem Forever ?!?! When does that game come out? ;-)
Actually, this will be the "minimum requirements" to play DMF by the time it comes out. Obviously you need more RAM if you want to experience the advanced features...
Just wait for the new Viagra technologies slashdot articles.
/.ers are too young to worry about Viagra. /.ers are too single to worry about Viagra.
/.ers over 40,
1. Most
2. Most
Using a very special algorerythem (patent pending, tm, etc.) I have determined that:
A. There are 12 married
B. Four married posters under 40
B. Two guys that are dating (not each other)
C. Two girls who reads Slashdot.
Of course, some AC posts might be from people who really do have accounts, so these numbers may be inflated.
If I remember right, there was some controversy with Oracle considering a dual core as two cpus, and they backed off. If we see 4 or more cores, the need for multiple sockets goes down, and I just wonder if MS will reconsider this licensing to prevent "lost revenue".
But will it run Vista? (j/k)
Is Vista going to support 4 cores, or like XP Pro and 2k, limit it to 2 "cpus" so they can charge more for the server version?
Unplugging/Plugging a PS/2 MOUSE can damage a system, but keyboards don't use PS/2 ports, just the same DIN plugs. The actual physical port/hardware is very different than an actual PS/2 (ie: ibm style) port.
I have plugged and unplugged keyboards all day long on many a server and computer and have never had a problem. I would never do that with a PS/2 mouse, however.
Actually it sounds like truth in advertising. StopBadware.org has clearly stated that their goal is to make it known what software does bad things, and list those things that it does, and what the software makers can do to NOT be listed as 'badware'. If AOL Free version does these things, then it should be listed.
All I see is StopBadware doing what they said they would do, no matter who it is, or who owns what. This is a good thing. Anything less would mean NO ONE could trust StopBadware.org.
For news or parody yes. For satire, sometimes. Using public figures (president, congressman, etc.) has generally been considered always ok. Using Tom Cruise's face to make fun of Scientology may be fun, and legal, but it will likely get you sued into oblivion simply because they have more money than you do.
Using it to sell your own product, however, is definately a no no. Again, the target or context is what makes it legal or not. The fact that you used the photo doesn't.
Some courts are leaning toward the idea that a celebrities "image" is copyright protected. That gets very borderline, and would not only stop you from using a photo you took on your vacation on your personal webpage, but almost stops NEWS from publishing images as well, without paying royalties.
And if I cover a song at a party with an admission, I'm selling something I don't own, nor do I have permission from the artist or any artist's representative.
In America, it is covered by paying royalties to the licensing agency, usually BMI or ASCAP. This is paid by EVERY night club and radio station. The fact that a small place gets away with it for a while or not is not relevent to the fact that it IS the law, and a system has existed to cover this for many decades. Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As to your other points, you are simply being contrary when you speak of US laws and acts not done on US soil. The discussion wasn't about what I personally thought, it was about the current law in the US. In this matter, I have a degree of experience that you are probably not aware of. Again, just because you disagree, or you are not aware of the systems and laws, that doesn't mean they don't exist.
The fact that he gets permission is a courtasy, to stay in good graces. It is NOT a legal requirement. If he didn't, he would still be legally able to do so, then, they would likely sue him, and after a long legal battle, he would win. He has just decided to get permission ahead of time to make life easier, not because the law requires it.
Well, allofmp3.com is not breaking any law. They are compliant with all US laws and all Russian laws.
Really? All US laws? You need to research that a bit because you don't have the facts, yet make very bold statements.
Just because they claim they are legal in the US (and no one agrees) doesn't mean it is legal. As a matter of fact, it is clearly infringement in virtually everyone's eyes except your, allofmp3.com, and their customers who don't really care. It is even threatening Russia's acceptance into the WTO. It is a simple case of Russia saying "Fuck America, we want the tax dollars this generates".
This isn't P2P sharing, this is selling something they don't own.
An example in a nutshell: The Michael Jackson song "Bad". Weird Al makes a song called "Fat" that is similar to the song "Bad" to make fun of the song "Bad" itself. That is parody.
Now pretend you and I use the same song "Bad" to make fun of George Bush, or IBM, or Microsoft or something EXCEPT the original song/artist/concept itself. That is satire. The song "Bad" is no longer the thing we are making fun of, we are just using it for another purpose. This is NOT fair use.
The difference is the target, not the vehicle. And yes, sometimes it gets cloudy, and what it is your are making fun of may not always be clear. Whether Wikipedia sees it this way, in a court of law (from my limited experience) this is how it is defined.
Or to make it shorter: It is Fair Use to use a copyrighted item to make fun the of the same copyrighted item (parody), but not Fair Use to use a copyrighted item to make fun of something else (satire).
Satire is NOT covered under Fair Use. Parody is covered. (ie: You can use Barney to make fun of Barney, but not to make fun of something else.) This is why many [company]sucks.org websites use parody as a means to protest against a company, as it is a well tested Fair Use exception.
Using the images of the copyright holder is considered Fair Use if it does not reduce their ability to make a profit (ie: you are giving away an image they charge for) or cause confusion about the intent of what you are doing (reasonable person wouldn't think that it is BARNEY who is saying he is the antichrist).
Changing the image of the copyright holder for the parody, or simply mocking up your own image based on their trademark or copyright is better/safer. The more of the copyrighted material you use in the parody, the closer you get to infringement. The fine line between parody and libel is sometimes up to courts to decide.
IANAL, but deal with this enough, and while there are exceptions, and anyone can sue you even when you are in the right, this is a rough guideline.
What pisses me off is /. didn't link to the site, and the article didn't link to it either. Either they are all afraid of getting sued, or they don't want me to SEE the actual site and make up my own mind whether the site is "parody" (fair use), "satire" (not fair use) or something else.
I did finally find it at this address and did a whois to make sure the domain is owned by Stuart Frankel. Not much here except some dead links (other threatened sites?) and what appears to be Fair Use to me, but IANAL.
After reading your MS script, I am glad I use Perl instead.
if ($comments =~ "linux" || $comments =~ "gnu"){
$bandwidth--;
}
You need to have muscle, and that muscle has to be worked.
Guess you have never heard of veal.
I'm all for steaks, but can't see a way to eat veal for the very reason you didn't understand.
You can't label every little thing, so unless there is a provable health reason to do so, labels should not be required.
I'm all for cloned beef, but I would demand proper labelling. Some people do not want to eat animals that have had growth harmones, or GM crops. They may not want to eat cloned cows. Personally, none of it bothers me, but still people have the right to KNOW where their food comes from, and they can make their own choices. ie: let the marketplace decide. Obviously, it would be REQUIRED for most exported foods anyway.
I don't need to know how many grams of protein or fat are in my steak, but I respect the right of others to know if the steak came from an "alternative" cow.
That domain name has a real market value
But the questions are: value to who, and who gets to profit from it? If I had the foresight to register "buy.com" many years ago, and someone wanted to give me $1 million, but the registrar wanted the same amount to reup it, then my investment or foresight would be for nothing, and the registrar is simply profiteering off my "risk".
There is plenty of squatting and such going on, but I would rather leave it to the courts and marketplace than a handful of registrars who are not adding ANY value to the names, just sitting in judgement and suppressing free expression by controlling prices.
The registrars do not OWN the names, the individuals do. To allow them to charge more for some names is so anti-capitalistic it is rediculous. This will allow them, over time, to force more domain names to default back to them, so they can RENT them out and maintain control over who uses them, and of course, what those people do with the domain name. If that isn't chilling free speech, I don't know what is.
Mostly because I couldn't read page three of TFA
/. article were also the same, for no appearant reason. Like a recursively duped article.
Yea, glad to see I'm not the only one having that problem. The first and third link in the
Good point. Now it needs to be reinforced, many times, over time, to compensate for all the negative feeling people have about diesels. American car builders did a lot to damage the image of diesel engines in the late 70s and early 80s with their "conversion" engines, where they just plugged the spark plug holes, put in heavy rods, and shaved the heads to make diesel engines. They were loud, unreliable and generally short lived. That is why you see many older gas cars from 1980, but none of the same versions with the diesel engines still around.
Several makers sell diesels in the usa, but they must make them to usa emission standards which are very tough, and this has reduced the number that are available. Most American diesels are actually USA made, however. Cummins, Catapillar, etc. Part of the problem is also the amount of sulphur in the fuel, which is where biodiesel comes in. Since it has 0% sulphur, you can easily blend it to get lower sulphur fuel. The problem is, it gels at 32F/0C. The key is finding a safe additive that will lower the gel point so it can be used in colder climates. I hear that Eastman in Arkansas is working on this (used to be part of Kodak, bought out by another company recently).
Diesels generally get 20% better mileage simply because the fuel burns more efficiently. Combined with using biodiesel, this reduces the use of fossil fuels by itself.
American's still SEE diesels as noisy, dirty and slow. This is why making them cleaner, faster and "sexier" will help increase adoption. Hey, we buy what we like, and we like power. Ironically, diesels HAVE more power (or at least torque). Also, diesel engines add $3k to $5k to the price, so you have to give Americans a REASON to buy them. Better mileage helps. So would reducing the tax on diesel here, which is what is done in Europe. Ultimately, making them "sexy" will make the greatest difference with Americans.
IMHO, the fact that a diesel set a new record, and whomped all over the old record. From 236 to just over 350 (the next day, read other links above). This is not a tiny jump in performance.
Add to the current interest in biodiesel by the nerd community, and the understanding that before diesels become popular in America, two things must happen:
1. They must meet emission standards. European diesels currently can't be sold in the US as they are in the UE because our standards are much tougher (believe it or not).
2. They must be sexy. Diesels are seen as something you put in a big rig. Dodge trucks, followed by Ford and Chevy, are helping, but before you see them in passenger cars, "we" need to see that they can be fast and sexy.
So it isn't the most earth shattering news, but it is a significant jump in performance, and nerdworthy to those of us who think that a small part of the solution of our energy problems is biodiesel/diesel blends.
It took some rich enthusiasts to show you can fly across the ocean many years ago before we realized trans-atlantic flights. It took rich guys buying horseless carrages before we could buy family cars. It took rich nerdy guys buying $250 2400 baud modems and paying over $100 a month for limited internet access before I could buy my 70 year old mom a dell and get her cable modem. Same with VCR, Video cameras, etc. Porn and rich guys have contributed a lot to the things we take for granted now.
Maybe in 5 years, we will be able to buy a diesel powered Camero for $25k. The prototypes look pretty good...
You are correct that commodity items are not best purchased on any auction site, or physical auction. The wife is always asking me what I am looking for, so she can look it up on ebay, and have to tell her NO, that I actually do not WANT to buy a video card, or other commodity item on ebay, at any price. If I pay $150-$200 for a video card (my version of affordable) then I want a real guarantee, warranty, etc. Not some vague promise from "RealDeal2004" or whatever.
Now, when I want a more unusual item, I shop ebay. I picked up a Re-issue Fender Tele, sometimes ram for old systems that is hard to find (not totally commodity) or what I can "high risk parts". This an just simply unusual stuff that is not being sold anymore. Even then, I first check the "buy it now" because if I want it, I want it, and I know what I am willing to pay.
Most of the stuff I sell (guitars, etc) always have a reasonable start/reserve/buy it now. ie: Nice guitar is $600 new, I reserve for $350, buy it now for $375, start at $100. DOn't really want 20 bids starting at 1c and taking it up to 20 dollars by wankers. Of course, shipping is actual cost plus materials to pack.
And most of MY auctions sell the first time, with about half using the Buy It Now option. If I did like everyone else, and put the reserve and buy it now at $500, then yes, I might have to list it 4 times until I found a sucker. That is the difference: I am not looking for a sucker, I am looking for a buyer, this week.
dude change yr name
;)
What? He is Beaver's brother, Penis Cleaver.
You didn't know they were twins playing one role, like the Olsen twins?
NO! Then you would expect it!!!
[insert Python Spanish Inquisition joke here]