I assume that you are talking about pirated CD-keys no longer working with WinXP SP1. And if you are the two things are nothing alike. In one situation, a company stopped(or rather tried to stop) the pirating of the product, and in the other the company reduced the functionality of a product. There is no fair use for using one of the pirated CD-keys. There is however fair use for sharing music across different subnets.
Does the Micrsoft system use PDF as it's base? It is an extension of Display Postscript? Last time I checked it wasn't. So the only similarity that I can see between MS's new desktop and Apples, is the whole 3d rendering thing. Which wasn't a new idea when Apple did it, so they don't get to claim Microsoft is copying them.
and Quartz is so original. I bet no software company had ever thought up using a 3D card to render a desktop. That wasn't the natural evolution of things or anything. And Microsoft isn't waiting to deploy one until the hardware is ready or anything. Apple is first to the market with a lot of stuff, not because they are visionary, but because they release it when the hardware isn't ready for it yet.
Alot of people are bashing Intel because they see the need for 64-bit computers now or in the near future. One thing that people are forgetting is that most slashdot users(even those of us using windows) are not "mainstream" and do not have "mainstream computers". Most of us have computer which should probably be categorized under the workstation category. Intel isn't saying that there is no need for 64-bit right now, they are saying that there is no need for 64-bit on the mainstream desktop until 2007, which is probably true. If you were to go to BestBuy to look at mainstream desktop computers you would find that most of them come with 256MB of RAM. The people that buy these computers don't need anywhere near 4GB of RAM, and won't until at least 2007. These are the people that Intel is talking about. For those who do need 64-bit computing it is here or will be here in a month from both Intel and AMD. Yes they Itanium is really expensive, but most of the applications which need 64-bit computer are already really expensive, so $2000 instead of $500 for a CPU next to $20,000 for software isn't really that big of a deal.
We have a similar system at Arizona State University, except all non-educational traffic is grouped together. The result is that it is impossible to play online games. Most of us are willing to understand the limiting of P2P programs, because we understand that they use up alot of bandwitdh, and that for the most part they are illegal. But, online games are not illegal, and they don't use much bandwidth. So the people at UC Irvine should feel lucky that games aren't grouped in with P2P by their IT department.
I can't see Apple ever releasing OSX for an open x86 architecture, but I can see them releasing an Xbox like machine that runs on a x86 CPU, but can only run OSX.
If you really believe "you do not need a domain name to have a website," then by all means feel free to use numeric addresses. You won't need to pay a registrar one red cent, and no corporations will sue you for infringing their trademarks.
But what if the name of my company was 216.239.51.101 or something similar?
1)For something there aren't specific standards, a prime example of this would be tables. My webpage is 100% w3c html4.01 complient, and displays perfect in both IE and Mozilla, but not in Opera. The w3c doesn't set up specific guidelines on how to graphically render tables, so this is a situation where the little guys(opera,mozilla) need to follow what IE does, and render tables in the same manner that IE does.
But, you only get the free bag if it breaks on the grocery store's property, you don't get one if the bag breaks in your driveway. The same reasoning applies to CDs, if you somehow lose your CD in the Best Buy parking lot, then they will probably give you a new one, but if you lose it at your house, then toughluck.
Well, hopefully if MS is going to make this a pattern of changing the code every so often, they will start telling nvidia in advance. For instance instead of just saying that they want X number of MCPs, say that they want Y MCPs with code A, and then Z MCPs with code B. If they set this up, they could change codes every month, or even every week, inorder to foil the modchippers.
So then you admit, that it is not that Linux is any better than Windows, it is only that its user base is willing to spend all of there time updating there OS?
There is a Reason that the people that work at yahoo don't actually have @yahoo.com e-mail addresses. For this exact reason they have @yahoo-inc.com e-mail addresses
Yes, but you also have to pay over twice as much for that computer:-), kinda negates the fact that it has "operating system that comes free when you buy the machine", doesn't it?
Many universities don't do anything to stop people from running websites off their computers. And at least at my school you have to use ALOT of outbound bandwidth(over several gigs a day) before they will catch on to the fact that you are running a server. And when they do catch on, all they do is send you a threatening e-mail, at which time, you find another kid to host your website.
It wouldn't actually be that bad of a move for either company. nvidia would get access to fabs, so they wouln't have to outsource chip production anymore, and AMD would get a company which knows how to make good chipsets. One thing that I have always felt that has held AMD back is there lack of a good stable chipset. Intel has always(well normally, lets not talk about the 820) had good solid stable chipsets, and that was what AMD needs. If AMD were to be merge with nvidia, then AMD would finally have a chipset of there own, that is actually good.
What I think they were talking about was breaking the copies that had actually been hacked with a patch. They can do this without disabling any legit copies, because the only copies that would be effected would be the ones that someone modified(read: hacked).
Slashdot Mirror
I assume that you are talking about pirated CD-keys no longer working with WinXP SP1. And if you are the two things are nothing alike. In one situation, a company stopped(or rather tried to stop) the pirating of the product, and in the other the company reduced the functionality of a product. There is no fair use for using one of the pirated CD-keys. There is however fair use for sharing music across different subnets.
Does the Micrsoft system use PDF as it's base? It is an extension of Display Postscript? Last time I checked it wasn't. So the only similarity that I can see between MS's new desktop and Apples, is the whole 3d rendering thing. Which wasn't a new idea when Apple did it, so they don't get to claim Microsoft is copying them.
and Quartz is so original. I bet no software company had ever thought up using a 3D card to render a desktop. That wasn't the natural evolution of things or anything. And Microsoft isn't waiting to deploy one until the hardware is ready or anything. Apple is first to the market with a lot of stuff, not because they are visionary, but because they release it when the hardware isn't ready for it yet.
Alot of people are bashing Intel because they see the need for 64-bit computers now or in the near future. One thing that people are forgetting is that most slashdot users(even those of us using windows) are not "mainstream" and do not have "mainstream computers". Most of us have computer which should probably be categorized under the workstation category. Intel isn't saying that there is no need for 64-bit right now, they are saying that there is no need for 64-bit on the mainstream desktop until 2007, which is probably true. If you were to go to BestBuy to look at mainstream desktop computers you would find that most of them come with 256MB of RAM. The people that buy these computers don't need anywhere near 4GB of RAM, and won't until at least 2007. These are the people that Intel is talking about. For those who do need 64-bit computing it is here or will be here in a month from both Intel and AMD. Yes they Itanium is really expensive, but most of the applications which need 64-bit computer are already really expensive, so $2000 instead of $500 for a CPU next to $20,000 for software isn't really that big of a deal.
Ahem, Battlefield Earth?
It is really small, so what would they be compensating for, giant......? That would sure be ironic
We have a similar system at Arizona State University, except all non-educational traffic is grouped together. The result is that it is impossible to play online games. Most of us are willing to understand the limiting of P2P programs, because we understand that they use up alot of bandwitdh, and that for the most part they are illegal. But, online games are not illegal, and they don't use much bandwidth. So the people at UC Irvine should feel lucky that games aren't grouped in with P2P by their IT department.
I can't see Apple ever releasing OSX for an open x86 architecture, but I can see them releasing an Xbox like machine that runs on a x86 CPU, but can only run OSX.
If you really believe "you do not need a domain name to have a website," then by all means feel free to use numeric addresses. You won't need to pay a registrar one red cent, and no corporations will sue you for infringing their trademarks.
But what if the name of my company was 216.239.51.101 or something similar?
1)For something there aren't specific standards, a prime example of this would be tables. My webpage is 100% w3c html4.01 complient, and displays perfect in both IE and Mozilla, but not in Opera. The w3c doesn't set up specific guidelines on how to graphically render tables, so this is a situation where the little guys(opera,mozilla) need to follow what IE does, and render tables in the same manner that IE does.
But, you only get the free bag if it breaks on the grocery store's property, you don't get one if the bag breaks in your driveway. The same reasoning applies to CDs, if you somehow lose your CD in the Best Buy parking lot, then they will probably give you a new one, but if you lose it at your house, then toughluck.
Well, hopefully if MS is going to make this a pattern of changing the code every so often, they will start telling nvidia in advance. For instance instead of just saying that they want X number of MCPs, say that they want Y MCPs with code A, and then Z MCPs with code B. If they set this up, they could change codes every month, or even every week, inorder to foil the modchippers.
So then you admit, that it is not that Linux is any better than Windows, it is only that its user base is willing to spend all of there time updating there OS?
There is a Reason that the people that work at yahoo don't actually have @yahoo.com e-mail addresses. For this exact reason they have @yahoo-inc.com e-mail addresses
Yes, but you also have to pay over twice as much for that computer :-), kinda negates the fact that it has "operating system that comes free when you buy the machine", doesn't it?
Many universities don't do anything to stop people from running websites off their computers. And at least at my school you have to use ALOT of outbound bandwidth(over several gigs a day) before they will catch on to the fact that you are running a server. And when they do catch on, all they do is send you a threatening e-mail, at which time, you find another kid to host your website.
So, who wants to come down to the park with me and round some of the patent infringing scoundrels up?
It wouldn't actually be that bad of a move for either company. nvidia would get access to fabs, so they wouln't have to outsource chip production anymore, and AMD would get a company which knows how to make good chipsets. One thing that I have always felt that has held AMD back is there lack of a good stable chipset. Intel has always(well normally, lets not talk about the 820) had good solid stable chipsets, and that was what AMD needs. If AMD were to be merge with nvidia, then AMD would finally have a chipset of there own, that is actually good.
What I think they were talking about was breaking the copies that had actually been hacked with a patch. They can do this without disabling any legit copies, because the only copies that would be effected would be the ones that someone modified(read: hacked).