It seems a lot of people are kvetching at AMD for this because they're criticising a competitor. I think it's really more relevant to consider if what AMD says is true - if nVidia is paying people to use their proprietary stuff and then claiming it has broad industry adoption (and therefore is good), that's pretty shady.
I'm not sure how we really can tell if the criticism is valid unless we're in the industry though.
I have a bit of sympathy for Lessig's idea that we could make do with weaker protections, provided we make it clear that it is not actually property and we stop treating it so similarly.
I have no sympathy with those who claim intellectual property - sure, these lawsuits are filed by scum, but they're filed against people who claim to own ideas. I hope these are long, plentiful, painful lawsuits for both sides.
But it's impossible for people to end up in jail in a free market! Any time people might need something they don't have, whether it be stuff or emotional fulfillment, a market is created, and the invisible hand provides!
This incidentally is why in a free market nobody is killed by bullets - need to be saved -> market -> invisible hand deflects bullet.
While we're in irony mode, yup, that's why we have the best health care system in the world, we have the best train infrastructure in the world, and why our scientific and cultural literacy is top-notch!
In the long run, the climate change denialists will look a lot like the kinds of people who still doubt evolution. We just have to hope we can protect the environment well enough that their "oops" doesn't doom us all.
If you have to bet between your judgement and that of your auto manufacturer, I'd suggest that unless you really know what you're talking about, bet on the auto manufacturer. They're the experts.
Likewise, if you're some independent thinker and have an idea how something works, but the scientific community has significant work in the field, you should generally bet on them rather than you.
Actually, the "climategate" stuff just shows us how nutty some strands of American conservativism have become - one gets a bunch of people who, not understanding the context of the mails or much of the science, jump on language that might naïvely seem to be evidence of fraud, but on closer examination by anyone willing to look, turn out to be completely innocuous. False crises arn't really a PR problem in the long run - they just go on the list of things certain people will be embarassed about in a few years.
If they're not qualified to speak on a matter, they should not speak on it (or provide a big disclaimer). It may not be the kind of huge dangerous coverup that speaks of a conspiracy, but lying under oath on these matters is a big deal, even if the matter itself is reasonably benign - how can we hope to have broad consensus and many (qualified) eyes on the topic when the real facts arn't making it out there? Companies should just deal with the fact that kooks are going to read their public statements too - they still should be open and lying under oath is a really big deal.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems a lot of people are kvetching at AMD for this because they're criticising a competitor. I think it's really more relevant to consider if what AMD says is true - if nVidia is paying people to use their proprietary stuff and then claiming it has broad industry adoption (and therefore is good), that's pretty shady.
I'm not sure how we really can tell if the criticism is valid unless we're in the industry though.
I thought Havok has been used by SecondLife for years....
Oh sweet they're announcing a new sequel to Koyaanisqatsi too, done by valve? Wild.
I'd rather the patent office simply put the applications in the trash and never approve of anything.
As I'm on my way out, my last words will be "It's spelled Nobel..."
Thanks. I wanted to say something meaningful! :(
Do you by any chance work for FoxNews? Stating that you know what "it really is", then rapidly retreating to "I wouldn't be surprised..."
This is only as good or bad as the people whose morality is enforced.
Stomping a cat to death with high heels - I'd probably do a lot more than run someone out of town for that... pornography, I'd do nothing whatsoever.
Access his files and grind his computer to a halt.
The story said he was skimming, not counterfeiting.
Because when we create culture, we don't own it. Culture is shared.
I have a bit of sympathy for Lessig's idea that we could make do with weaker protections, provided we make it clear that it is not actually property and we stop treating it so similarly.
Because information cannot be owned.
I have no sympathy with those who claim intellectual property - sure, these lawsuits are filed by scum, but they're filed against people who claim to own ideas. I hope these are long, plentiful, painful lawsuits for both sides.
But it's impossible for people to end up in jail in a free market! Any time people might need something they don't have, whether it be stuff or emotional fulfillment, a market is created, and the invisible hand provides!
This incidentally is why in a free market nobody is killed by bullets - need to be saved -> market -> invisible hand deflects bullet.
But hey, that's the holocost of doing business! ;)
While we're in irony mode, yup, that's why we have the best health care system in the world, we have the best train infrastructure in the world, and why our scientific and cultural literacy is top-notch!
In the long run, the climate change denialists will look a lot like the kinds of people who still doubt evolution. We just have to hope we can protect the environment well enough that their "oops" doesn't doom us all.
It won't take us that long. There are very good tools for disassembling games and/or getting network dumps from apps nowadays.
If you have to bet between your judgement and that of your auto manufacturer, I'd suggest that unless you really know what you're talking about, bet on the auto manufacturer. They're the experts.
Likewise, if you're some independent thinker and have an idea how something works, but the scientific community has significant work in the field, you should generally bet on them rather than you.
Which they have done.
That appears to be nearly dead for lack of funding? Generosity is good, but probably not on one's deathbed.
Only ignore the quacks if they lack influence. Otherwise, it's important to fight them.
Actually, the "climategate" stuff just shows us how nutty some strands of American conservativism have become - one gets a bunch of people who, not understanding the context of the mails or much of the science, jump on language that might naïvely seem to be evidence of fraud, but on closer examination by anyone willing to look, turn out to be completely innocuous. False crises arn't really a PR problem in the long run - they just go on the list of things certain people will be embarassed about in a few years.
Bravo.
If they're not qualified to speak on a matter, they should not speak on it (or provide a big disclaimer). It may not be the kind of huge dangerous coverup that speaks of a conspiracy, but lying under oath on these matters is a big deal, even if the matter itself is reasonably benign - how can we hope to have broad consensus and many (qualified) eyes on the topic when the real facts arn't making it out there? Companies should just deal with the fact that kooks are going to read their public statements too - they still should be open and lying under oath is a really big deal.