That's right! Now you if want a recursive tree instead of a loop, do this:
Recursive:Ajd. If not understood, See Recursive, Recursive.
Of course, that's "recursive" as a programming term. In language, it's a procedure that repeats itself indefinitely, so the original definition is correct in that sense.
I don't know if it would still win, but it would have at least been serious competition even if it only had 8 processors. The runner up had 1699 QphH with 8 processors, which is just a few hundred over half of what that ultra-cool Linux box did. Throwing 8 processors in doesn't necessarily double the server's speed, because you still have pesky things like I/O to worry about.
Of course, the runner up was benchmarked about ten months ago...maybe somebody ought to put Linux and DB2 on a ProLiant 8000-X700-8P and see how it does?
It has nothing to do with who's community and who's global. It may have something to do with who's generous and who's cut-throat. Certainly, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whose "day" it happened in. It has everything to do with the viability of their business model.
Linux distribution vendors do not make most of the product they distribute. If they are for-profit, they make money from value-added services. Then here comes Eazel, which thinks it has the time and money to both make a free product and sell the value-added services. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this business model?
Sometimes it's more effective to simply damage a company's reputation by announcing that there was a closed settlement and that the complainant is 'vary satisfied' with the result. Legal strategy is an amazing thing...
If our country would just require the loser to pay legal fees, it wouldn't happen like this. People might even think twice about taking someone to court. As it is, the system favors the guy with the most money.
If I buy a video, it is most likely licensed for home viewing only. Can I play this in a public place because me and the guy at the checkout counter didn't go over the license before I bought it? Did I have to sign something?
A copyright license does not have to be signed by the purchaser to be valid. And DVD's are most definitely not sold with the same restrictions that come with the purchase of a book - the license is completely different. Remember - you own the medium, but the artist (or whomever he sold out to) owns the work. He can license it to you in any way that he wishes, with any restrictions, in a binding contract, without a signature. The contract is valid until it is struck down in court for violating the doctrine of first sale, fair use, or whatever.
I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's how it is.
Just like AMD came along and bashed about Intel, someone needs to come along and bash about NVidia in the Video graphics arena.
How about ATI? I'd love to see them do it.
Re:Had a little fun, got a little sick
on
PanQuake
·
· Score: 1
Q1 is so much faster that I can't stand to play any of the later games.
Eh? You're right about the multiplayer thing, but Quake 3 IS inherently faster than Quake 1. The game units have stayed pretty much the same size, but players can run faster (and there's also strafe-jumping, where you can go up to 1.5 times faster than when you run), jump higher (high enough to get over another player - try that in Quake 1), and shoot more rapid-fire weapons (machine gun, plasma gun, lightning gun, BFG). There's even a nearly-instagib hit-scan weapon (the railgun), which can frag players - almost as soon as they spawn in - from across the map. Lifts have been removed in favor of bounce pads and accelerator pads. The maps are arenas, designed for fast action and lots of gibs. One of the powerups is "haste," which makes you move 1.3 times faster (I looked at the code). The reaction most people have when they go from Q1 multiplayer straight to Q3 is "Wow, that's fast. How do you actually play it?" (That was the general consensus when we changed our lunch hour playtime from Q1 to Q3, anyway.)
Now, if you're talking about how fast your graphics card can RENDER it, that's another story. You can pick yourself up a Radeon 32MB DDR for around 80 bucks nowadays...
No kidding. I taught assembly language last year at a state college. I didn't catch any cheating on any project until the last one, which I graded on the same day as finals. (We were pressed for time - it was a short semester.)
The last assignment was to control the VGA DAC through raw I/O to fade in and fade out the video display, and some of the students obviously decided they didn't want to (or couldn't) expend the necessary time and brainpower to understand the material. I got four assignments in where the PROCs for doing the fading were almost identical. (They were identical except for the comments - they were sneaky, you know?) Had I been able to determine the cheaters, I would have flunked them immediately. I would love to have gotten all four of them together for a chat, but I couldn't. As it was, I had to drop the score and apologize in comments in the source I handed back, just in case one of them was honest.
How do you define stealing? Do I have to physically remove property from your possession? Well, how do you define property? I've got a substantial amount of money in different accounts, none of which corresponds to actual, tangible property. I still own it.
Property is based on the right to exclude. I own a house, and a yard. Why are they mine? Because I decide who cannot stand on it. (Well, more or less - the meter reader guy still has to walk on my grass, but you get the idea.) I also decide who can and cannot build on it. I have exclusive rights. The more exclusive rights I have, the more it is considered my property.
Under this definition of property (which is the same definition used in U.S. law), stealing is defined as an action that removes the rights or ability of someone to exclude. If someone "steals" my money that I have in one of my accounts, I don't actually lose physical possession of it, do I? I just lose the ability to exclude others from using it.
IP law gives authors and inventors exclusive rights (read: "rights to exclude") over their works. If I remove from someone the ability or right to exclude, I have stolen. I have removed their property (or a portion of it) from them.
In short, here's the line of reasoning:
1) Property is defined by the rights of someone to exclude;
2) Intangible things may be property;
3) IP law makes ideas into property by granting exclusive rights over them to the author;
4) "Stealing" is removing the rights or ability to exclude;
5) IP infringement removes some of the rights and/or abilities of the author to exclude;
6) Therefore, IP infringement is stealing.
Morally, you can see it however you wish. Legally, this is reality. You do have to give a definition of the word "stealing" before you can give good reasons not to use it. Your stance insults people who have been victims of IP theft - and that's not just huge corporations.
You can already do this in Quake III. You can make a toggle key that changes your packet rate to something like 1. It's really hard to rail somebody that's jumping around like that.
If you feel like using up your HD space, you can also take screenshots at certain strategic times. The server stops receiving your packets until the screenshot is written, which makes you appear to stand still. Then you warp to where the server thinks you should have ended up had you not been "lagged." It's really hard to rail an airborne player that skips his apogee.
I just hope M$ doesn't sick the lawyers on him for libel against Mundie.
They could, and it would be expensive for Linus, but they wouldn't win. For what he says to be libel, the listeners have to have a "reasonable expectation" that what he says is the truth. What Linus said was figurative, which any "reasonable man" (I love that "reasonable" word in law) would not view as a fact.
That said, I love the statement. Comparing the "stinkiness" of a corporate shark to the "stinkiness" of a rotting corpse is just great.
...and why they think that I'm only licencing any movie I purchase and watch in my own home.
That's because you are only licensing the movie.
The explanation behind this is exclusivity and the separation of the content from the medium.
Exclusivity: I own my house, and my yard. Why do I "own" this property? Because the society I live in has mutually agreed to grant me rights to exclude people, animals, objects, and activities. The more rights I have to exclude, the more this is my property. Our society has mutually agreed to grant the creators of original work certain exclusive rights (read: "rights to exclude"), most importantly the right to create derivative works and to distribute copies. (The right to transfer those rights is also included.) By every legal definition, the artist owns the original work.
Separation of the content from the medium: The idea is that, legally, you can own the media while someone else owns whatever is "fixed" in it. The separation of ideas from tangible objects is a difficult one, and sometimes has to be redefined to fit a new medium. (Do I own the bits stored in RAM on my computer? Can someone else own their values, if only temporarily? The answer to the last question is "yes" according to case law.)
In order to let someone have possession of his work, an artist almost always "licenses" his work to the receiver of the copy. The reason they think you're only licensing rights to any movie you purchase is because you are. You own the media, but not the work - you only license it. That's how copyright works. Not only that, but they have the rights to license it to you under any terms they see fit to include until it is struck down in a court of law.
So what? I can't get free stuff anymore? Boo hoo. I didn't expect that to last very long anyway.
What I can still get for free is information. I get well over 75% of my information at work on the Internet. I have yet to find for-pay information that I couldn't get somewhere else for absolutely nothing.
Yes, it's Windows-only. But they've got some nifty instructions for those of us with Linux firewalls.
They've got voice ads (and I'm not sure how effective those are - they sort of annoyed me) that sometimes play over your speakers before you make a call. They also sell headsets and phone cards and long-distance calls to other countries. It looks like they haven't put all of their eggs into the advertising basket. I wonder how well that works?
SAME TRADE NAME OK IF YOU ARE IN DIFFERENT STATES.
At first, that is. Well-known trademarks are usually protected by the individual states.
In the United States, trademark law is largely state law. That's why Apple Computer, Apple Employment, and Apple Records can coexist. You get into disputes when one goes national followed by another, and there are usually concilliatory measures taken by the newcomer - but they work it out somehow. All of this has nothing to do with the company's market.
A recent development in trademark law is the idea of "dilution" - that a mark can become so commonplace that it loses its market value. Nissan, since they are so well recognized, have a good chance of winning a dilution lawsuit against someone who uses their mark. And, since states generally support well-known marks that originate out of state, Nissan could win if it brought a lawsuit against someone who used their mark unfairly. (That, and Nissan probably has their mark registered in every state.)
The idea that trademarks apply to only one area of business is quite false, and another good reason to have a Slashdot Intellectual Property Law FAQ.
[3] set policy. "First come, first serve." (that's it. done.)
The problem with this policy, whether you enforce it under the existing system or another system, is that it is fundamentally in conflict with trademark law in most countries.
So we have this system. So I register nissan.cx. I have a Slashdot-like site for encryption junkies, and I sell hats and shirts with the RSA algorithms on them.
Okay, I get sued by Nissan. What else did I expect? They sue me for unlicensed use of their trademark and trademark dilution. Who wins in court? They do. After all, I was using their well-known mark to further my own business interests.
There's got to be a solution, but "first come first serve" is not it. It will probably require some changes in domain registration, and possibly changes to trademark law, and probably international treaties to make it work. (Trademark law different in different countries, and we have to get them to agree somehow.) Setting up a "first come first serve" DNS system is just asking for lawsuits.
Lyrics are copyrighted, and the people that distribute them without a license to do so are illegally distributing. If you knowingly download from such people, you may be guilty of vicarious infringement.
The music itself is copyrighted with a "musical works" copyright. As you may be aware, copyright gives the owner exclusive rights (read: "ownership" - since ownership is based on the right to exclude) of certain activities, such as distribution and the creation of derivative works. Tabulature created by someone listening to the song falls under the latter.
So, legally, somebody who listens to a song and creates tabulature from it and then distributes it on the Internet (or anywhere else, for that matter) is twice guilty of copyright infringement. I don't necessarily agree, but that's how it is.
Slashdot Mirror
But the Jazz stuff would be way cool. A Shambler with a saxaphone would be sweeeet.
That's right! Now you if want a recursive tree instead of a loop, do this:
Recursive: Ajd. If not understood, See Recursive, Recursive.
Of course, that's "recursive" as a programming term. In language, it's a procedure that repeats itself indefinitely, so the original definition is correct in that sense.
I don't know if it would still win, but it would have at least been serious competition even if it only had 8 processors. The runner up had 1699 QphH with 8 processors, which is just a few hundred over half of what that ultra-cool Linux box did. Throwing 8 processors in doesn't necessarily double the server's speed, because you still have pesky things like I/O to worry about.
Of course, the runner up was benchmarked about ten months ago...maybe somebody ought to put Linux and DB2 on a ProLiant 8000-X700-8P and see how it does?
It has nothing to do with who's community and who's global. It may have something to do with who's generous and who's cut-throat. Certainly, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whose "day" it happened in. It has everything to do with the viability of their business model.
Linux distribution vendors do not make most of the product they distribute. If they are for-profit, they make money from value-added services. Then here comes Eazel, which thinks it has the time and money to both make a free product and sell the value-added services. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this business model?
Dr. Who?
.
I don't know.
Abbott: He's on third - now we're not talkin' 'bout him
Sometimes it's more effective to simply damage a company's reputation by announcing that there was a closed settlement and that the complainant is 'vary satisfied' with the result. Legal strategy is an amazing thing...
If our country would just require the loser to pay legal fees, it wouldn't happen like this. People might even think twice about taking someone to court. As it is, the system favors the guy with the most money.
In other words, there is no license!
Well, then you can't watch it.
If I buy a video, it is most likely licensed for home viewing only. Can I play this in a public place because me and the guy at the checkout counter didn't go over the license before I bought it? Did I have to sign something?
A copyright license does not have to be signed by the purchaser to be valid. And DVD's are most definitely not sold with the same restrictions that come with the purchase of a book - the license is completely different. Remember - you own the medium, but the artist (or whomever he sold out to) owns the work. He can license it to you in any way that he wishes, with any restrictions, in a binding contract, without a signature. The contract is valid until it is struck down in court for violating the doctrine of first sale, fair use, or whatever.
I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's how it is.
They already have. Here's a link to the project. You'll need Ghostscript 5.5. They've released it under a modified BSD license.
Just like AMD came along and bashed about Intel, someone needs to come along and bash about NVidia in the Video graphics arena.
How about ATI? I'd love to see them do it.
Q1 is so much faster that I can't stand to play any of the later games.
Eh? You're right about the multiplayer thing, but Quake 3 IS inherently faster than Quake 1. The game units have stayed pretty much the same size, but players can run faster (and there's also strafe-jumping, where you can go up to 1.5 times faster than when you run), jump higher (high enough to get over another player - try that in Quake 1), and shoot more rapid-fire weapons (machine gun, plasma gun, lightning gun, BFG). There's even a nearly-instagib hit-scan weapon (the railgun), which can frag players - almost as soon as they spawn in - from across the map. Lifts have been removed in favor of bounce pads and accelerator pads. The maps are arenas, designed for fast action and lots of gibs. One of the powerups is "haste," which makes you move 1.3 times faster (I looked at the code). The reaction most people have when they go from Q1 multiplayer straight to Q3 is "Wow, that's fast. How do you actually play it?" (That was the general consensus when we changed our lunch hour playtime from Q1 to Q3, anyway.)
Now, if you're talking about how fast your graphics card can RENDER it, that's another story. You can pick yourself up a Radeon 32MB DDR for around 80 bucks nowadays...
The hard part is telling just who is guilty...
No kidding. I taught assembly language last year at a state college. I didn't catch any cheating on any project until the last one, which I graded on the same day as finals. (We were pressed for time - it was a short semester.)
The last assignment was to control the VGA DAC through raw I/O to fade in and fade out the video display, and some of the students obviously decided they didn't want to (or couldn't) expend the necessary time and brainpower to understand the material. I got four assignments in where the PROCs for doing the fading were almost identical. (They were identical except for the comments - they were sneaky, you know?) Had I been able to determine the cheaters, I would have flunked them immediately. I would love to have gotten all four of them together for a chat, but I couldn't. As it was, I had to drop the score and apologize in comments in the source I handed back, just in case one of them was honest.
What a pain in the butt.
Katz? Is that you?
Does anyone here read anything other than slashdot?
Nope. No time. I get way too caught up feeding trolls and then *poof* there goes my whole day.
How do you define stealing? Do I have to physically remove property from your possession? Well, how do you define property? I've got a substantial amount of money in different accounts, none of which corresponds to actual, tangible property. I still own it.
Property is based on the right to exclude. I own a house, and a yard. Why are they mine? Because I decide who cannot stand on it. (Well, more or less - the meter reader guy still has to walk on my grass, but you get the idea.) I also decide who can and cannot build on it. I have exclusive rights. The more exclusive rights I have, the more it is considered my property.
Under this definition of property (which is the same definition used in U.S. law), stealing is defined as an action that removes the rights or ability of someone to exclude. If someone "steals" my money that I have in one of my accounts, I don't actually lose physical possession of it, do I? I just lose the ability to exclude others from using it.
IP law gives authors and inventors exclusive rights (read: "rights to exclude") over their works. If I remove from someone the ability or right to exclude, I have stolen. I have removed their property (or a portion of it) from them.
In short, here's the line of reasoning:
1) Property is defined by the rights of someone to exclude;
2) Intangible things may be property;
3) IP law makes ideas into property by granting exclusive rights over them to the author;
4) "Stealing" is removing the rights or ability to exclude;
5) IP infringement removes some of the rights and/or abilities of the author to exclude;
6) Therefore, IP infringement is stealing.
Morally, you can see it however you wish. Legally, this is reality. You do have to give a definition of the word "stealing" before you can give good reasons not to use it. Your stance insults people who have been victims of IP theft - and that's not just huge corporations.
Sally Struthers!
It doesn't have to be this way.
You can already do this in Quake III. You can make a toggle key that changes your packet rate to something like 1. It's really hard to rail somebody that's jumping around like that.
If you feel like using up your HD space, you can also take screenshots at certain strategic times. The server stops receiving your packets until the screenshot is written, which makes you appear to stand still. Then you warp to where the server thinks you should have ended up had you not been "lagged." It's really hard to rail an airborne player that skips his apogee.
Nah. Just use the tubes like they were designed! How many DVD's do you suppose you could fit in a mail canister? Just think of the bandwidth!
It'd be a beast to play Quake on, though.
"News for Nerds, Stuff That Matters." Apparently, your idea of "Nerd" is "anybody like me." Broaden your horizons.
I just hope M$ doesn't sick the lawyers on him for libel against Mundie.
They could, and it would be expensive for Linus, but they wouldn't win. For what he says to be libel, the listeners have to have a "reasonable expectation" that what he says is the truth. What Linus said was figurative, which any "reasonable man" (I love that "reasonable" word in law) would not view as a fact.
That said, I love the statement. Comparing the "stinkiness" of a corporate shark to the "stinkiness" of a rotting corpse is just great.
I can answer one of your MPAA questions.
...and why they think that I'm only licencing any movie I purchase and watch in my own home.
That's because you are only licensing the movie.
The explanation behind this is exclusivity and the separation of the content from the medium.
Exclusivity: I own my house, and my yard. Why do I "own" this property? Because the society I live in has mutually agreed to grant me rights to exclude people, animals, objects, and activities. The more rights I have to exclude, the more this is my property. Our society has mutually agreed to grant the creators of original work certain exclusive rights (read: "rights to exclude"), most importantly the right to create derivative works and to distribute copies. (The right to transfer those rights is also included.) By every legal definition, the artist owns the original work.
Separation of the content from the medium: The idea is that, legally, you can own the media while someone else owns whatever is "fixed" in it. The separation of ideas from tangible objects is a difficult one, and sometimes has to be redefined to fit a new medium. (Do I own the bits stored in RAM on my computer? Can someone else own their values, if only temporarily? The answer to the last question is "yes" according to case law.)
In order to let someone have possession of his work, an artist almost always "licenses" his work to the receiver of the copy. The reason they think you're only licensing rights to any movie you purchase is because you are. You own the media, but not the work - you only license it. That's how copyright works. Not only that, but they have the rights to license it to you under any terms they see fit to include until it is struck down in a court of law.
So what? I can't get free stuff anymore? Boo hoo. I didn't expect that to last very long anyway.
What I can still get for free is information. I get well over 75% of my information at work on the Internet. I have yet to find for-pay information that I couldn't get somewhere else for absolutely nothing.
Yes, it's Windows-only. But they've got some nifty instructions for those of us with Linux firewalls.
They've got voice ads (and I'm not sure how effective those are - they sort of annoyed me) that sometimes play over your speakers before you make a call. They also sell headsets and phone cards and long-distance calls to other countries. It looks like they haven't put all of their eggs into the advertising basket. I wonder how well that works?
SAME TRADE NAME OK IF YOU DO DIFFERENT THINGS!
SAME TRADE NAME OK IF YOU ARE IN DIFFERENT STATES.
At first, that is. Well-known trademarks are usually protected by the individual states.
In the United States, trademark law is largely state law. That's why Apple Computer, Apple Employment, and Apple Records can coexist. You get into disputes when one goes national followed by another, and there are usually concilliatory measures taken by the newcomer - but they work it out somehow. All of this has nothing to do with the company's market.
A recent development in trademark law is the idea of "dilution" - that a mark can become so commonplace that it loses its market value. Nissan, since they are so well recognized, have a good chance of winning a dilution lawsuit against someone who uses their mark. And, since states generally support well-known marks that originate out of state, Nissan could win if it brought a lawsuit against someone who used their mark unfairly. (That, and Nissan probably has their mark registered in every state.)
The idea that trademarks apply to only one area of business is quite false, and another good reason to have a Slashdot Intellectual Property Law FAQ.
[3] set policy. "First come, first serve." (that's it. done.)
The problem with this policy, whether you enforce it under the existing system or another system, is that it is fundamentally in conflict with trademark law in most countries.
So we have this system. So I register nissan.cx. I have a Slashdot-like site for encryption junkies, and I sell hats and shirts with the RSA algorithms on them.
Okay, I get sued by Nissan. What else did I expect? They sue me for unlicensed use of their trademark and trademark dilution. Who wins in court? They do. After all, I was using their well-known mark to further my own business interests.
There's got to be a solution, but "first come first serve" is not it. It will probably require some changes in domain registration, and possibly changes to trademark law, and probably international treaties to make it work. (Trademark law different in different countries, and we have to get them to agree somehow.) Setting up a "first come first serve" DNS system is just asking for lawsuits.
Lyrics are copyrighted, and the people that distribute them without a license to do so are illegally distributing. If you knowingly download from such people, you may be guilty of vicarious infringement.
The music itself is copyrighted with a "musical works" copyright. As you may be aware, copyright gives the owner exclusive rights (read: "ownership" - since ownership is based on the right to exclude) of certain activities, such as distribution and the creation of derivative works. Tabulature created by someone listening to the song falls under the latter.
So, legally, somebody who listens to a song and creates tabulature from it and then distributes it on the Internet (or anywhere else, for that matter) is twice guilty of copyright infringement. I don't necessarily agree, but that's how it is.