Targetting banner advertisements is very different from the slippery slope that the French court wants to push Yahoo down. If the French court can sue yahoo to block Nazi-related content, why couldn't Saudi Arabia or Iran sue to block moraly subversive content?
Or imagine all of the two-bit tyrants all over the world that could sue Yahoo (or better yet Time.com or nytimes.com) to block stories critical of their regime? "Wanna have a branch office and reporter here in China? Better not let our citizens see material critical or our policies!"
Yahoo would have to double its staff and its legal department to flag ever page on their site to selectively block content to visitors from all of the places in the world with weird laws and specific filtering demands.
Something about Sony's Linux PS2 is puzzling me. Has the manufacturing cost of the PS2 come down enough yet for them to make a profit on the consoles alone?
It's well known that in the console world, Sony, Nintendo, et. al. subsidize the cost of their consoles by charging a royalty on every game sold. When the PS2 was first announced in Japan in late 1999, the people at the Microprocessor Report predicted that both the EE and the GS (the PS2's CPU and graphics chip respectively) would cost Sony about US$350 each to manufacture.
It's also well known that over the 5 year life of a console, die shrinks with the chips eventually bring the console's manufacturing costs down below the console's retail price. Has this happened yet?
If not, don't expect Sony to be making their Linux PS2 widely available (I think only ~4000 were made).
...but is anyone else bothered by how so much of the 'justice' system now operates outside of the courtroom?
First off, I'd like to ask the posters here who are impugning Powell to remember that Jammer is a warez dood. He is located on the taxonomical tree of life somewhere between the liver fluke and the Herpes virus. He is a parasite. If it were up to me, warez doodz like him would have their fingernails pulled out while they were soaking naked in a pool of battery acid. An $8000 fine is too good for him. If you don't like the fact that someone is trying to make a living off of selling software, the ethical thing to do is make equivalent free software, not distribute pirated copies of the software.
But is it right that moneyed-interests, especially large companies, can silence people just by threatening them with legal action? Legal services are so expensive now that individuals can't afford to take on adversaries with deep pockets. If a company or organization wants to silence a critic, it seems like all they have to do is threaten to sue them. Only the truly committed critics would continue.
I know that lawyers would argue that if the cause is just, someone would be able to find either an advocacy group like the EFF to pay legel fees, or an interested lawyer to do pro bono work. But isn't a court supposed to determine whether the cause is just?
What if Dave Powell got it wrong? Or what if he used his power to settle a personal dispute against someone that he didn't like? Where is the due process? How much time and money would an innocent have to spend to defend himself against Dave Powell?
I want to hear what you have to say. By all means, spend a few moments on making it look nice. But there is really something wrong if you spend more time on "style" than the actual substance.
Tables are great. They help my browser format large amounts of information so that I can understand your data. But please don't use dozens of nested tables just to make some graphic show up at exactly coordinate x, y.
I think that's really the whole point of the ALA initiative, though. With CSS you don't need to use dozens of nested tables to accurately position page elements. Also, CSS allows for the clean separation of design and content. Content need not suffer from being entwined through HTML to a difficult to edit design.
This isn't mentioned ANYWHERE in NVidia's FAQ (thanks a lot, NVidia). If you're using a Geforce2 on a Via KX133 or KT133 chipset motherboard, you'll need to do one more thing.
NVidia's driver comes with a kernel module that needs to be loaded. That kernel module depends on the agpgart.o kernel module, and as of yet agpgart.o doesn't have explicit support for those chipsets (although it works fine with them). When you try to load it with insmod or moddep (as the Makefile in the tarball does) it will fail.
This article at www.tomshardware.com explains the fix for this.
Um, support for that card was added in 4.0.2, which is what this whole discussion is about.
Not according to xfree86.org. There's no mention at all of support for the Geforce2. Radeon, yes. Geforce2, no. So is it supported?
Not only that, but NVidia's driver supported that card under 4.0.1.
Theoretically, yes. Try as I might, though, I can't get NVidia's kernel module (part of their driver) to install. Compiled from source or taken as a binary from NVidia's site, insmod just doesn't seem to like that damned kernel module. And no kernel module, no X11!
That is to say, it's more important, at this stage, to reduce the time required to start reading something from memory. Basically, if you're reading in lots of relatively small data, a lower latency, lower bandwidth memory architecture will finish before the higher latency, higher bandwidth architecture.
I'm sorry, but I disagree. As a programmer, if I had to choose, I would much rather have high latency high bandwidth memory than low latency low bandwidth memory.
Latency can be managed. It can be programmed around. The compromises that have to be employed to maximize performance on a low-bandwidth-memory machine are much worse than what has to be done with a high-latency-memory machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Targetting banner advertisements is very different from the slippery slope that the French court wants to push Yahoo down. If the French court can sue yahoo to block Nazi-related content, why couldn't Saudi Arabia or Iran sue to block moraly subversive content?
Or imagine all of the two-bit tyrants all over the world that could sue Yahoo (or better yet Time.com or nytimes.com) to block stories critical of their regime? "Wanna have a branch office and reporter here in China? Better not let our citizens see material critical or our policies!"
Yahoo would have to double its staff and its legal department to flag ever page on their site to selectively block content to visitors from all of the places in the world with weird laws and specific filtering demands.
Something about Sony's Linux PS2 is puzzling me. Has the manufacturing cost of the PS2 come down enough yet for them to make a profit on the consoles alone?
It's well known that in the console world, Sony, Nintendo, et. al. subsidize the cost of their consoles by charging a royalty on every game sold. When the PS2 was first announced in Japan in late 1999, the people at the Microprocessor Report predicted that both the EE and the GS (the PS2's CPU and graphics chip respectively) would cost Sony about US$350 each to manufacture.
It's also well known that over the 5 year life of a console, die shrinks with the chips eventually bring the console's manufacturing costs down below the console's retail price. Has this happened yet?
If not, don't expect Sony to be making their Linux PS2 widely available (I think only ~4000 were made).
First off, I'd like to ask the posters here who are impugning Powell to remember that Jammer is a warez dood. He is located on the taxonomical tree of life somewhere between the liver fluke and the Herpes virus. He is a parasite. If it were up to me, warez doodz like him would have their fingernails pulled out while they were soaking naked in a pool of battery acid. An $8000 fine is too good for him. If you don't like the fact that someone is trying to make a living off of selling software, the ethical thing to do is make equivalent free software, not distribute pirated copies of the software.
But is it right that moneyed-interests, especially large companies, can silence people just by threatening them with legal action? Legal services are so expensive now that individuals can't afford to take on adversaries with deep pockets. If a company or organization wants to silence a critic, it seems like all they have to do is threaten to sue them. Only the truly committed critics would continue.
I know that lawyers would argue that if the cause is just, someone would be able to find either an advocacy group like the EFF to pay legel fees, or an interested lawyer to do pro bono work. But isn't a court supposed to determine whether the cause is just?
What if Dave Powell got it wrong? Or what if he used his power to settle a personal dispute against someone that he didn't like? Where is the due process? How much time and money would an innocent have to spend to defend himself against Dave Powell?
I want to hear what you have to say. By all means, spend a few moments on making it look nice. But there is really something wrong if you spend more time on "style" than the actual substance.
Tables are great. They help my browser format large amounts of information so that I can understand your data. But please don't use dozens of nested tables just to make some graphic show up at exactly coordinate x, y.
I think that's really the whole point of the ALA initiative, though. With CSS you don't need to use dozens of nested tables to accurately position page elements. Also, CSS allows for the clean separation of design and content. Content need not suffer from being entwined through HTML to a difficult to edit design.
Just make sure you don't buy from IBM or Maxtor, whose drives are actually made by IBM. These indecent corporate connivers derserve none of our money.
I think a Quantum drive would be a safe buy, wouldn't it?
ONE LAST SUPER-IMPORTANT DETAIL!!!
This isn't mentioned ANYWHERE in NVidia's FAQ (thanks a lot, NVidia). If you're using a Geforce2 on a Via KX133 or KT133 chipset motherboard, you'll need to do one more thing.
NVidia's driver comes with a kernel module that needs to be loaded. That kernel module depends on the agpgart.o kernel module, and as of yet agpgart.o doesn't have explicit support for those chipsets (although it works fine with them). When you try to load it with insmod or moddep (as the Makefile in the tarball does) it will fail.
This article at www.tomshardware.com explains the fix for this.
http://www5.tomshardware.com/graphic/00q4/001002/Um, support for that card was added in 4.0.2, which is what this whole discussion is about.
Not according to xfree86.org. There's no mention at all of support for the Geforce2. Radeon, yes. Geforce2, no. So is it supported?
Not only that, but NVidia's driver supported that card under 4.0.1.
Theoretically, yes. Try as I might, though, I can't get NVidia's kernel module (part of their driver) to install. Compiled from source or taken as a binary from NVidia's site, insmod just doesn't seem to like that damned kernel module. And no kernel module, no X11!
Yippee. Try as I might, I still can't get 4.0.1 to work with my Geforce2 MX.
That is to say, it's more important, at this stage, to reduce the time required to start reading something from memory. Basically, if you're reading in lots of relatively small data, a lower latency, lower bandwidth memory architecture will finish before the higher latency, higher bandwidth architecture.
I'm sorry, but I disagree. As a programmer, if I had to choose, I would much rather have high latency high bandwidth memory than low latency low bandwidth memory.
Latency can be managed. It can be programmed around. The compromises that have to be employed to maximize performance on a low-bandwidth-memory machine are much worse than what has to be done with a high-latency-memory machine.