But this is a good thing as long as the database is secure and can only be accessed for medical reasons.
This is from the company whose CEO said "you have no privacy, get over it". It would be silly to entrust such critical functions to such stoopid people. Technology enables us to get more privacy, not less, you just have to be more creative. Ironically, one example of this public key encryption. As someone said, there is always a simple and wrong solution for every complicated problem.
What excuses will you use for stealing the music now?
Wow, that's quite an achievement: you have managed to group all the people in the world and all the music too. Those who copy music will continue to do so--I think the buying RIAA music and such behavior come from the same place (most downloaded songs are Britney's).
A community that places no worth in non-technical people being able to get stuff done with a minimum of fuss has lost the battle for the desktop before it ever started fighting it. Every time I hear someone in the linux technical community refer to GUI's as 'click-and-drool', it is painfully clear to me as why linux is getting its asked kicked by an incompetant bunch of fools from Redmond Washington.
And I remember the days when Apple wouldn't be used for serious stuff because it was not a serious OS (all that graphics you know). You had to use DOS for serious "Office Apps". I don't think the current desktop situation has anything to do with the command line fetish.
And that, my friends, is what I have seen happening in our own IT industry: when company managers saw that pretty much anyone could be taught to program and administer systems, sort of, they started hiring anyone with approcimately the right body temperature. The result is that management, and society in general, has lost its respect for IT professionals. Even when the demand for IT people peaked, interest in IT studies was lukewarm at best, and wages weren't all that good for academics working in IT, compared to their colleagues in other disciplines (at least, this seemed the case in mainland Europe).
Well, IT wasn't all that respected in the early days. Back then it was women's job (like typing was). And round and round we go...
You do realize the quote is from a self-admitted linux zealot, take it as such.
However, we have the option of just at just the facts.
The PC makers are driven by profits, not by Microsoft. Make preloading a linux desktop profitable, and watch the landscape change.
Have you read the documents that came out at the Be trial? Microsoft told the PC vendors that they wouldn't be allowed to bundle Windows if they used any other OS. And besides, who said anything about one OS per machine? Since Linux is free as in beer, they could bundle it without any additional cost (what's 2-3 GB on a disk nowadays?). All these options are out because of Microsoft--think about it--you could've gotten the entire GNU suite with your brand new PC.
MS's tactics haven't stopped them from shipping linux on servers instead of 2003.
Microsoft is not dominant in server space (they have less than 35% market share).
Anyway, I'd rather see Mac users able to mount the Red Book audio session directly and be able to rip music for their own personal use (which they're legally entitled to do) than see Mac users unable to even insert the "protected" discs into their computers' CD/DVD drives because of the potential for wreaking havoc.
As you have stated earlier, if the labels don't care about Mac users, how long do you think they will be able to do this? Further, the courts have ruled that they don't have a duty to help to excercise your fair use rights.
I'm not saying what they did was correct, I'm just saying that it's a good step forward.
And why would you support someone who treats you this way? Why are you willing to give $20 to someone who gives you such poor value? What do you gain as a customer? How is it a step forward if it is not correct?
1) Modifying the way the CD works will make it unplayable in certain players
What you missed is why it won't play in other players--it is because they removed most of the error correction information, and your $20 CD will be a good coaster next time you don't handle it by the edges.
Not to sound like a pro-Mac weenie (although I am), but this is yet another reason why my primary choice of operating systems for day-to-day use at home is Mac OS X. Then again, I suspect that the primary goal of the "copy protection" on this CD was to lock out the majority of music pirates, who run MS Windows. I doubt that the major labels care that Linux and OS X users can rip the audio tracks by mounting the Red Book session directly.
Well, the one of the first big glitches the music industry faced when it first launched this corrupt disks was locking up iMacs. The CD had to be extracted mechanically.
and what if company B hacks in company A's email server? how can you mount the reasonable doubt campaign? If company B's aim is for company A to be sued out of existance obviously the spam wouldn't be for Viagra but for something that company A indeed sells.
Hacking is a federal offence which carries several decades in Federal "pound me in the a**" prison. I don't think anyone would take up something like that lightly.
average non-Tivo-owning American wastes much more time watching TV commercials than deleting spam; this just wastes their time at work also.
Then you don't understand opportunity cost. It is not possible to have spam replace the time wasted in TV commercials. The time wasted by spam in the office is much more valuable.
Spam is also not a big bandwidth cost of connectivity-oriented ISPs - you get more bytes of Slashdot a day than spam.
The fraction of spam in network traffic is already upto 40%. It is way more than an annoyance.
They will once the OSS community start providing 0-day enterprise quality patches that actually get regression tested before being installed on mission critical servers. MS may have a few poorly tested patches in its relatively distant history, but MS still puts its patches through far more testing than most OSS patches are put through when released. Testing takes time, period.
Do you have any facts to back this up? I know they have a large beta testing program, but I don't know of any for patches. Unless they are able to test it with a wide variety of software configurations in-house, their regression testing would be ineffective. And the amount of errors tells the whole tale, talk about "Enterprise" quality notwithstanding.
Could we please do it without the name calling? Thank you.
but had you read the documentation of the SPEC results Apple published,
I have read the said documentation.
This is not a lie, and this explains why the results were lower than Intel's published results, which used a binary compiled with the Intel compiler. None of the results are bogus, and no one is lying; it's just that they aren't using the same compiler.
Please see this gcc and this Intel compiler results. As you can clearly see, the difference is less than 10%. Apple shows results which are 100% off.
I don't know what your problem is with Photoshop, since it's a very common proc intensive app, optimized as much as Adobe can for both platforms, and graphics pros buy a computer largely based on PS performance.
I don't have a problem with Photoshop. However, it is strange to see only one app benchmarked whenever a new Apple processor comes out, while in the Intel world, you usually see games and office applications benchmarked.
What about a VIA C3 Nehemia 1GHz? I've heard they've gotten much better. Anyway, what's the heat output of a Pentium M (NOT the P4-M)? I've heard it is possible to passively cool it even up to 1.6GHz (the fastest PM there is - equivalent to a 2.2GHz P4M, but lower power).
The 1GHz part has a heat output of about 15 W. While this is nothing compared to the P4, I guess you aren't going for absolute performance when it comes to VIA chips. The problem with the Pentium line is that the low power line is much more expensive compared to the normal ones. Even then the power consumption is about 15 W. For instance, the next generation Banias technology is to be used in super-expensive notebooks.
With PAE you get 2^4*(4 GB)= 64 GB. Size of the userspace apps is still 4 GB though. And if you are implying that x86 is not clean, then may be you can point out any pure RISC chips (hint: there aren't any)?
As for benchmarks, it's silly to omit the G5s from the comparison for religious reasons, and people want to see how they stack up. The only way to counter Apple's marketing drivel is to do actual real-world benchmarking using cross platform apps and benches.
Apple has put out documents (the technical documents at the G5 site) which claim that their SPEC values are greater than the P4. If you want industry standards, you just have to go to SPEC and verify that their claims are bogus. The P4 at 3 GHz has a spec_int value of 1200 and Apple claims that it is 700. This is an outright lie. Combine this with their usual "supercomputer" claims, and you will see why people have zero respect for Apple. And by real world apps, did you mean PhotoShop?
Slashdot Mirror
This is from the company whose CEO said "you have no privacy, get over it". It would be silly to entrust such critical functions to such stoopid people. Technology enables us to get more privacy, not less, you just have to be more creative. Ironically, one example of this public key encryption. As someone said, there is always a simple and wrong solution for every complicated problem.
something like flac would be much better. However, I wonder if mod_gzip would help in this case. bzip2 gives about 40% compression on some wav files.
And that CDs prices are nearly zero (about 5 cents for blanks and much much lower for pressed ones).
Wow, that's quite an achievement: you have managed to group all the people in the world and all the music too. Those who copy music will continue to do so--I think the buying RIAA music and such behavior come from the same place (most downloaded songs are Britney's).
And I remember the days when Apple wouldn't be used for serious stuff because it was not a serious OS (all that graphics you know). You had to use DOS for serious "Office Apps". I don't think the current desktop situation has anything to do with the command line fetish.
Well, IT wasn't all that respected in the early days. Back then it was women's job (like typing was). And round and round we go ...
However, we have the option of just at just the facts.
Have you read the documents that came out at the Be trial? Microsoft told the PC vendors that they wouldn't be allowed to bundle Windows if they used any other OS. And besides, who said anything about one OS per machine? Since Linux is free as in beer, they could bundle it without any additional cost (what's 2-3 GB on a disk nowadays?). All these options are out because of Microsoft--think about it--you could've gotten the entire GNU suite with your brand new PC.
Microsoft is not dominant in server space (they have less than 35% market share).
As you have stated earlier, if the labels don't care about Mac users, how long do you think they will be able to do this? Further, the courts have ruled that they don't have a duty to help to excercise your fair use rights.
And why would you support someone who treats you this way? Why are you willing to give $20 to someone who gives you such poor value? What do you gain as a customer? How is it a step forward if it is not correct?
What you missed is why it won't play in other players--it is because they removed most of the error correction information, and your $20 CD will be a good coaster next time you don't handle it by the edges.
Well, the one of the first big glitches the music industry faced when it first launched this corrupt disks was locking up iMacs. The CD had to be extracted mechanically.
Hacking is a federal offence which carries several decades in Federal "pound me in the a**" prison. I don't think anyone would take up something like that lightly.
Then you don't understand opportunity cost. It is not possible to have spam replace the time wasted in TV commercials. The time wasted by spam in the office is much more valuable.
The fraction of spam in network traffic is already upto 40%. It is way more than an annoyance.
Do you have any facts to back this up? I know they have a large beta testing program, but I don't know of any for patches. Unless they are able to test it with a wide variety of software configurations in-house, their regression testing would be ineffective. And the amount of errors tells the whole tale, talk about "Enterprise" quality notwithstanding.
Could we please do it without the name calling? Thank you.
I have read the said documentation.
Please see this gcc and this Intel compiler results. As you can clearly see, the difference is less than 10%. Apple shows results which are 100% off.
I don't have a problem with Photoshop. However, it is strange to see only one app benchmarked whenever a new Apple processor comes out, while in the Intel world, you usually see games and office applications benchmarked.
The 1GHz part has a heat output of about 15 W. While this is nothing compared to the P4, I guess you aren't going for absolute performance when it comes to VIA chips. The problem with the Pentium line is that the low power line is much more expensive compared to the normal ones. Even then the power consumption is about 15 W. For instance, the next generation Banias technology is to be used in super-expensive notebooks.
With PAE you get 2^4*(4 GB)= 64 GB. Size of the userspace apps is still 4 GB though. And if you are implying that x86 is not clean, then may be you can point out any pure RISC chips (hint: there aren't any)?
Apple has put out documents (the technical documents at the G5 site) which claim that their SPEC values are greater than the P4. If you want industry standards, you just have to go to SPEC and verify that their claims are bogus. The P4 at 3 GHz has a spec_int value of 1200 and Apple claims that it is 700. This is an outright lie. Combine this with their usual "supercomputer" claims, and you will see why people have zero respect for Apple. And by real world apps, did you mean PhotoShop?
Not all PC processors are made by Intel/AMD. VIA CPUs run much cooler (1/20th power consumption of the P4.