musicians usually have to tour to make enough money not to have a second job. actors are paid up front for being in the film. not an argument, just another aspect of the comparison. like a movie in the theatre, musicians make most of their money from performance.
you can download a free version. the versions that cost money come with hardware, and the hardware is a lot of what adds power to it. can't record without an audio interface. of course, there are cheaper interfaces. and i have heard of pro tools being on p2p networks.
kensington expert mouse and kensington turboball, two trackballs where the ball is large enough to get good long sweeps and still be accurate. you still have to keep them clean, but for me they are easier and more accurate than a mouse.
really, it just gets down to preference, like whether you like the inverted mouse setting.
the world portrayed in this statement is not the world as it is now. it is the world that will be some day if entertainment companies don't figure out a way to give the customer a better reason to buy their products. legislation will not make consumers want to buy content they don't think is worth money. people buy DVDs and video games more and more all of the time. unlike VHS, DVD has extra features. something extra was given to the buyer to make it worth the higher purchase cost and increased copy protection. the video game industry continues to flourish because it continually strives to make new, different products (at least visually) and it has kept up with copy protection over time. there is some degree of copyright control, but the consumer has also been taken into consideration.
the RIAA and the MPAA dropped the ball and now want someone else to clean up their messes. let them clean it up. don't allow any industry to become vigilantes protecting its own interests. banks are not allowed to hunt down suspects in robberies. it would be a terrible precedent to set.
these "free" copies being distributed on the internet are lower quality than the originals they come from. if the free stuff bothers the industry, the industry should give consumers a reason to buy original copies other than, "we want you to." put DRM all over it. require new players, whatever. but make sure the consumer has incentive to accept all of that. do not bite the hand that feeds you. the industry feels cheated. if consumers didn't feel cheated by what they are offered, they wouldn't go looking elsewhere for free alternatives. if the content were compelling, people would pay for it.
the first time i saw back to the future in the theatre, marty followed up his dad's explanation about the alien that told him he would melt his brain with, "let's just keep this brain melting stuff to ourselves." the next time i saw it in the theatre and every subsequent time i've seen it in any format (tv, vhs) that line was not in the movie. has anybody else out there seen a version that had that line in the movie?
i thought that AMD was not going to compete with Intel anymore. so what is the deal with this AMD 64-bit stuff trying to get to the desktop or compete with itanium? or was someone mistaken?
the music industry makes the mistake of thinking that just because some people will pay a certain price, that everyone else should be forced to pay that price. some people are not willing to pay the big price for a song they'll only listen to a few times before they get sick of it. so people only pay the high price for music they really want a lot. there would be more sales over all if the prices came down.
if there is no way to get cheap music, people won't flock to the local cd store to pay too much for music they only want a little bit. those people with harddrives full of downloaded mp3s are not going to rush to the store to buy an equivelant amount of music on cd. they'll look elsewhere for something cheap that will be good enough for them.
as one of many counter-esamples, alfa-matrix sells cds for what looks like the standard prices, until you consider that the price includes shipping from belgium to anywhere in the world.
and i think here you have hit on exactly why the movie industry continues to make more and more money (despite its whining about piracy) and the music industry keeps heading further into the crapper. it's not that movies are better entertainment, it's that cds are overpriced.
as a long-term plan. they can afford the loss because they dominate other markets. if they can offer you more features for the same amount of money, they have a chance of sqeezing out the competition.
sure everyone wants to dominate the market, but there are rules.
bill gates has enough brains not to get into a market that will just be a drain on his business. if he is willing to take massive losses, i can assure you there is a reason.
xbox consoles have always been sold at a loss. the more they sell, the more they lose.
ianal, but i remember some sort of antitrust law that says you can't sell at a loss to force out your competition. to be able to do so just proves that you are using your existing dominance in one market to expand into another.
so if MS has never made an attempt to make money on the consoles, it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to think it just could be possible that losing money was part of the plan from the beginning. they need to lose money in order to sell the console at the same price as a ps2. but then they can put more graphics power into it because a loss is ok. we laughed in the beginning when we heard that xbox was sold at $100 loss. but somehow i don't think that ever worried MS.
plus this is a loss for the division that makes the consoles, not necessarily the same division that collects royalties from game sales.
i'd love to see a huge xbox cluster running linux. cheap hardware and it has a reverse windows tax.
that is a well thought out way to get people to see things your way. you might as well just decide right now to hate everyone who isn't from your town, who has a different appearance, or who dares to like different music than you.
usually is the key point. it's not always reactive, at least it is not always reactive to the people who "coerced" them.
the bad thing for people who believe is that it only takes a few intolerant ones to make it suck for the rest of the believers. people get tired of being judged, so they end up telling everyone off who reminds them of the self-righteous religious zealots that judged them. sadly, this becomes anyone with any sort of judeo-christian beliefs.
for the record, i do have religious beliefs, but i don't believe in any Right And Good Chosen group of people, and i don't believe in hell, so i don't believe anyone who sees it differently is going to be punished for it. i think it's a very personal subject and the only responsibility people have religiously is to figure out what does or does not work for them personally, then follow that up by letting others do the same. does that qualify as coercing you too much?
i just said that i don't care what or if you believe. i said we should respect each other and our decisions to believe/disbelieve. i also never stated what i believe specifically. i don't want to bother you with it. don't group me together with those that do. i have atheist friends and that is cool. to each his own. my point is that anti-religion zealots end up becoming exactly what they want to avoid, people who stuff their own world view down the throats of others.
i say believe or don't believe whatever you want. just let me do the same.
(yes i did see the first syllable of the parent's id)
it isn't rational to you. not everyone has the same background or viewpoint. to question another's sanity is one thing. to attack with venom in your words anyone who sees it differently is a sickness of its own. if someone else disagrees with you, let them. you won't have to waste time and energy on something that doesn't affect you. this goes for both pushers of religion and pushers of atheism. if you think they're crazy, just stand clear. people who can't let someone else believe without an escessive amount of anger or hatred act as though they are threatened by the existence of someone else's belief. that, my friend, is irrational.
and just for the record, believing or not believing is not an all or nothing, limited to one interpretation kind of choice.
whether you believe or not does not matter to me. just as long as i can choose for myself.
take your intollerant views of other people's beliefs and shove them...
how can any rational person expect someone else to respect their beliefs/disbeliefs if they gorssly disrespect the beliefs/disbeliefs of others nowadays?
anti-religios zealotry is just as bad as religious zealotry. try allowing people to make up their own minds instead of ridiculing those who dare disagree with what you believe.
mod down if it makes you feel better about yourself. i really don't care.
at least it shouldn't be mandated to just one license. there should be choice, but unless it is code for a classified, government-only application, it should be made available to the public in a form that can be gpl'ed. i am yet undecided on mandating the use of the gpl, but there is the argument that if the government gives researched code to companies for free that those companies can turn around and sell without restrictions, why don't they just straight up give the corporations money? probably because even though they are the same in effect, it looks worse to the public to see money change hands than it does to see code given to companies for free that they can sell without restrictions. the government should provide an environment that american companies can operate in, but it shouldn't be doing the companies' work with taxpayer money.
i am not an expert in the gpl, but wouldn't it be legal for a company to review gpl'ed code and then use ideas in the algorithms and functionality of the code in their own code written from scratch (yet inspired by the gpl'ed work)? seems to me if somebody wants to make all of th money off of something without providing source, they should be willing to make it all by themselves.
an important side effect of outlawing the gpl for government research would be that the government would not be allowed to research any gpl'ed software that it already uses as well as the large amount of gpl'ed software generally in use. in effect, all previous government research under the gpl would have been a waste because it would be useless to the government. certainly it would benefit both the government and the people if research continues on these projects. something that benefits government and people is a good use of tax dollars.
yes i was wrong, Anonymous Coward. it is layers of interconnects, not silicon. i'm an idiot, though. thanks for contributing to the solution, but there's really only so much you can do for a lost cause such as myself. but i'm not a coward when it comes to admitting i have made a mistake.
Heat spreaders aren't really that great when it comes to actually making the chip run cooler, all they do is exactly what their name suggests, they spread heat.
that's basically what i was saying when i said, "it allows better heat transference and a larger surface area so the temperature is more spread out. one of the reasons athlons are hot is because a lot of work is done in a small area." i was trying to convey that a given amount of heat energy will produce a higher temperature if contained in a small mass (current athlons) versus a larger mass (future opterons with heat spreaders.
though i may not have been as eloquent as you. thank you for helping clarify the message.
and i apologize for botching two aspects of soi. if you want to learn something, post on slashdot. if you are wrong, you'll find out.
one thing the opteron will have going for it is a heat spreader. intel uses this technique on the p4. it allows better heat transference and a larger surface area so the temperature is more spread out. one of the reasons athlons are hot is because a lot of work is done in a small area.
another is silicon-on-insulator (soi) where a layer of glass insulates each layer of silicon from the next. this allows lower voltages to be used because there is less interferance.
but even after all of that the opteron might run cooler than your athlon, but probably still run hotter than an intel chip at the same clock speed. check out the article on www.tomshardware.com (to lazy to look up the link) and take a look at the basic opteron heat sink requirements. must have copper contact area. bolts to mobo, not to socket (probably to cover for the added weight of the copper).
but that's just the regular opteron set-up.
wait, i forgot, amd fire comments are funny, right? maybe you didn't want discussion. too late now.
Slashdot Mirror
musicians usually have to tour to make enough money not to have a second job. actors are paid up front for being in the film. not an argument, just another aspect of the comparison. like a movie in the theatre, musicians make most of their money from performance.
you can download a free version. the versions that cost money come with hardware, and the hardware is a lot of what adds power to it. can't record without an audio interface. of course, there are cheaper interfaces. and i have heard of pro tools being on p2p networks.
if you're interested, here's the (legal) free version. http://www.digidesign.com/ptfree/
kensington expert mouse and kensington turboball, two trackballs where the ball is large enough to get good long sweeps and still be accurate. you still have to keep them clean, but for me they are easier and more accurate than a mouse.
really, it just gets down to preference, like whether you like the inverted mouse setting.
the world portrayed in this statement is not the world as it is now. it is the world that will be some day if entertainment companies don't figure out a way to give the customer a better reason to buy their products. legislation will not make consumers want to buy content they don't think is worth money. people buy DVDs and video games more and more all of the time. unlike VHS, DVD has extra features. something extra was given to the buyer to make it worth the higher purchase cost and increased copy protection. the video game industry continues to flourish because it continually strives to make new, different products (at least visually) and it has kept up with copy protection over time. there is some degree of copyright control, but the consumer has also been taken into consideration.
the RIAA and the MPAA dropped the ball and now want someone else to clean up their messes. let them clean it up. don't allow any industry to become vigilantes protecting its own interests. banks are not allowed to hunt down suspects in robberies. it would be a terrible precedent to set.
these "free" copies being distributed on the internet are lower quality than the originals they come from. if the free stuff bothers the industry, the industry should give consumers a reason to buy original copies other than, "we want you to." put DRM all over it. require new players, whatever. but make sure the consumer has incentive to accept all of that. do not bite the hand that feeds you. the industry feels cheated. if consumers didn't feel cheated by what they are offered, they wouldn't go looking elsewhere for free alternatives. if the content were compelling, people would pay for it.
the first time i saw back to the future in the theatre, marty followed up his dad's explanation about the alien that told him he would melt his brain with, "let's just keep this brain melting stuff to ourselves." the next time i saw it in the theatre and every subsequent time i've seen it in any format (tv, vhs) that line was not in the movie. has anybody else out there seen a version that had that line in the movie?
You should of just ignored this errer.
should have
couldn't stop myself from posting this.
He takes on subject matter that other authors would just assume leave alone
i think that should read, "just as soon leave alone."
what exactly is a cone-shaped cylinder? is it related to the pyramid-shaped cube?
...you mess with all of us. next time you should check the friend/foe list to see what you're getting into.
first - i agree with your assessment of this tool.
second - i do like the power puff girls. if people like this guy are watching it, i'm sure they're not getting most of the jokes.
i thought that AMD was not going to compete with Intel anymore. so what is the deal with this AMD 64-bit stuff trying to get to the desktop or compete with itanium? or was someone mistaken?
the music industry makes the mistake of thinking that just because some people will pay a certain price, that everyone else should be forced to pay that price. some people are not willing to pay the big price for a song they'll only listen to a few times before they get sick of it. so people only pay the high price for music they really want a lot. there would be more sales over all if the prices came down.
if there is no way to get cheap music, people won't flock to the local cd store to pay too much for music they only want a little bit. those people with harddrives full of downloaded mp3s are not going to rush to the store to buy an equivelant amount of music on cd. they'll look elsewhere for something cheap that will be good enough for them.
as one of many counter-esamples, alfa-matrix sells cds for what looks like the standard prices, until you consider that the price includes shipping from belgium to anywhere in the world.
and i think here you have hit on exactly why the movie industry continues to make more and more money (despite its whining about piracy) and the music industry keeps heading further into the crapper. it's not that movies are better entertainment, it's that cds are overpriced.
as a long-term plan. they can afford the loss because they dominate other markets. if they can offer you more features for the same amount of money, they have a chance of sqeezing out the competition.
sure everyone wants to dominate the market, but there are rules.
bill gates has enough brains not to get into a market that will just be a drain on his business. if he is willing to take massive losses, i can assure you there is a reason.
xbox consoles have always been sold at a loss. the more they sell, the more they lose.
ianal, but i remember some sort of antitrust law that says you can't sell at a loss to force out your competition. to be able to do so just proves that you are using your existing dominance in one market to expand into another.
so if MS has never made an attempt to make money on the consoles, it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to think it just could be possible that losing money was part of the plan from the beginning. they need to lose money in order to sell the console at the same price as a ps2. but then they can put more graphics power into it because a loss is ok. we laughed in the beginning when we heard that xbox was sold at $100 loss. but somehow i don't think that ever worried MS.
plus this is a loss for the division that makes the consoles, not necessarily the same division that collects royalties from game sales.
i'd love to see a huge xbox cluster running linux. cheap hardware and it has a reverse windows tax.
that is a well thought out way to get people to see things your way. you might as well just decide right now to hate everyone who isn't from your town, who has a different appearance, or who dares to like different music than you.
usually is the key point. it's not always reactive, at least it is not always reactive to the people who "coerced" them.
the bad thing for people who believe is that it only takes a few intolerant ones to make it suck for the rest of the believers. people get tired of being judged, so they end up telling everyone off who reminds them of the self-righteous religious zealots that judged them. sadly, this becomes anyone with any sort of judeo-christian beliefs.
for the record, i do have religious beliefs, but i don't believe in any Right And Good Chosen group of people, and i don't believe in hell, so i don't believe anyone who sees it differently is going to be punished for it. i think it's a very personal subject and the only responsibility people have religiously is to figure out what does or does not work for them personally, then follow that up by letting others do the same. does that qualify as coercing you too much?
i just said that i don't care what or if you believe. i said we should respect each other and our decisions to believe/disbelieve. i also never stated what i believe specifically. i don't want to bother you with it. don't group me together with those that do. i have atheist friends and that is cool. to each his own. my point is that anti-religion zealots end up becoming exactly what they want to avoid, people who stuff their own world view down the throats of others.
i say believe or don't believe whatever you want. just let me do the same.
(yes i did see the first syllable of the parent's id)
it isn't rational to you. not everyone has the same background or viewpoint. to question another's sanity is one thing. to attack with venom in your words anyone who sees it differently is a sickness of its own. if someone else disagrees with you, let them. you won't have to waste time and energy on something that doesn't affect you. this goes for both pushers of religion and pushers of atheism. if you think they're crazy, just stand clear. people who can't let someone else believe without an escessive amount of anger or hatred act as though they are threatened by the existence of someone else's belief. that, my friend, is irrational.
and just for the record, believing or not believing is not an all or nothing, limited to one interpretation kind of choice.
whether you believe or not does not matter to me. just as long as i can choose for myself.
totally off topic now-
take your intollerant views of other people's beliefs and shove them...
how can any rational person expect someone else to respect their beliefs/disbeliefs if they gorssly disrespect the beliefs/disbeliefs of others nowadays?
anti-religios zealotry is just as bad as religious zealotry. try allowing people to make up their own minds instead of ridiculing those who dare disagree with what you believe.
mod down if it makes you feel better about yourself. i really don't care.
at least it shouldn't be mandated to just one license. there should be choice, but unless it is code for a classified, government-only application, it should be made available to the public in a form that can be gpl'ed. i am yet undecided on mandating the use of the gpl, but there is the argument that if the government gives researched code to companies for free that those companies can turn around and sell without restrictions, why don't they just straight up give the corporations money? probably because even though they are the same in effect, it looks worse to the public to see money change hands than it does to see code given to companies for free that they can sell without restrictions. the government should provide an environment that american companies can operate in, but it shouldn't be doing the companies' work with taxpayer money.
i am not an expert in the gpl, but wouldn't it be legal for a company to review gpl'ed code and then use ideas in the algorithms and functionality of the code in their own code written from scratch (yet inspired by the gpl'ed work)? seems to me if somebody wants to make all of th money off of something without providing source, they should be willing to make it all by themselves.
an important side effect of outlawing the gpl for government research would be that the government would not be allowed to research any gpl'ed software that it already uses as well as the large amount of gpl'ed software generally in use. in effect, all previous government research under the gpl would have been a waste because it would be useless to the government. certainly it would benefit both the government and the people if research continues on these projects. something that benefits government and people is a good use of tax dollars.
yes i was wrong, Anonymous Coward. it is layers of interconnects, not silicon. i'm an idiot, though. thanks for contributing to the solution, but there's really only so much you can do for a lost cause such as myself. but i'm not a coward when it comes to admitting i have made a mistake.
Heat spreaders aren't really that great when it comes to actually making the chip run cooler, all they do is exactly what their name suggests, they spread heat.
that's basically what i was saying when i said, "it allows better heat transference and a larger surface area so the temperature is more spread out. one of the reasons athlons are hot is because a lot of work is done in a small area." i was trying to convey that a given amount of heat energy will produce a higher temperature if contained in a small mass (current athlons) versus a larger mass (future opterons with heat spreaders.
though i may not have been as eloquent as you. thank you for helping clarify the message.
and i apologize for botching two aspects of soi. if you want to learn something, post on slashdot. if you are wrong, you'll find out.
one thing the opteron will have going for it is a heat spreader. intel uses this technique on the p4. it allows better heat transference and a larger surface area so the temperature is more spread out. one of the reasons athlons are hot is because a lot of work is done in a small area.
another is silicon-on-insulator (soi) where a layer of glass insulates each layer of silicon from the next. this allows lower voltages to be used because there is less interferance.
but even after all of that the opteron might run cooler than your athlon, but probably still run hotter than an intel chip at the same clock speed. check out the article on www.tomshardware.com (to lazy to look up the link) and take a look at the basic opteron heat sink requirements. must have copper contact area. bolts to mobo, not to socket (probably to cover for the added weight of the copper).
but that's just the regular opteron set-up.
wait, i forgot, amd fire comments are funny, right? maybe you didn't want discussion. too late now.
well they didn't need the voice recognition software after all. charlie is in big trouble now.