Huh? Couldn't you just use a digital output to digital input? That would be fully digital, wouldn't it?
Yes, and that's why you'll usually find that your digital out doesn't work when playing many (most?) kinds of DRM-ed content. An example from an earlier Slashdot story, about the Audigy 2. I've linked to a relevant post, though there may be more informative ones.
People should object to DRM on a fundamental level, not because of what any particular implementation of it does. We should not accept a totalitarian government even if it promises to make good laws.
Woah there, tiger. Implementations of DRM exist in a spectrum, just as governments do. In any form of government, you give up freedoms. In benign forms, there are checks and balances that help to preserve your rights. In the case of DRM, we can be reasonably sure that we won't wake up tommorrow with new, insane, restrictions because, frankly, that would be really fucking stupid and self-defeating. You may not find that very comforting, but what more do you want for $0.99?
And we should not accept having our computers decide what we can and cannot do even if promised that it will be used only to "create a minimal set of hurdles that'll satisfy content producers and publishers". Period.
The computer decides nothing. You do. You decide to buy the product in the first place, whether you're aware of the restrictions or not. Just like every other product you buy.
In that case no music application is DRM because you can use line-in to re-record the music (an operation that is easier and cheaper than burn and rip).
WRONG! You know what the "D" in DRM stands for? Digital. You're talking about converting to analog. Any digital media is going to be coverted to analog by the time it reaches your eyes or ears -- nobody is trying to stop that, because it can't be done without defeating the whole purpose.
Standard MP3/M4A files would download and play without incident so the pirates will just move on to gnutella and not think twice.
There is some exceedingly popular software (which I am not about to link to, you pirating bastards), that allows one to convert the stream to files. In combination with websites listing open streams, this works even better than gnutella (so I'm told).
I can understand Apple's need to restrist internet streaming but there are those of us who like to stream our tunes from home to office and it seems like fair use to stream your own music to yourself no matter how far apart your computers are.
The trouble is that you're in a very small minority. Consider that not everyone uses a computer at work, or is in a position to listen to music. Even those that stream at home are a fraction of the total of iTunes users.
I have a strong suspicion that more people were using the feature for piracy than legit.
"Don't feed the trolls, don't feed the trolls, don't feed the trolls....argh!"
(I realized OCG was a troll about ten seconds after I posted and noticed that I had the same Corporate Mofo link open in two tabs. Drat, tr0ll0red! But I'm still replying for the "benefit" of those who agree with him.)
As I guessed, another person who doesn't really have issues with the philosophical references--they just don't like the movie. Your bias is showing. Next.
No, it was only thing I didn't like about the movie (at least, that I had any expectations for). I liked the fighting, the explosions, the goofy Zion party scene, the breast exposure, and anyone doing kung-fu while wearing a cassock.
Unfortunately, the writer/directors decided to pour in way too much of the mutt-philosophy that some are so enchanted by -- so much that it degraded the whole film. I watched it, I listened, I comprehended, and in the end, wish I had napped through about half of it. Yeah, I cought quite a few of the references and thought "oh neat", but at some point it just started feeling like they were fucking with me. The allusions don't add to the story, they blur it. They're trying to be James Joyce, and doing a shitty job of it. That hurts to watch.
So is someone going to tell me that obviously the CG flight-into-the-vagina was meant to represent man's eternal desire to return to the womb?
Oh wow! A guy with an MA in History cought more of the assortment of allusions than I did! His evaluation must be more valid!
Whoopty shit. All that means is that the writers didn't have an original idea, so they just borrowed everything they could from all sorts of pretentious sources. I mean, guys, I've got a library card, too. But I went to see your fucking movie, only to get a smokescreen covering up the fact that you're hack writers. Obscure allusions don't automaticall make a film good. Yeah, they make me feel better about my (philosophy/classics/history) degree, but it's just painful to watch a movie stumbling over itself to seem meaningful.
How about all that great dialogue in both films, eh? And that incredible character development?Or the fact that the pacing of Reloaded is rediculously ponderous? Even if you think it has an excellent story, you've got to admit that it wasn't told very well.
I love how everybody thinks they 'figured out' the Matrix by virtue of catching some of the more obscure allusions. "Hey, the Merovingian must be Hades, because his wife's name is Persephone! That really makes me forget the fact that this whole scene is meaningless. Oh look, a CG flight into some woman's vagina!"
Since some people won't RTFA, and go straight to the opsound site...
Sal Randolph is the woman behind Free Words, which you may have heard of, or seen the bright pink stickers for. In fact, most (if not all) of her work has been free-as-in-whatever-you-want, in a very concrete way, not just conceptually. As such, I think it may be more interesting to some of the geeks around here, even if you (like me), find the Opsound thing rather uninspiring.
Ah, so it's because of a lack of DRM that no one buys CDs?
No, the lack of workable DRM makes record companies unwilling to make music available in any other form than a CD. The CD, while easily copyable (dispite anti-ripping measures), at least has a pretty big profit margin. There's also the overlooked fact that it's MUCH easier for the casual-pirate to copy a file than to copy a CD.
Of course it will expire once you stop paying the sub fee, but which do you think is the better deal: $7500 to fill a 30GB player (7500 songs at $1 each) with iTunes Music Store, or $120 a year with the ability to swap in new music whenever you want? How much is it worth to you to "own" the bits?"
Which of these is a better deal?: 1) Pay $1 now, get the one song you want to hear, keep it forever. 2) Pay $10 now, get the one song you want to hear, keep paying $10 a month for the right to listen to it.
Apple pretty clearly has a better deal if you buy ten or fewer songs a month (or 120 songs a year). I suspect that this suits a very wide variety of people.
Beyond that is a grey area, where the better deal basically depends on how much you value the convenience of not having to pay a monthly fee whether you use it or not.
At the other end are those who could conceivably want to download (say) 30GB of music in a month, which is certainly more than I can listen to in that time. Ignoring bandwidth costs on both ends, these users are probably just as likely to use P2P services and not pay anyone at all!
The emphasised ability to 'swap in' new music implies that every month you'll want to download all-new material. Not bloody likely, in my experience. But then, if you don't download new material, what exactly are you paying for? The right to listen to music you already paid for!?
The worst part about this kind of scheme is some people can actually be suckered into it.
[This post also makes the rediculous claim that filling up a 30GB iPod is going to cost you $7500, which ignores the fact that nobody is going to actually do that. At some point, even your average idiot realizes that it'll probably be cheaper rip CDs he already owns, (and those newly purchased -- yes, even people with iPods still buy CDs from time to time!) -- it makes me wish I could mod the whole story as a Troll.]
I am interested in hearing realistic scenarios in which the subscription service actually is a good deal, but I've yet to hear one thus far.
Probably not for $450. As the article says, the Thai government is subsidizing the cost of the machines, as well as handling service and support. If the same model became available in the US, it would probably have a less exciting price tag.
Try focusing on what I meant more than what words I used to make my point. I am NOT bashing Macs.
When I say 'the best', I mean among all available laptops, rated on one critera. If you say you want the fastest machine, then you want the fastest among all of them. I know that's not the way people tend to buy laptops, but it is the way they tend to talk about them. "Model X is not as thin as Model Y, and is not as fast as Model Z"
Apple sells the "lightest value laptop" --
That's only looking at a subset of all of the available machines, though. Also, "Value laptops" are a pretty subjective catagory, don't you think? I mean, some people aren't going to consider anything over $1200 to be a 'value'.
And of course they sell the "lightest full-featured notebook that burns DVDs. And the "world's lightest full-featured notebook.
Again, a subset, and a very subjective one. Who defines "Full-featured"? Apple! What if I want a floppy drive? Or USB 2? That's like saying "It's the lightest among all notebooks, except for lighter ones."
And the "best looking" notebook, according to The Register
Brazenly subjective, hence my disclaimer in my original post. FWIW, yeah, they are the best looking and "everybody" knows it, but that's not something you can measure.
And the biggest display on a laptop.
Ok. Yeah. Even the parent to my post agreed with that.
You missed my point, although not as badly as the other guy.
(I have to point out that I was speaking only of laptops -- something that is only clear if you read the parent of my post.)
I didn't say anything to imply that any PC didn't do what it's made to do. But certainly, in the design of these machines (again, speaking of laptops), trade-offs are made. Apple seems to have a good formula worked out that has broad appeal. It's not a Mac vs. PC platform debate -- it's just design mojo that makes users happy. (Indeed, it is part of the functional aesthetics.)
Thank you for completely misinterpreting my comment. It overshadows the fact that you completely misinterpreted the sentence that you quoted.
I was speaking only in terms of laptops, where trade-offs are always necessary. The parent post implied that he wanted the fastest A/V rendering. Now, I dare you to find me a machine that (for example) is the fastest and has the best battery life and is under 5 pounds. You're not going to find it. You'll certainly find a PC that will fit any one of those criteria, and maybe even two if you're lucky, but in the end, you can't have it all.
My reply was meant to point out that while Apple's laptops aren't the best at any objective critera, they have a balance that seems to be rare among PC laptops. Where PC OEMs may tend to have (say), a thin and light line, a cheap line, a 'desktop replacement' line, and so on, Apple (partially out of necessity) tends to put more energy into making each of it's lines a little bit of everything.
I was not making a Mac vs. PC platform point (as you seem to have thought), for what it's worth, I don't even use a Mac. I'd be making the same point if I'd seen any PC OEM was putting out products that were so balanced.
well over 3 grand, for that much money, i want something that renders audio and video faster then any other mobile device on the planet.
apple is NOT.
i repeat apple is NOT THAT DEVICE.
So?
Apple doesn't sell "-est" machines. Not the fastest, not the thinnest, not the lightest, not the most durable, not the most reliable, not the longest battery life, not the cheapest -- they're not really the best at anything.
But they're pretty damn good at everything, and for people who are looking for a good balance (as opposed to the best in any one area), they're often perfect. That's why people get attached to them.
(And that's not even mentioning aesthetics (of both hardware and software), which is one of Apple's biggest selling points.)
Blah blah blah, this is in no way an 'official' confirmation. Yeah, we all "know" that Apple will be using the chip, but you're not going to get any kind of authoritative confirmation any time soon.
Just think about Apple for a minute, and you'll realize that the first 'official' confirmation will come straight out of Steve Jobs' mouth, while a giant projected image of a sleek new PowerMac comes up behind him, and everybody claps. That's just how Apple operates.
Of course, this means that those of us that like Mozilla are pretty much fucked, right?
I used Phoenix off and on since it came out, but when I started using Mozilla, there was just no comparison. Phoenix feels like a toy next to it, but apparently that's what makes it so popular.
I'm utterly bewildered as to why they intend to effectively kill Mozilla in favor of this. I can understand (in reading the new roadmap), focusing on a common runtime, but why must they kill off Mozilla to do so?
I wouldn't mind so much if the two browsers actually felt the same, but they don't, and given the direction Phoenix has moved in in the last two milestones, it doesn't seem like it's going to become any more Mozilla-like.
There is of course a very good reason for that scene to be there.
Correction, there is a very good excuse for that scene. They could have made a Zion-celebrates-life scene (and for what it's worth, I'm glad they gave us one) without making it look like MTV. Could have, but didn't.
Now, I'm not generally against seeing nipples through sweat-soaked clothes, but in this case the presentation wasn't an artistic decsison, it was a marketing one. The same can be said for much of the film.
Keep in mind, the Hammer is only shipping at 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8 GHz - the same speeds the 970 is targeted at.
Ah, but will it scale? I know AMD is going to be ramping up the clock speed on par with their older chips -- and the price will plummet. Can the same be said about the 970, or will we only see an extra 100MHz or so every six months? (Be it because of actual technical barriers or Motorola's (or whoever ends up making them) complacency.) I hope for the former, as no matter how well-designed the chip is, it's not going to make up a (say) 600MHz gap in raw performance.
And the 970 has the advantage of an ISA that was designed from the beginning to do 32 and 64 bit addressing, versus one that's a 64-bit extension of a 32-bit extension of a 16-bit micro with full compatibility to an 8-bit redesign of a 4-bit processor.
Yes, that sounds like a clear win on paper. Clean, new, architectures are prettier. But another way of looking at it is that x86 has evolved over many more generations than PPC, and has had much more competition. The result is highly refined. It *works*, even if it seems like it should be clunking along by now.
For what it's worth, everything I've read about x86-64 implies that it is exceptionally well-designed and seamless. Not tacked-on or overextended as I think you're implying. I sincerely doubt that the 64-bit extension is going to be a limiting factor.
Re:Superconducting Super Collider (SSC)
on
Shuttle Politics
·
· Score: 1
"Barton's moment in the sun, up until late last year, was his advocacy of the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC)."
Um...that wasn't the one that could have (hypotheticaly) created a black hole that would have destroyed the earth, was it?
Whereas if I listen to it, "reverse engineer it", and play it note-perfect myself just to reuse it, I'm not stealing?
In that case, you're infringing on the owner of the song, but not the owner of the recording.
If you want to listen to a piece by Mozart, 'reverse engineer it', and re-record it, there's nothing wrong with that, his work is in the public domain.
You just can't copy bits of someone else's recording of the same piece.
...I doubt how many people here know who Q-bert or Craze is,
Nah, there's a couple that poke their heads out when there's a story about Linux audio or something. I for one have a signed copy of Wave Twisters and a Craze signature-edition mixer.:)
Rappers MC, Selektas scratch..Get it right FEWLS!..;-)..
Yeah, but also, MCs rap. And back when the DJ was always the Selector, the MCs were called DJs.
'Course music wasn't copyrightable back then anyway.
Come to think of it, a lot of music wasn't all that copyable back then. Both because there wasn't anything to record it with, and where large pieces, like symphonies, are concerned, because it was generally an expensive task to hand-reproduce sheet music for an entire orchestra. (Eat that, movable type!)
And of course, you'd have to have an orchestra to play it with.:)
(I'm don't disagree with anything you said, your post just got me thinking -- Moderators, please don't give me another unwarranted 'Troll'!)
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, your choices are:
ClearChannel Alterna-Rock songs 1 - 15
ClearChannel Alterna-Rock songs 5 - 20
Infinity Radio Alterna-Rock songs 3-8, 14-20
ClearChannel Pop songs 1-6
Infinity Radio Pop songs 1-6
ClearChannel Country songs 1 - 10
Infinity Country songs 1 - 10
I would kill for that much variety in my town.
Huh? Couldn't you just use a digital output to digital input? That would be fully digital, wouldn't it?
Yes, and that's why you'll usually find that your digital out doesn't work when playing many (most?) kinds of DRM-ed content. An example from an earlier Slashdot story, about the Audigy 2. I've linked to a relevant post, though there may be more informative ones.
People should object to DRM on a fundamental level, not because of what any particular implementation of it does. We should not accept a totalitarian government even if it promises to make good laws.
Woah there, tiger. Implementations of DRM exist in a spectrum, just as governments do. In any form of government, you give up freedoms. In benign forms, there are checks and balances that help to preserve your rights. In the case of DRM, we can be reasonably sure that we won't wake up tommorrow with new, insane, restrictions because, frankly, that would be really fucking stupid and self-defeating. You may not find that very comforting, but what more do you want for $0.99?
And we should not accept having our computers decide what we can and cannot do even if promised that it will be used only to "create a minimal set of hurdles that'll satisfy content producers and publishers". Period.
The computer decides nothing. You do. You decide to buy the product in the first place, whether you're aware of the restrictions or not. Just like every other product you buy.
In that case no music application is DRM because you can use line-in to re-record the music (an operation that is easier and cheaper than burn and rip).
WRONG! You know what the "D" in DRM stands for? Digital. You're talking about converting to analog. Any digital media is going to be coverted to analog by the time it reaches your eyes or ears -- nobody is trying to stop that, because it can't be done without defeating the whole purpose.
Standard MP3/M4A files would download and play without incident so the pirates will just move on to gnutella and not think twice.
There is some exceedingly popular software (which I am not about to link to, you pirating bastards), that allows one to convert the stream to files. In combination with websites listing open streams, this works even better than gnutella (so I'm told).
I can understand Apple's need to restrist internet streaming but there are those of us who like to stream our tunes from home to office and it seems like fair use to stream your own music to yourself no matter how far apart your computers are.
The trouble is that you're in a very small minority. Consider that not everyone uses a computer at work, or is in a position to listen to music. Even those that stream at home are a fraction of the total of iTunes users.
I have a strong suspicion that more people were using the feature for piracy than legit.
"Don't feed the trolls, don't feed the trolls, don't feed the trolls....argh!"
(I realized OCG was a troll about ten seconds after I posted and noticed that I had the same Corporate Mofo link open in two tabs. Drat, tr0ll0red! But I'm still replying for the "benefit" of those who agree with him.)
As I guessed, another person who doesn't really have issues with the philosophical references--they just don't like the movie. Your bias is showing. Next.
No, it was only thing I didn't like about the movie (at least, that I had any expectations for). I liked the fighting, the explosions, the goofy Zion party scene, the breast exposure, and anyone doing kung-fu while wearing a cassock.
Unfortunately, the writer/directors decided to pour in way too much of the mutt-philosophy that some are so enchanted by -- so much that it degraded the whole film. I watched it, I listened, I comprehended, and in the end, wish I had napped through about half of it. Yeah, I cought quite a few of the references and thought "oh neat", but at some point it just started feeling like they were fucking with me. The allusions don't add to the story, they blur it. They're trying to be James Joyce, and doing a shitty job of it. That hurts to watch.
So is someone going to tell me that obviously the CG flight-into-the-vagina was meant to represent man's eternal desire to return to the womb?
Oh wow! A guy with an MA in History cought more of the assortment of allusions than I did! His evaluation must be more valid!
Whoopty shit. All that means is that the writers didn't have an original idea, so they just borrowed everything they could from all sorts of pretentious sources. I mean, guys, I've got a library card, too. But I went to see your fucking movie, only to get a smokescreen covering up the fact that you're hack writers. Obscure allusions don't automaticall make a film good. Yeah, they make me feel better about my (philosophy/classics/history) degree, but it's just painful to watch a movie stumbling over itself to seem meaningful.
How about all that great dialogue in both films, eh? And that incredible character development?Or the fact that the pacing of Reloaded is rediculously ponderous? Even if you think it has an excellent story, you've got to admit that it wasn't told very well.
I love how everybody thinks they 'figured out' the Matrix by virtue of catching some of the more obscure allusions. "Hey, the Merovingian must be Hades, because his wife's name is Persephone! That really makes me forget the fact that this whole scene is meaningless. Oh look, a CG flight into some woman's vagina!"
Come on man! 'plemeljr' is all over Google.
The sixth result!
Since some people won't RTFA, and go straight to the opsound site...
Sal Randolph is the woman behind Free Words, which you may have heard of, or seen the bright pink stickers for. In fact, most (if not all) of her work has been free-as-in-whatever-you-want, in a very concrete way, not just conceptually. As such, I think it may be more interesting to some of the geeks around here, even if you (like me), find the Opsound thing rather uninspiring.
Ah, so it's because of a lack of DRM that no one buys CDs?
No, the lack of workable DRM makes record companies unwilling to make music available in any other form than a CD. The CD, while easily copyable (dispite anti-ripping measures), at least has a pretty big profit margin. There's also the overlooked fact that it's MUCH easier for the casual-pirate to copy a file than to copy a CD.
Of course it will expire once you stop paying the sub fee, but which do you think is the better deal: $7500 to fill a 30GB player (7500 songs at $1 each) with iTunes Music Store, or $120 a year with the ability to swap in new music whenever you want? How much is it worth to you to "own" the bits?"
:
Which of these is a better deal?
1) Pay $1 now, get the one song you want to hear, keep it forever.
2) Pay $10 now, get the one song you want to hear, keep paying $10 a month for the right to listen to it.
Apple pretty clearly has a better deal if you buy ten or fewer songs a month (or 120 songs a year). I suspect that this suits a very wide variety of people.
Beyond that is a grey area, where the better deal basically depends on how much you value the convenience of not having to pay a monthly fee whether you use it or not.
At the other end are those who could conceivably want to download (say) 30GB of music in a month, which is certainly more than I can listen to in that time. Ignoring bandwidth costs on both ends, these users are probably just as likely to use P2P services and not pay anyone at all!
The emphasised ability to 'swap in' new music implies that every month you'll want to download all-new material. Not bloody likely, in my experience. But then, if you don't download new material, what exactly are you paying for? The right to listen to music you already paid for!?
The worst part about this kind of scheme is some people can actually be suckered into it.
[This post also makes the rediculous claim that filling up a 30GB iPod is going to cost you $7500,
which ignores the fact that nobody is going to actually do that. At some point, even your average idiot realizes that it'll probably be cheaper rip CDs he already owns, (and those newly purchased -- yes, even people with iPods still buy CDs from time to time!) -- it makes me wish I could mod the whole story as a Troll.]
I am interested in hearing realistic scenarios in which the subscription service actually is a good deal, but I've yet to hear one thus far.
Still, can non-thailanders order one ?
Probably not for $450. As the article says, the Thai government is subsidizing the cost of the machines, as well as handling service and support. If the same model became available in the US, it would probably have a less exciting price tag.
Try focusing on what I meant more than what words I used to make my point. I am NOT bashing Macs.
When I say 'the best', I mean among all available laptops, rated on one critera. If you say you want the fastest machine, then you want the fastest among all of them. I know that's not the way people tend to buy laptops, but it is the way they tend to talk about them. "Model X is not as thin as Model Y, and is not as fast as Model Z"
Apple sells the "lightest value laptop" --
That's only looking at a subset of all of the available machines, though. Also, "Value laptops" are a pretty subjective catagory, don't you think? I mean, some people aren't going to consider anything over $1200 to be a 'value'.
And of course they sell the "lightest full-featured notebook that burns DVDs.
And the "world's lightest full-featured notebook.
Again, a subset, and a very subjective one.
Who defines "Full-featured"? Apple! What if I want a floppy drive? Or USB 2? That's like saying "It's the lightest among all notebooks, except for lighter ones."
And the "best looking" notebook, according to The Register
Brazenly subjective, hence my disclaimer in my original post. FWIW, yeah, they are the best looking and "everybody" knows it, but that's not something you can measure.
And the biggest display on a laptop.
Ok. Yeah. Even the parent to my post agreed with that.
You missed my point, although not as badly as the other guy.
(I have to point out that I was speaking only of laptops -- something that is only clear if you read the parent of my post.)
I didn't say anything to imply that any PC didn't do what it's made to do. But certainly, in the design of these machines (again, speaking of laptops), trade-offs are made. Apple seems to have a good formula worked out that has broad appeal. It's not a Mac vs. PC platform debate -- it's just design mojo that makes users happy. (Indeed, it is part of the functional aesthetics.)
Thank you for completely misinterpreting my comment. It overshadows the fact that you completely misinterpreted the sentence that you quoted.
I was speaking only in terms of laptops, where trade-offs are always necessary. The parent post implied that he wanted the fastest A/V rendering. Now, I dare you to find me a machine that (for example) is the fastest and has the best battery life and is under 5 pounds. You're not going to find it. You'll certainly find a PC that will fit any one of those criteria, and maybe even two if you're lucky, but in the end, you can't have it all.
My reply was meant to point out that while Apple's laptops aren't the best at any objective critera, they have a balance that seems to be rare among PC laptops. Where PC OEMs may tend to have (say), a thin and light line, a cheap line, a 'desktop replacement' line, and so on, Apple (partially out of necessity) tends to put more energy into making each of it's lines a little bit of everything.
I was not making a Mac vs. PC platform point (as you seem to have thought), for what it's worth, I don't even use a Mac. I'd be making the same point if I'd seen any PC OEM was putting out products that were so balanced.
well over 3 grand, for that much money, i want something that renders audio and video faster then any other mobile device on the planet.
apple is NOT.
i repeat apple is NOT THAT DEVICE.
So?
Apple doesn't sell "-est" machines. Not the fastest, not the thinnest, not the lightest, not the most durable, not the most reliable, not the longest battery life, not the cheapest -- they're not really the best at anything.
But they're pretty damn good at everything, and for people who are looking for a good balance (as opposed to the best in any one area), they're often perfect. That's why people get attached to them.
(And that's not even mentioning aesthetics (of both hardware and software), which is one of Apple's biggest selling points.)
Blah blah blah, this is in no way an 'official' confirmation. Yeah, we all "know" that Apple will be using the chip, but you're not going to get any kind of authoritative confirmation any time soon.
Just think about Apple for a minute, and you'll realize that the first 'official' confirmation will come straight out of Steve Jobs' mouth, while a giant projected image of a sleek new PowerMac comes up behind him, and everybody claps. That's just how Apple operates.
Of course, this means that those of us that like Mozilla are pretty much fucked, right?
I used Phoenix off and on since it came out, but when I started using Mozilla, there was just no comparison. Phoenix feels like a toy next to it, but apparently that's what makes it so popular.
I'm utterly bewildered as to why they intend to effectively kill Mozilla in favor of this. I can understand (in reading the new roadmap), focusing on a common runtime, but why must they kill off Mozilla to do so?
I wouldn't mind so much if the two browsers actually felt the same, but they don't, and given the direction Phoenix has moved in in the last two milestones, it doesn't seem like it's going to become any more Mozilla-like.
There is of course a very good reason for that scene to be there.
Correction, there is a very good excuse for that scene. They could have made a Zion-celebrates-life scene (and for what it's worth, I'm glad they gave us one) without making it look like MTV. Could have, but didn't.
Now, I'm not generally against seeing nipples through sweat-soaked clothes, but in this case the presentation wasn't an artistic decsison, it was a marketing one. The same can be said for much of the film.
Keep in mind, the Hammer is only shipping at 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8 GHz - the same speeds the 970 is targeted at.
Ah, but will it scale? I know AMD is going to be ramping up the clock speed on par with their older chips -- and the price will plummet. Can the same be said about the 970, or will we only see an extra 100MHz or so every six months? (Be it because of actual technical barriers or Motorola's (or whoever ends up making them) complacency.) I hope for the former, as no matter how well-designed the chip is, it's not going to make up a (say) 600MHz gap in raw performance.
And the 970 has the advantage of an ISA that was designed from the beginning to do 32 and 64 bit addressing, versus one that's a 64-bit extension of a 32-bit extension of a 16-bit micro with full compatibility to an 8-bit redesign of a 4-bit processor.
Yes, that sounds like a clear win on paper. Clean, new, architectures are prettier. But another way of looking at it is that x86 has evolved over many more generations than PPC, and has had much more competition. The
result is highly refined. It *works*, even if it seems like it should be clunking along by now.
For what it's worth, everything I've read about x86-64 implies that it is exceptionally well-designed and seamless. Not tacked-on or overextended as I think you're implying. I sincerely doubt that the 64-bit extension is going to be a limiting factor.
"Barton's moment in the sun, up until late last year, was his advocacy of the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC)."
Um...that wasn't the one that could have (hypotheticaly) created a black hole that would have destroyed the earth, was it?
Now that's what I'd call "a moment in the sun".
*poof*
Whereas if I listen to it, "reverse engineer it", and play it note-perfect myself just to reuse it, I'm not stealing?
In that case, you're infringing on the owner of the song, but not the owner of the recording.
If you want to listen to a piece by Mozart, 'reverse engineer it', and re-record it, there's nothing wrong with that, his work is in the public domain.
You just can't copy bits of someone else's recording of the same piece.
Nah, there's a couple that poke their heads out when there's a story about Linux audio or something. I for one have a signed copy of Wave Twisters and a Craze signature-edition mixer.
Rappers MC, Selektas scratch..Get it right FEWLS!..;-)..
Yeah, but also, MCs rap. And back when the DJ was always the Selector, the MCs were called DJs.
But what's in a name?
'Course music wasn't copyrightable back then anyway.
:)
Come to think of it, a lot of music wasn't all that copyable back then. Both because there wasn't anything to record it with, and where large pieces, like symphonies, are concerned, because it was generally an expensive task to hand-reproduce sheet music for an entire orchestra. (Eat that, movable type!)
And of course, you'd have to have an orchestra to play it with.
(I'm don't disagree with anything you said, your post just got me thinking -- Moderators, please don't give me another unwarranted 'Troll'!)