Older PCs perhaps, I know my Duron would not be happy... the thing already runs between 50 and 60 degrees celsius [approx 106 to 127 degree farenheit]. If the room temp were already over 100 degree farenheit, it might not die outright, but it would not be happy [the Duron chip is only rated, by AMDs specs, to about 190 degree farenheit before it will croak. Also, AMD has already stated, and it has been demonstrated, that an improperly cooled CPU will be toast very quickly] So, yeah, YOUR boxen may have been fine, but LOTS of new ones wouldn't be.
If you happen to live within walking distance of a store, great, not everyone does. Beside that, you can only carry so much [getting my weekly groceries up to my 3rd floor place is rough enough, if I had to carry them home I'd die of exhaustion], meaning either less gets bought in total, or more is wasted since more exercise from more frequent trips to the store means more food consumption, so you waste either way.
And there is no bus to my family being 100 miles away [the nearest possibility would be train at $40 a ticket, then another local train for about $5. At $45 total, I may be conserving gas, but I'm blowing a whole lot of money, so its lose either way]
To an economy, money is all that matters [one need only look to most Asain economies, where health or illness of economy seems to have little to do with civil rights]
This is about consumer rights, namely the right to not be screwed by folks who all say its not their fault. The average person on Cali uses energy pretty much on par with most others in the US [except maybe gasoline due to horrible traffic] so why should they pay so much more? Someone, somewhere got greedy, plain and simple.
Two folks both said this, misisng the point a bit... sure, less gas expenditure means more pocket money, but if I'm STUCK AT HOME since I'm not driving as much, how do you propose I spend it? Maybe I'm just quaint or behind, but for all my love of technology, I hate mail order/internet order. Too much can go wrong, and there's something nice about being able to use something as soon as you spend your money on it. And, judging from the dotcom death march, most folks seem to agree with me on purchasing things in person. So less gas use means less traveling to stores to buy stuff, means less stuff bought.
BTW efficiency and conservation are NOT the same. I can take an efficient route to visit my family 100 miles away, conservation means not visiting at all.
Conservation is bad for an emconomy my friend. More conservation means less spending, which means less income for companies, which means lower stock prices, etc. As a practicle example:
Say I conserve gas by driving half as much as before, that means roughly half the gas consumption, leading to lost revenue for the gas companies. It also means I am outside my home less, which leads to lsot revenues for any places I might impulse shop [computer stores, video stores, fast food, other restaraunts, clothing stores, book stores, etc, etc.]. Now if hundreds of people do this, that s a serious lowering of consumer spending, which will scare the hell out of Wall St. , and so on.
And so we have the typical chain link problem:
"Its not my fault, its the guy one level back, he screwed me, so i have no choice but to pass the pain down the chain"
Where does it stop? why is the normal American[or German, or Briton, or anyone who has been screwed lately on energy costs] the one who always has to eat it?
And a better question, for which I have a potential answer, is where did it start? My theory: [the PC police can stop reading now, lest I must smite you for flaming me endlessly] The arabs [well, the ones running the show, not most of their common citizens]. Who, after all, is responsible for rasing the cost of the fossil fuels we commonly use to produce most of our power? [mind you, they COULD increase the supply to lower cost, but they REALLY REALLY want those golden toilets in EVERY bathroom]
It has to stop. We have to stop bending over and believing that whatever price some shmuck slaps onto an item is the real and legitmate price. Most of the time, it is not.
Hmm, if I were a pol with half a soul left [rare these days] I'd tell my constituents the same thing, and not just for power. The powers that be seem largely content to let the public get ripped off left and right by greedy corps who have them between a rock and a hard place, to me its a GOOD thing to see one willing to smack them down. In case you missed it, the time this statement was made, power prices in Cali rose by about 300% in 3 months, which is absolutely insane. Wouldn't you be a bit peeved, and perhaps inclined to protest by lack of payment, if any bill decided to increase by 3x for the same usage?
In order to deathmatch year round, one would need a climate controled environment, since modern microprocessors are rather hot little beasts. Even one of the Kryotech boxes [and I've seen one up close and personal] would be very unhappy at a room temp of 90+ degrees Farenheit[sp?].
BTW, I don't support the article's assertion that the net is the cause of Cali's near power collapse, I'm just pointing out the flaw in this one arguement.
Besides the programus interruptus factor of TV ads, there is a larger, more important reason they are usually more effective: creativity. Think about it, TV ads are often like small shows in themselves, and sometimes they are MORE entertaining then the shows they interrupt [think Super Bowl commercials over the past few years]. The trouble with banner ads, indeed with any internet ad, is the entertainment factor. As long most folks are stuck on dial-ups, ads have to be relatively small, hence low entertainment factor [for ads anyway]. When broadband grows and becomes cheaper, ad revenue will rise, since ads will be able to be more creative with the extra space they can occupy.
In related news today, an unwary/. user posted an erroneous mathematical challenge and was swiftly inundated with replies all hoping to correct his ignorence.
Shortly after this event, an equal number of moderators stole karma from n-1 of the aforementioned/. users, labeling them as redundent, even though, due to the nature of/. they all most likely posted simulatneously.
You neglect the 4th dimension my friend. Yes, money supplies can increase [though typically value does not, hence inflation], but only with respect to time. In other words, at any given time, there is only X amount of money available, and X is increased with the passage of time, meaning that economics IS zero-sum in a sense, just not over relatively large amounts of time.
As an example: Ralph has $2. Ralph needs milk and bread, total cost = $2.50. The money supply may expand, but at the moment that Ralph needs that extra $0.50, it won't. Ralph would have to wait, meaning he has to go hungry and thirsty for whatever amount of time it takes for that extra $0.50 to appear. Also, at the same time the money supply may expand that extra $0.50, the price might also rise [inflation after all] another $0.25, so poor ralph has to wait still longer. In the end, you get the infinite series that never goes to zero, so poor Ralph dies of thirst and hunger.
Perhaps some folks realize that clock rate is not the end all and be all, but there are two problems with your high and mighty comment:
1. Clock rate DOES have SOME influence. Put a 200 mHz ANYTHING [486, 586, PowerPC, etc.] up against a GHz beast. Mr. Gig wins. Also, on non optimized/non optimizable instructions, being able to do more raw instructions per second does help out a good bit.
2. Here's the big one: Joe Average computer user doesn't know CPU architecture enough to save his life. He only sees the numbers: 733 vs. 1500. This is the same simple mindedness Intel is hoping to carry the P4 past the T-bird[which, if you read the benchmarks around the net, and even in print mags, keeps right up with Intel's finest despite being 300 MHz behind]. Also, Joe Average can do division, a la 733/$3000 vs. 1500/$2800. So, if Apple wants to catch up in the market, it MUST catch up in the clock and/or drasticly reduce the painful prices.
The issue is having to worry about them doing this more in the future. Now, I do think its a bit reactionary to drop them for one instance of this, as it may well be some legit problem, but if it were to occur repeatedly? And that is the fear, that everyone who has a matched set of 'no' in their prefs will get 'there was an error and we reset everything to yes' once a month till they leave or allow SPAM. Give them a few months, if the behavior continues, then roast them.
P.S. No site would likely ever do this, but I personally wish they defaulted to 'no' in the first plae.
>>>via a rider on the session ending omnibus appropiations bill
Basically, it means attaching an unrelated clause to an enormous bill that covers a huge array of topics already, all right before the holidays so no one wants to take the time to read it before going home.
Sony is a hydra of a company, with each head ready to bite the others off. I recall recent news about an amicus brief filed by various powers in the tech industry on Napster's behalf, of which Sony was a cosigner, meanwhile another head of Sony is involved in SUING Napster [Sony is, I believe, a member of the RIAA].
HP and Ricoh have nothing to gain from underhanded dealing either really, as both make more money if people have more things to burn.
Oh yeah... "Teechnology"? Another sign of the trend to add an 'e' to every word possible?;)
1. The companies blame the software because it is the easiest target, and also the highest profile [you get a hell of a lot more news coverage suing Napster than suing Joe 1337 h@X0r].
2. I am still somewhat surprised that folks, especially around here, don't see the larger issue... yes, some people will always want to have something for nothing, but I doubt 20 million plus Napster users [as an example] are ALL morally bankrupt hooligans out to rip folks off. From personal observation, I'd say most are just fed up with the music status quo, seeking either music that's actually worth $20 a CD [when CD media is dirt heap, and most musicians come almost as cheaply after the companies finish with them] or a fair price for what is currently available. Think for a moment here, the music companies make BILLIONS of dollars in profit. Taken as a whole, the music industry is larger than many COUNTRIES. This huge sum of extra money has to be coming from somewhere, and simple laws of nature state that for every dollar in profit they make, someone got ripped off a dollar [since by definition profit is a sum of money above and beyond manufacturing and distribution charges, meaning basically that profit is whatever the difference bhetween the price of the product is, and what it is actually worth]. So, in the end, aren't the companies to blame, since if they weren't screwing us all so harshly, most of us would be more content to do things the legit [ and typically easier] way?
You negelect two items:
1. The superstars fit my [admittedly moderately broad] generalization very well.
2. It is 99% superstar music being traded on Napster.
I feel some pity for the mid sizers out there, but when you sell your soul to Satan, expect to be burnt.
The user's nick and the business model he seems to advocate both imply the same activity... making consumers bend over and accept anal violation in the name of bloated profits.
As a response to the direct statement: the RIAA cheats the artists more then we the people ever could. Also, the concept of royalties is disgusting to begin with. You and I and most folks must work, day to day, to live, even though many like us just as talented at what we do for a living as most modern musicians. So, why should someone with a pretty voice or agile fingers get to work for a few days of their life and use that to live forever? Pay per performance is the only way IMHO.
We COULD simply alter the law to make it unlawful to make a copy of someone else's work for 1) your own comercial benefit and 2) without properly crediting the originator, and noting properly any changed or alterations to the original works. Big Corp will never let this simple act of logic occur, but it could theoretically happen, and would solve the problem you pose without hindering the spread of information in its various forms.
IE has about 80% market share... I'd call that a big win [not saying that's good, just that it is]. Now Netscape has been peddling dog feces as consumer product for quite a while now, and Mozilla is still not ready for prime time, nor is it really visible in the Windows arena [hint to open source folks: the key to victory is not the OS. get people using open source tools on windows, showing them the value of open source, THEN move them to a different OS, touting how all their lovely open source tools will port so nicely]. I wish it were otherwise, but so long as I have to use Windows [and I have some reasons folks] I'll use IE. Once I'm through with Windows, well, I hope SOMEONE has their act together by then.
Just because someone feels the GPL, or certain licences are logical and valid, does not mean they need to accept en mass all of copyright law. That's like saying because you agree with the right to freedom of speach, you must agree with later constitutional amendments with no regard to their content or effect since they are all part of the same 'law'.
As a side note, quite often the folks on/. bitching about GPL violations are NOT the same folks championing Napster, emulation, etc. Please keep that in mind.
well, as i said earlier, Rambus has their own legal adversity to face. Also, the problem with Microsoft is that they abuse their victory. The legal system exists to curtail abuses, be they civil or criminal. That same system can be used to do other, lesser, more vile things, but that is in itself an abuse that will, hopefully, be ended one day.
Slashdot Mirror
Older PCs perhaps, I know my Duron would not be happy... the thing already runs between 50 and 60 degrees celsius [approx 106 to 127 degree farenheit]. If the room temp were already over 100 degree farenheit, it might not die outright, but it would not be happy [the Duron chip is only rated, by AMDs specs, to about 190 degree farenheit before it will croak. Also, AMD has already stated, and it has been demonstrated, that an improperly cooled CPU will be toast very quickly] So, yeah, YOUR boxen may have been fine, but LOTS of new ones wouldn't be.
-={(Astynax)}=-
If you happen to live within walking distance of a store, great, not everyone does. Beside that, you can only carry so much [getting my weekly groceries up to my 3rd floor place is rough enough, if I had to carry them home I'd die of exhaustion], meaning either less gets bought in total, or more is wasted since more exercise from more frequent trips to the store means more food consumption, so you waste either way.
And there is no bus to my family being 100 miles away [the nearest possibility would be train at $40 a ticket, then another local train for about $5. At $45 total, I may be conserving gas, but I'm blowing a whole lot of money, so its lose either way]
-={(Astynax)}=-
Two points:
To an economy, money is all that matters [one need only look to most Asain economies, where health or illness of economy seems to have little to do with civil rights]
This is about consumer rights, namely the right to not be screwed by folks who all say its not their fault. The average person on Cali uses energy pretty much on par with most others in the US [except maybe gasoline due to horrible traffic] so why should they pay so much more? Someone, somewhere got greedy, plain and simple.
-={(Astynax)}=-
Two folks both said this, misisng the point a bit... sure, less gas expenditure means more pocket money, but if I'm STUCK AT HOME since I'm not driving as much, how do you propose I spend it? Maybe I'm just quaint or behind, but for all my love of technology, I hate mail order/internet order. Too much can go wrong, and there's something nice about being able to use something as soon as you spend your money on it. And, judging from the dotcom death march, most folks seem to agree with me on purchasing things in person. So less gas use means less traveling to stores to buy stuff, means less stuff bought.
BTW efficiency and conservation are NOT the same. I can take an efficient route to visit my family 100 miles away, conservation means not visiting at all.
-={(Astynax)}=-
Conservation is bad for an emconomy my friend. More conservation means less spending, which means less income for companies, which means lower stock prices, etc. As a practicle example:
Say I conserve gas by driving half as much as before, that means roughly half the gas consumption, leading to lost revenue for the gas companies. It also means I am outside my home less, which leads to lsot revenues for any places I might impulse shop [computer stores, video stores, fast food, other restaraunts, clothing stores, book stores, etc, etc.]. Now if hundreds of people do this, that s a serious lowering of consumer spending, which will scare the hell out of Wall St. , and so on.
-={(Astynax)}=-
And so we have the typical chain link problem:
"Its not my fault, its the guy one level back, he screwed me, so i have no choice but to pass the pain down the chain"
Where does it stop? why is the normal American[or German, or Briton, or anyone who has been screwed lately on energy costs] the one who always has to eat it?
And a better question, for which I have a potential answer, is where did it start? My theory: [the PC police can stop reading now, lest I must smite you for flaming me endlessly] The arabs [well, the ones running the show, not most of their common citizens]. Who, after all, is responsible for rasing the cost of the fossil fuels we commonly use to produce most of our power? [mind you, they COULD increase the supply to lower cost, but they REALLY REALLY want those golden toilets in EVERY bathroom]
It has to stop. We have to stop bending over and believing that whatever price some shmuck slaps onto an item is the real and legitmate price. Most of the time, it is not.
-={(Astynax)}=-
Hmm, if I were a pol with half a soul left [rare these days] I'd tell my constituents the same thing, and not just for power. The powers that be seem largely content to let the public get ripped off left and right by greedy corps who have them between a rock and a hard place, to me its a GOOD thing to see one willing to smack them down. In case you missed it, the time this statement was made, power prices in Cali rose by about 300% in 3 months, which is absolutely insane. Wouldn't you be a bit peeved, and perhaps inclined to protest by lack of payment, if any bill decided to increase by 3x for the same usage?
-={(Astynax)}=-
In order to deathmatch year round, one would need a climate controled environment, since modern microprocessors are rather hot little beasts. Even one of the Kryotech boxes [and I've seen one up close and personal] would be very unhappy at a room temp of 90+ degrees Farenheit[sp?].
BTW, I don't support the article's assertion that the net is the cause of Cali's near power collapse, I'm just pointing out the flaw in this one arguement.
-={(Astynax)}=-
Besides the programus interruptus factor of TV ads, there is a larger, more important reason they are usually more effective: creativity. Think about it, TV ads are often like small shows in themselves, and sometimes they are MORE entertaining then the shows they interrupt [think Super Bowl commercials over the past few years]. The trouble with banner ads, indeed with any internet ad, is the entertainment factor. As long most folks are stuck on dial-ups, ads have to be relatively small, hence low entertainment factor [for ads anyway]. When broadband grows and becomes cheaper, ad revenue will rise, since ads will be able to be more creative with the extra space they can occupy.
-={(Astynax)}=-
In related news today, an unwary /. user posted an erroneous mathematical challenge and was swiftly inundated with replies all hoping to correct his ignorence.
/. users, labeling them as redundent, even though, due to the nature of /. they all most likely posted simulatneously.
Shortly after this event, an equal number of moderators stole karma from n-1 of the aforementioned
-={(Astynax)}=-
The Math is fine:
60 minutes=3600 seconds
6 megabits/sec=6 megabytes/8 sec
3600/8 = 450 6 megabyte units
450 * 6 = 2700 megabytes
give or take several dozen megs, the math is fine.
-={(Astynax)}=-
You neglect the 4th dimension my friend. Yes, money supplies can increase [though typically value does not, hence inflation], but only with respect to time. In other words, at any given time, there is only X amount of money available, and X is increased with the passage of time, meaning that economics IS zero-sum in a sense, just not over relatively large amounts of time.
As an example: Ralph has $2. Ralph needs milk and bread, total cost = $2.50. The money supply may expand, but at the moment that Ralph needs that extra $0.50, it won't. Ralph would have to wait, meaning he has to go hungry and thirsty for whatever amount of time it takes for that extra $0.50 to appear. Also, at the same time the money supply may expand that extra $0.50, the price might also rise [inflation after all] another $0.25, so poor ralph has to wait still longer. In the end, you get the infinite series that never goes to zero, so poor Ralph dies of thirst and hunger.
-={(Astynax)}=-
Perhaps some folks realize that clock rate is not the end all and be all, but there are two problems with your high and mighty comment:
1. Clock rate DOES have SOME influence. Put a 200 mHz ANYTHING [486, 586, PowerPC, etc.] up against a GHz beast. Mr. Gig wins. Also, on non optimized/non optimizable instructions, being able to do more raw instructions per second does help out a good bit.
2. Here's the big one: Joe Average computer user doesn't know CPU architecture enough to save his life. He only sees the numbers: 733 vs. 1500. This is the same simple mindedness Intel is hoping to carry the P4 past the T-bird[which, if you read the benchmarks around the net, and even in print mags, keeps right up with Intel's finest despite being 300 MHz behind]. Also, Joe Average can do division, a la 733/$3000 vs. 1500/$2800. So, if Apple wants to catch up in the market, it MUST catch up in the clock and/or drasticly reduce the painful prices.
-={(Astynax)}=-
The issue is having to worry about them doing this more in the future. Now, I do think its a bit reactionary to drop them for one instance of this, as it may well be some legit problem, but if it were to occur repeatedly? And that is the fear, that everyone who has a matched set of 'no' in their prefs will get 'there was an error and we reset everything to yes' once a month till they leave or allow SPAM. Give them a few months, if the behavior continues, then roast them.
P.S. No site would likely ever do this, but I personally wish they defaulted to 'no' in the first plae.
-={(Astynax)}=-
>>>via a rider on the session ending omnibus appropiations bill
Basically, it means attaching an unrelated clause to an enormous bill that covers a huge array of topics already, all right before the holidays so no one wants to take the time to read it before going home.
-={(Astynax)}=-
He won't use them in weapons, he's gonna sell them on eBay and use the proceeds to buy weapons.
-={(Astynax)}=-
Sony is a hydra of a company, with each head ready to bite the others off. I recall recent news about an amicus brief filed by various powers in the tech industry on Napster's behalf, of which Sony was a cosigner, meanwhile another head of Sony is involved in SUING Napster [Sony is, I believe, a member of the RIAA].
HP and Ricoh have nothing to gain from underhanded dealing either really, as both make more money if people have more things to burn.
Oh yeah... "Teechnology"? Another sign of the trend to add an 'e' to every word possible?;)
-={(Astynax)}=-
ok, two responses actually:
1. The companies blame the software because it is the easiest target, and also the highest profile [you get a hell of a lot more news coverage suing Napster than suing Joe 1337 h@X0r].
2. I am still somewhat surprised that folks, especially around here, don't see the larger issue... yes, some people will always want to have something for nothing, but I doubt 20 million plus Napster users [as an example] are ALL morally bankrupt hooligans out to rip folks off. From personal observation, I'd say most are just fed up with the music status quo, seeking either music that's actually worth $20 a CD [when CD media is dirt heap, and most musicians come almost as cheaply after the companies finish with them] or a fair price for what is currently available. Think for a moment here, the music companies make BILLIONS of dollars in profit. Taken as a whole, the music industry is larger than many COUNTRIES. This huge sum of extra money has to be coming from somewhere, and simple laws of nature state that for every dollar in profit they make, someone got ripped off a dollar [since by definition profit is a sum of money above and beyond manufacturing and distribution charges, meaning basically that profit is whatever the difference bhetween the price of the product is, and what it is actually worth]. So, in the end, aren't the companies to blame, since if they weren't screwing us all so harshly, most of us would be more content to do things the legit [ and typically easier] way?
-={(Astynax)}=-
You negelect two items:
1. The superstars fit my [admittedly moderately broad] generalization very well.
2. It is 99% superstar music being traded on Napster.
I feel some pity for the mid sizers out there, but when you sell your soul to Satan, expect to be burnt.
-={(Astynax)}=-
The user's nick and the business model he seems to advocate both imply the same activity... making consumers bend over and accept anal violation in the name of bloated profits.
As a response to the direct statement: the RIAA cheats the artists more then we the people ever could. Also, the concept of royalties is disgusting to begin with. You and I and most folks must work, day to day, to live, even though many like us just as talented at what we do for a living as most modern musicians. So, why should someone with a pretty voice or agile fingers get to work for a few days of their life and use that to live forever? Pay per performance is the only way IMHO.
-={(Astynax)}=-
We COULD simply alter the law to make it unlawful to make a copy of someone else's work for 1) your own comercial benefit and 2) without properly crediting the originator, and noting properly any changed or alterations to the original works. Big Corp will never let this simple act of logic occur, but it could theoretically happen, and would solve the problem you pose without hindering the spread of information in its various forms.
-={(Astynax)}=-
IE has about 80% market share... I'd call that a big win [not saying that's good, just that it is]. Now Netscape has been peddling dog feces as consumer product for quite a while now, and Mozilla is still not ready for prime time, nor is it really visible in the Windows arena [hint to open source folks: the key to victory is not the OS. get people using open source tools on windows, showing them the value of open source, THEN move them to a different OS, touting how all their lovely open source tools will port so nicely]. I wish it were otherwise, but so long as I have to use Windows [and I have some reasons folks] I'll use IE. Once I'm through with Windows, well, I hope SOMEONE has their act together by then.
-={(Astynax)}=-
Just because someone feels the GPL, or certain licences are logical and valid, does not mean they need to accept en mass all of copyright law. That's like saying because you agree with the right to freedom of speach, you must agree with later constitutional amendments with no regard to their content or effect since they are all part of the same 'law'.
/. bitching about GPL violations are NOT the same folks championing Napster, emulation, etc. Please keep that in mind.
As a side note, quite often the folks on
-={(Astynax)}=-
well, as i said earlier, Rambus has their own legal adversity to face. Also, the problem with Microsoft is that they abuse their victory. The legal system exists to curtail abuses, be they civil or criminal. That same system can be used to do other, lesser, more vile things, but that is in itself an abuse that will, hopefully, be ended one day.
-={(Astynax)}=-
Help us, Micron-Kenobi, you're our only hope!
[Note to the unfamiliar, Micron filed suit against Rambus for anti competitive practices and invalid patents. Live by the sword, die by the sword...]
-={(Astynax)}=-