I agree wholeheartedly. The reason rental shops work is because they can buy one movie and let some hundred of people use that same copy for a limited time.
If this terminally-ill DVD is to remain competitive with other DVD/VHS rentals, I'm assuming they'll rent it out for about $2CDN? Since you're the only one besides the seagulls to see this movie, that means that $2 is the only profit the rental shop will ever get from it. Quick calculation: that means the rental shop is paying less than $2 for it! This includes licencing fees, manufacturing, distributing, and bureaucratic fees.
Assuming normal DVD manufacturing costs about the same, if not less than, perishable DVD manufacturing, then the rental shop should be able to get a real DVD for under $2 too! Let's play a little game of math:
price of wonky DVD: $1.50 price of real DVD: $1.50 rental price of wonky DVD: $2.00 rental price of real DVD: $2.00, but unfortunately $0.25 of it goes the production companies:( demand for wonky DVD: 500 demand for real DVD: 200
profit from wonky DVD: 250.00 profit from real DVD: 348.50
So even with if there were 2.5x the demand for wonky DVDs (ya, right), the rental shop is getting higher profits with the real DVDs in this example.
Let's assume I'm a rental shop owner...hmm, which would *I* prefer?
Of course the REAL question is: if a rental shop can get it for $2, why can't I?:)
Keep in mind that I'm not entirely sure on how movie rentals works. I'm assuming rental shops pay a lower fee than the consumer:( and then pay fees each time they rent it out.
Um OK first: they're rebroadcasting public airwaves. The content is absolutely unedited by iCrave. People do not say "hey, did you see what was on iCrave last night?!" anymore than they say "hey, did you see what was on the airwaves last night?!"
Secondly, this has a direct analogy to cable companies. AFAIK, cable companies in Canada do not pay anyone to rebroadcast publically available signals. Once again, people do not say "hey, did you see what was on Shaw last night?!" (Shaw is a Canadian cable company). They would instead say "hey, did you see what was on CTV last night?!"
They're not doing anything magical; they've just discovered loopbacks. I run Linux completely from a file on my Windows drive too. There's nothing noteworthy about it.
One of the things Corel seems to be working hard on is integration between Windows and Linux, as can be shown in the work they put into Wine. This puts Corel somewhere along the business-home continuum, where one wouldn't think that Unix would be a good choice.
While it's true that all the decent free operating systems (at least that I can think of) are Unix based, have you ever thought of searching out, creating, or perhaps heavily modifying Linux to become less Unix-like and more desktop-like? Gnome and KDE can be nice, but always you have to carry around some of the weight of Unix, like permissions, which make almost no sense on the desktop. Basically, has Corel ever thought of giving us free software users a decent alternative to Unix?
For all you know, 100% of the engineers could be using it 100% of the time. The statement doesn't say that that isn't possible. Most likely you have, say, 60% of the engineers using it 70% of the time, and the other 40% are using it 30% of the time.
That comes out to 58% engineer-browsing being down through Mozilla. Still not stellar. But it's impossible to determine from that sentence what the actual figure is. The absolute minimum is 25% (the number you quoted), and the absolute maximum is 100%. It's anybody's guess what the actual number is.
Re:Design of Mozilla must address fears of busines
on
Mozilla Status Update
·
· Score: 3
Simply telling them "Sorry, your problem" to lose a customer.
You will lose a lot
more customers by simply telling them "Sorry, it is impossible for you to use our service". Being up front about the problems is the best solution, but it's almost never necessary. Face it: if you're doing something useful with Java or Javascript for anything, you're an idiot. Would you expect your accountant to say to you "I'll tell you what calculations to do, but you have to do them all. If you make a mistake, it's your own fault"? Probably (hopefully), you'd expect your accountant to actually do the calculations and check them over.
You're telling me you got 1.6Gbit/s in your dorm? Considering how expensive gigabit switches (or hubs for that matter) are, somehow I'm skeptical that they're going to allow you to do any gigabit channel bonding. Even your '80mbytes/s' (over 600Mbit/s) seems highly dubious. That would require a hell of a lot of 100bT cards channel bonded, or a gigabit card, which sounds suspicious. Unless of course by 'mbyte' you mean millibyte. That sounds a little more accurate:)
Send your patch to the linux-kernel mailing list just saying "Hey here's a patch against Linux 2.x.y that autodetects Foo Inc.'s Bizbaz XT controller card." Unless your patch is really big (why would it be?); then just give a link to a website or something to your patch. In case you're not on the linux-kernel mailing list, the short summary of how to make a good patch is: $ diff -urN {original-source-tree} {your-source-tree} >/tmp/linux-patch
Alternatively, look in the.c file for the XT controller and find an appropriate email address if you don't want to broadcast your patch to everyone on the lkml. Hope this helps.
OK, the original UNIX talk was a little bit shaky, but messaging has undoubtedly reached the ultra supreme level of upper perfectness with the release of ytalk. No banner ads even!
Linux supports smbfs, so you can mount Windows drives alright. I'm clueless on the Apple side of things, but I've seen the term 'AppleTalk', so maybe Linux can mount Macintosh drives too. From there you could just a simple 'tar c/mnt/*' and problem solved, right?
The only problem is that there are no decent compilers for Linux. Any Microsoft, Borland, or Foo Inc. compilers designed for the 386 will easily beat pgcc on any day...I don't even want to think about vanilla gcc. Plus, if I understand correctly, other Linux platforms like Alpha are even worse off than i386 is re: compilers. Forget Office2000 or some fashion of DirectX; I would like to see Microsoft port a C compiler to i386 Linux.
OK first off: OSS/Linux. The sound drivers that (probably about) 10% of Linux users use are not released under GPL. There are probably hundreds of other kernel modules out there that are proprietary and/or GPL-unfriendly. Linus made a decision a long time ago that proprietary modules can exist.
Second off: . . . all of which are separate and distinct entities that cooperate and work together. I don't see this distinction where the new Amiga OS is concerned Neither do I. If you can create "entities" that sit on top of Linux which are neither kernel modules, programs, nor libraries, then I suppose you might have a point in there somewhere. Unfortunately, you can't, and thus, you don't:). X is no different from Netscape which is no different from false(1) -- they are all just programs which make up the operating system, and they can all be released under whatever licence they want. The game you want to play is trying to draw a line between "applications" and "the OS". Is X part of the OS, or is it an application? How about bash? perl?
Whatever Amiga does to make their own new operating system, they're going to have to do one of the following: - make changes to the kernel. They will have to make their changes public according to the GPL. - make kernel modules. These can be proprietary. - make cool new GUIs (as a replacement for X). This can be proprietary, as it is just a program. - make a cool new API to replace libc. This can be proprietary. It is not against the law to port Motif to Linux; proprietary libraries are A-OK.
Anyhow, that only refers to failover-type clustering. I've yet to hear of a widely tested NT-based alternative to Beowulf.
Most likely because Beowulf-style clustering is useless, whereas failover-style clustering is not. Unless, of course, there are many companies in the business of easily-parallelised calculations.
Whether it was low-end or not is up to debate, since Ziff Davis decided not to divulge the specs on their test machines. All we know is that the 'low-end' machines were single-processor with 256MB RAM. They're talking about 'low-end' in the giant-corporate-server scope most likely, which is different from what most normal users would consider 'low-end'.
Yes, you misunderstood. It is possible to run Linux with 8 or 16 processors right now, but I believe Linus' words were that it would "be like throwing money at a dead horse". In other words, the performance difference between say 8 and 16 processors would be negligible at best.
So right now, 4 processors is approximately the maximum number you can have and still have a fairly decent bang for the processor.
Despite Einstein's wishes that he be cremated in his entirety, Dr. Harvey removed the brain from his cranium, took it home and was fired from his hospital job when he refused to give it back. The whereabouts of Einstein's organ have been the subject of speculation and macabre rumours ever since his death 42 years ago at the age of 76.
Not to mention they have no respect for the people putting their CPU cycles into this. They close up their software totally, cut off all communication. I'm sure they had good intentions, but they did it to themselves. Many people in the free software community were willing to help with developing clients, but they basically ignored them; now they're using a shortage of manpower as an excuse. I do not consider these people a part of the scientific community, and from what I understand, neither do many scientists.
Re:BunnyPeople[tm] must die
on
Cool PC Cases
·
· Score: 1
First: yup
Second: I think the actual name for those "tin foil suits" is "bunny suits".
One of the more interesting essays on the GNU website talks about how money isn't a good incentive for high quality work. Either GNU (i.e. RMS) have changed their tune, or they're getting really desparate for documentation:).
We (in North America) have a lot of unintelligible propaganda in the mass-media nowadays. Ask any 3rd grader about marijuana and they'll probably tell you "Say no to drugs!" Ask them what's so bad about it and they'll probably tell you "Say no to drugs!" Ask a 1st grader what an environment is and they'll probably mumble something about recycling. God forbid we should try to treat children as people and reason with them. Although I suppose that ad you were talking about was geared towards adults, too, so who knows.
As others have stated, it would be good practice to break laws you don't agree with.
Should actively try to steal water without paying for it? Think about this for a moment. Is there something about the phrase "steal water" that doesn't make sense?
I don't much appreciate the insinuation that the American government can choose the morals for every person on Earth. Morals and American law are two completely different things. Slavery was once legal in the United States, too; do you consider slavery to be acceptable practice?
I would think most people consider murder to be wrong because it has real consequences -- someone dies. With unauthorised software copying, however, the consequences are effectively impossible to determine. It helps the author of the software in some ways (as brought up by the previous poster), and it can be argued that it costs them in revenue. I would think that the reason most people don't feel guilty about illegally copying information is because they have no way of telling whether it will do much harm or not.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree wholeheartedly. The reason rental shops work is because they can buy one movie and let some hundred of people use that same copy for a limited time.
:(
:)
:( and then pay fees each time they rent it out.
If this terminally-ill DVD is to remain competitive with other DVD/VHS rentals, I'm assuming they'll rent it out for about $2CDN? Since you're the only one besides the seagulls to see this movie, that means that $2 is the only profit the rental shop will ever get from it. Quick calculation: that means the rental shop is paying less than $2 for it! This includes licencing fees, manufacturing, distributing, and bureaucratic fees.
Assuming normal DVD manufacturing costs about the same, if not less than, perishable DVD manufacturing, then the rental shop should be able to get a real DVD for under $2 too! Let's play a little game of math:
price of wonky DVD: $1.50
price of real DVD: $1.50
rental price of wonky DVD: $2.00
rental price of real DVD: $2.00, but unfortunately $0.25 of it goes the production companies
demand for wonky DVD: 500
demand for real DVD: 200
profit from wonky DVD: 250.00
profit from real DVD: 348.50
So even with if there were 2.5x the demand for wonky DVDs (ya, right), the rental shop is getting higher profits with the real DVDs in this example.
Let's assume I'm a rental shop owner...hmm, which would *I* prefer?
Of course the REAL question is: if a rental shop can get it for $2, why can't I?
Keep in mind that I'm not entirely sure on how movie rentals works. I'm assuming rental shops pay a lower fee than the consumer
Um OK first: they're rebroadcasting public airwaves. The content is absolutely unedited by iCrave. People do not say "hey, did you see what was on iCrave last night?!" anymore than they say "hey, did you see what was on the airwaves last night?!"
Secondly, this has a direct analogy to cable companies. AFAIK, cable companies in Canada do not pay anyone to rebroadcast publically available signals. Once again, people do not say "hey, did you see what was on Shaw last night?!" (Shaw is a Canadian cable company). They would instead say "hey, did you see what was on CTV last night?!"
They're not doing anything magical; they've just discovered loopbacks. I run Linux completely from a file on my Windows drive too. There's nothing noteworthy about it.
One of the things Corel seems to be working hard on is integration between Windows and Linux, as can be shown in the work they put into Wine. This puts Corel somewhere along the business-home continuum, where one wouldn't think that Unix would be a good choice.
While it's true that all the decent free operating systems (at least that I can think of) are Unix based, have you ever thought of searching out, creating, or perhaps heavily modifying Linux to become less Unix-like and more desktop-like? Gnome and KDE can be nice, but always you have to carry around some of the weight of Unix, like permissions, which make almost no sense on the desktop. Basically, has Corel ever thought of giving us free software users a decent alternative to Unix?
Your math is making a lot of assumptions :).
For all you know, 100% of the engineers could be using it 100% of the time. The statement doesn't say that that isn't possible. Most likely you have, say, 60% of the engineers using it 70% of the time, and the other 40% are using it 30% of the time.
That comes out to 58% engineer-browsing being down through Mozilla. Still not stellar. But it's impossible to determine from that sentence what the actual figure is. The absolute minimum is 25% (the number you quoted), and the absolute maximum is 100%. It's anybody's guess what the actual number is.
Simply telling them "Sorry, your problem" to lose a customer.
You will lose
a lot
more customers by simply telling them "Sorry, it is impossible for you to use our service". Being up front about the problems is the best solution, but it's almost never necessary. Face it: if you're doing something useful with Java or Javascript for anything, you're an idiot. Would you expect your accountant to say to you "I'll tell you what calculations to do, but you have to do them all. If you make a mistake, it's your own fault"? Probably (hopefully), you'd expect your accountant to actually do the calculations and check them over.
You're telling me you got 1.6Gbit/s in your dorm? Considering how expensive gigabit switches (or hubs for that matter) are, somehow I'm skeptical that they're going to allow you to do any gigabit channel bonding. Even your '80mbytes/s' (over 600Mbit/s) seems highly dubious. That would require a hell of a lot of 100bT cards channel bonded, or a gigabit card, which sounds suspicious. :)
Unless of course by 'mbyte' you mean millibyte. That sounds a little more accurate
just mellow out a bit, dude :)
Send your patch to the linux-kernel mailing list just saying "Hey here's a patch against Linux 2.x.y that autodetects Foo Inc.'s Bizbaz XT controller card." Unless your patch is really big (why would it be?); then just give a link to a website or something to your patch. In case you're not on the linux-kernel mailing list, the short summary of how to make a good patch is:
.c file for the XT controller and find an appropriate email address if you don't want to broadcast your patch to everyone on the lkml. Hope this helps.
$ diff -urN {original-source-tree} {your-source-tree} >/tmp/linux-patch
Alternatively, look in the
I don't think you understand the term 'feature freeze' very well. The whole point is that nothing new gets added so it can be better stabilised.
OK, the original UNIX talk was a little bit shaky, but messaging has undoubtedly reached the ultra supreme level of upper perfectness with the release of ytalk. No banner ads even!
Linux supports smbfs, so you can mount Windows drives alright. I'm clueless on the Apple side of things, but I've seen the term 'AppleTalk', so maybe Linux can mount Macintosh drives too. From there you could just a simple 'tar c /mnt/*' and problem solved, right?
The only problem is that there are no decent compilers for Linux. Any Microsoft, Borland, or Foo Inc. compilers designed for the 386 will easily beat pgcc on any day...I don't even want to think about vanilla gcc. Plus, if I understand correctly, other Linux platforms like Alpha are even worse off than i386 is re: compilers. Forget Office2000 or some fashion of DirectX; I would like to see Microsoft port a C compiler to i386 Linux.
OK first off: OSS/Linux. The sound drivers that (probably about) 10% of Linux users use are not released under GPL. There are probably hundreds of other kernel modules out there that are proprietary and/or GPL-unfriendly. Linus made a decision a long time ago that proprietary modules can exist.
:). X is no different from Netscape which is no different from false(1) -- they are all just programs which make up the operating system, and they can all be released under whatever licence they want. The game you want to play is trying to draw a line between "applications" and "the OS". Is X part of the OS, or is it an application? How about bash? perl?
Second off:
. . . all of which are separate and distinct entities that cooperate and work together. I don't see this distinction where the new Amiga OS is concerned
Neither do I. If you can create "entities" that sit on top of Linux which are neither kernel modules, programs, nor libraries, then I suppose you might have a point in there somewhere. Unfortunately, you can't, and thus, you don't
Whatever Amiga does to make their own new operating system, they're going to have to do one of the following:
- make changes to the kernel. They will have to make their changes public according to the GPL.
- make kernel modules. These can be proprietary.
- make cool new GUIs (as a replacement for X). This can be proprietary, as it is just a program.
- make a cool new API to replace libc. This can be proprietary. It is not against the law to port Motif to Linux; proprietary libraries are A-OK.
Anyhow, that only refers to failover-type clustering. I've yet to hear of a widely tested NT-based alternative to Beowulf.
Most likely because Beowulf-style clustering is useless, whereas failover-style clustering is not. Unless, of course, there are many companies in the business of easily-parallelised calculations.
Whether it was low-end or not is up to debate, since Ziff Davis decided not to divulge the specs on their test machines. All we know is that the 'low-end' machines were single-processor with 256MB RAM. They're talking about 'low-end' in the giant-corporate-server scope most likely, which is different from what most normal users would consider 'low-end'.
Yes, you misunderstood. It is possible to run Linux with 8 or 16 processors right now, but I believe Linus' words were that it would "be like throwing money at a dead horse". In other words, the performance difference between say 8 and 16 processors would be negligible at best.
So right now, 4 processors is approximately the maximum number you can have and still have a fairly decent bang for the processor.
Despite Einstein's wishes that he be cremated in his entirety, Dr. Harvey removed the brain from his cranium, took it home and was fired from his hospital job when he refused to give it back. The whereabouts of Einstein's organ have been the subject of speculation and macabre rumours ever since his death 42 years ago at the age of 76.
My apologies, |_124rD_K1n6.
Not to mention they have no respect for the people putting their CPU cycles into this. They close up their software totally, cut off all communication. I'm sure they had good intentions, but they did it to themselves. Many people in the free software community were willing to help with developing clients, but they basically ignored them; now they're using a shortage of manpower as an excuse. I do not consider these people a part of the scientific community, and from what I understand, neither do many scientists.
First: yup
Second: I think the actual name for those "tin foil suits" is "bunny suits".
Third: yup
One of the more interesting essays on the GNU website talks about how money isn't a good incentive for high quality work. Either GNU (i.e. RMS) have changed their tune, or they're getting really desparate for documentation :).
We (in North America) have a lot of unintelligible propaganda in the mass-media nowadays. Ask any 3rd grader about marijuana and they'll probably tell you "Say no to drugs!" Ask them what's so bad about it and they'll probably tell you "Say no to drugs!" Ask a 1st grader what an environment is and they'll probably mumble something about recycling. God forbid we should try to treat children as people and reason with them. Although I suppose that ad you were talking about was geared towards adults, too, so who knows.
As others have stated, it would be good practice to break laws you don't agree with.
Should actively try to steal water without paying for it?
Think about this for a moment. Is there something about the phrase "steal water" that doesn't make sense?
I don't much appreciate the insinuation that the American government can choose the morals for every person on Earth. Morals and American law are two completely different things. Slavery was once legal in the United States, too; do you consider slavery to be acceptable practice?
I would think most people consider murder to be wrong because it has real consequences -- someone dies. With unauthorised software copying, however, the consequences are effectively impossible to determine. It helps the author of the software in some ways (as brought up by the previous poster), and it can be argued that it costs them in revenue. I would think that the reason most people don't feel guilty about illegally copying information is because they have no way of telling whether it will do much harm or not.