Most people who run Linux get their software installed with their preferred distro or downloaded it separately from the net.
You don't see Linux software in stores because you can get it for free. The worth of something is not to be confused with what it's marked as at Best Buy.
To elaborate on an earlier reply, 1280x720 is the resolution for progressive scanned HDTV. This has twice as many fields (half frames) as the 1920x1080 interlaced format. So one way of looking at is that only one of the two primary HDTV formats is supported by this new method, but it's not "reducing the spec" as you put it, it's just supporting one of two options.
720p isn't necessarily inferior either, with progressive scanning images with lots of movemewnt and animation will look cleaner and sharper than with interlaced images which can't keep up with fast moving images as well.
There aren't really that many different standards. Although there are technically 17 or 18 official standards here in the US for digital television, there are only 3 different resolution and progressive scan vs. interlaced combinations (640x480 progressive, 1280x720 progressive and 1920x1080 interlaced) and all of the different standards have to do with various frame rates within these combinations. All HDTVs that support one display type natively will support all frame rates.
Also, any HDTV thats worthwhile will support conversion of the non-native signals (between 720p and 1080i, the two main ones), so picking one for an HDTV you buy isn't all that important. Plus all of the major networks have picked which display type they will broadcast. So I don't really think that the number of standards is holding HDTV back as much as the high price, lack of mid-size models, and lack of programming.
Any person or company who sues over anonymous libel or defamation has got serious problems in my book.
Any source of information should only be able to cause an amount of good or harm proportional to the credibility of the source. If a well known and respected news source such as the New York Times releases information that could be damaging to a company's image, the company has something to worry about, and if the information is incorrect they have a right to demand reparations from the NYT for causing possible damage to the company. A smaller news source could also cause damage, but it would likely be less to to less spread of information and possible less creadibility.
A truly anonymous internet poster essentially has zero credibility, because they have absolutely no reputation and nothing to lose from revealing incorrect information. No reasonable person would base a major opinion on the post of a single truly anonymous individual. Even if the information posted is valid, it should be verified through secondary (and hopefully more credible) sources before any decisions are made based on the information.
To hold anonymous individuals responsible for libel or defamation is to imply that the majority of the population will accept whatever they read on the internet (some people may, but it's not the responsibility of anyone else to watch out for the gullibility of others).
Since when do you need special hardware to render Microsoft software useless? I've found that MS software renders itself useless after a certain period of time on most standard computers.
Why? The article doesn't go into detail into how complex the codec algorithm is. Most really complicated compression algorithms are lossy, because they try really hard to squeeze a lot of storage from a small amount of error. This is lossless compression, so the algorithm is probably much more straightforward than something like JPEG or MPEG.
Even if it is extremely complicated, I'm sure an inexpensive processor could be packaged with the storage device that could handle all compression/decompression without wasting valuable CPU cycles.
That's not precisely true. You're right in that long term memory has nothing to do with intelligence. Short term memory does have a large impact on intelligence, though. People who have better short-term memory are able to keep more "ideas" (for lack of a better word) in their heads at once, and are better able to solve certain types of problems that deal with complex patterns.
Now it seemed a little unclear what type of memory is believed to be affected from the article. It seems more like long-term, but either way, good memory is essential for being productive in everyday life.
It seems to me that this underlies the most fundamental problem with how patents are used/granted: new patents can be granted that create only token differences from previous patents and/or prior art, while new ideas seem to infringe on previous patents even while they do add new features.
Looking at an above thread discussing predatory patents it seems like the victor is not the inventor who patents one truly original idea, but the corporation which patents every application of that idea. This is especially true with some of the newer business methods patents, which seem to patent processes which exist only in theory, stripping the rights away from an inventor who in the future may design a completely innovative and unique but (legally) infringing implementation of that idea.
Rather than trying to cast doubt on the article, you could try to at least find alternative evidence. I would like to see supplementle evidence too (in either direction), but casting doubt on a well established news source in what appears to be a well researched effort is just spreading FUD.
Read the article. Brazil's example (as well as the companies in India)clearly illustrates that companies easily can produce these drugs cheaply and in high volume.
If you're going to refute a point, make sure you're not shooting yourself in the foot.
Thank you for putting a few numbers behind the argument that it's really us taxpayers who are subsidizing these companies. I really hate it when people blather about the importance of IP for future development and how enforcing pricing restrictions goes against free-market economics, when the pharmaceutical companies aren't playing in a true free-market or the sole forces behind the drug research in the first place.
The long term implications include millions of people dying in far off lands. Which the pharmaceutical companies are probably looking forward to; more sick people may mean more potential customers. Even if they can't profit (at least hugely profit) from selling drugs to these individuals, worldwide epidemics will surely lead to more sick customers who can pay.
When the next big disease comes around, the drugs will largely be payed for by the same source as the AIDS drugs currently developed, through government funding (i.e. by us) as much as through pharmaceutical company holdings.
Gimme a break! You should *lose* the discussion for such blatant misuse of Godwin's Law. It is meant to prevent discussions from degenerating into camps calling each other Nazis, not to prevent individuals from making legitimate historical comparisons.
That's the whole point of google, it generates its results based on the significance of the site in question based on its relevance in the web's "big picture".
It is pretty strange though that anyone was able to fool google into making it the top site returned for the query, though. Google gives links from highly visited sites more relevance, so some little two-bit web site won't have a great deal of influence.
Actually, the Matrix used still cameras. Certain scenes used lots of images all taken at once (rotation in zero time), others used images at very small intervals (Neo dodging bullets). Both types used still image cameras with computer generated interpolation frame.
BTW, the Matrix pioneered the technique, the Gap ads just adopted it before the movie hit the theaters.
Last time I checked Mac OS X only ran on Macs. While the number of Mac owners running Linux is surely on the rise, most perople running Linux run it on PCs. I doubt these people will be switching in great numbers (why get all new hardware to run a similar OS?).
I agree with many of the points of being overwhelmed; when I first started using linux (SuSE 6.2) it wasn't "is there an app to do X" but "how do I find an/the best app to do X." At least the installer gave the user the option of whether to install every program.
With SuSE Linux 6.3 (I think) which I installed later (my first attempt didn't work all that great) I used the new graphical interface they provided for installation. It made the task easier, but at the price of only giving me the option of installing everyting in a basic package (which are as broad as things like "programming", "internet", you get the idea) or not installing the package at all.
Different setup options need to be available for different users. Experts should be allowed full customization, while novices should be able to install recommended selections of applications from each category.
Why is it that administrators always have to come up with new rules against things that are already prohibited? Students aren't allowed to bring pornographic materials into schools, but I schools would never be able to get away with "filtering" every book or magazine that a student brings in. Likewise, any student caught reading non-internet porn would probably get detention and a call to the parents, sop why not just do the same with the internet? Most students who wanted to look at such sites probably wouldn't for fear of getting caught, those who aren't afraid likelyget away with other things already.
Not all pre-commercial web content was bad. You're right in that only the commercial sites are updated very regularily, but a lot of quality content is still available. This is especially true of University web sites, which should stay "commercial free".
I might look forward to seeing a WWW that hosts more individual content, like it used to.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people who run Linux get their software installed with their preferred distro or downloaded it separately from the net.
You don't see Linux software in stores because you can get it for free. The worth of something is not to be confused with what it's marked as at Best Buy.
To elaborate on an earlier reply, 1280x720 is the resolution for progressive scanned HDTV. This has twice as many fields (half frames) as the 1920x1080 interlaced format. So one way of looking at is that only one of the two primary HDTV formats is supported by this new method, but it's not "reducing the spec" as you put it, it's just supporting one of two options.
720p isn't necessarily inferior either, with progressive scanning images with lots of movemewnt and animation will look cleaner and sharper than with interlaced images which can't keep up with fast moving images as well.
There aren't really that many different standards. Although there are technically 17 or 18 official standards here in the US for digital television, there are only 3 different resolution and progressive scan vs. interlaced combinations (640x480 progressive, 1280x720 progressive and 1920x1080 interlaced) and all of the different standards have to do with various frame rates within these combinations. All HDTVs that support one display type natively will support all frame rates.
Also, any HDTV thats worthwhile will support conversion of the non-native signals (between 720p and 1080i, the two main ones), so picking one for an HDTV you buy isn't all that important. Plus all of the major networks have picked which display type they will broadcast. So I don't really think that the number of standards is holding HDTV back as much as the high price, lack of mid-size models, and lack of programming.
Any person or company who sues over anonymous libel or defamation has got serious problems in my book.
Any source of information should only be able to cause an amount of good or harm proportional to the credibility of the source. If a well known and respected news source such as the New York Times releases information that could be damaging to a company's image, the company has something to worry about, and if the information is incorrect they have a right to demand reparations from the NYT for causing possible damage to the company. A smaller news source could also cause damage, but it would likely be less to to less spread of information and possible less creadibility.
A truly anonymous internet poster essentially has zero credibility, because they have absolutely no reputation and nothing to lose from revealing incorrect information. No reasonable person would base a major opinion on the post of a single truly anonymous individual. Even if the information posted is valid, it should be verified through secondary (and hopefully more credible) sources before any decisions are made based on the information.
To hold anonymous individuals responsible for libel or defamation is to imply that the majority of the population will accept whatever they read on the internet (some people may, but it's not the responsibility of anyone else to watch out for the gullibility of others).
Since when do you need special hardware to render Microsoft software useless? I've found that MS software renders itself useless after a certain period of time on most standard computers.
Even if it is extremely complicated, I'm sure an inexpensive processor could be packaged with the storage device that could handle all compression/decompression without wasting valuable CPU cycles.
That's not precisely true. You're right in that long term memory has nothing to do with intelligence. Short term memory does have a large impact on intelligence, though. People who have better short-term memory are able to keep more "ideas" (for lack of a better word) in their heads at once, and are better able to solve certain types of problems that deal with complex patterns.
Now it seemed a little unclear what type of memory is believed to be affected from the article. It seems more like long-term, but either way, good memory is essential for being productive in everyday life.
Wow, you have mad cow disease? And you said "us", does that mean that your friends or family have it as well?
In any case, you have my condolenses.
It seems to me that this underlies the most fundamental problem with how patents are used/granted: new patents can be granted that create only token differences from previous patents and/or prior art, while new ideas seem to infringe on previous patents even while they do add new features.
Looking at an above thread discussing predatory patents it seems like the victor is not the inventor who patents one truly original idea, but the corporation which patents every application of that idea. This is especially true with some of the newer business methods patents, which seem to patent processes which exist only in theory, stripping the rights away from an inventor who in the future may design a completely innovative and unique but (legally) infringing implementation of that idea.
Rather than trying to cast doubt on the article, you could try to at least find alternative evidence. I would like to see supplementle evidence too (in either direction), but casting doubt on a well established news source in what appears to be a well researched effort is just spreading FUD.
Read the article. Brazil's example (as well as the companies in India)clearly illustrates that companies easily can produce these drugs cheaply and in high volume. If you're going to refute a point, make sure you're not shooting yourself in the foot.
Thank you for putting a few numbers behind the argument that it's really us taxpayers who are subsidizing these companies. I really hate it when people blather about the importance of IP for future development and how enforcing pricing restrictions goes against free-market economics, when the pharmaceutical companies aren't playing in a true free-market or the sole forces behind the drug research in the first place.
When the next big disease comes around, the drugs will largely be payed for by the same source as the AIDS drugs currently developed, through government funding (i.e. by us) as much as through pharmaceutical company holdings.
Gimme a break! You should *lose* the discussion for such blatant misuse of Godwin's Law. It is meant to prevent discussions from degenerating into camps calling each other Nazis, not to prevent individuals from making legitimate historical comparisons.
That's the whole point of google, it generates its results based on the significance of the site in question based on its relevance in the web's "big picture".
It is pretty strange though that anyone was able to fool google into making it the top site returned for the query, though. Google gives links from highly visited sites more relevance, so some little two-bit web site won't have a great deal of influence.
Actually, the Matrix used still cameras. Certain scenes used lots of images all taken at once (rotation in zero time), others used images at very small intervals (Neo dodging bullets). Both types used still image cameras with computer generated interpolation frame.
BTW, the Matrix pioneered the technique, the Gap ads just adopted it before the movie hit the theaters.
Last time I checked Mac OS X only ran on Macs. While the number of Mac owners running Linux is surely on the rise, most perople running Linux run it on PCs. I doubt these people will be switching in great numbers (why get all new hardware to run a similar OS?).
I agree with many of the points of being overwhelmed; when I first started using linux (SuSE 6.2) it wasn't "is there an app to do X" but "how do I find an/the best app to do X." At least the installer gave the user the option of whether to install every program.
With SuSE Linux 6.3 (I think) which I installed later (my first attempt didn't work all that great) I used the new graphical interface they provided for installation. It made the task easier, but at the price of only giving me the option of installing everyting in a basic package (which are as broad as things like "programming", "internet", you get the idea) or not installing the package at all.
Different setup options need to be available for different users. Experts should be allowed full customization, while novices should be able to install recommended selections of applications from each category.
Why is it that administrators always have to come up with new rules against things that are already prohibited? Students aren't allowed to bring pornographic materials into schools, but I schools would never be able to get away with "filtering" every book or magazine that a student brings in. Likewise, any student caught reading non-internet porn would probably get detention and a call to the parents, sop why not just do the same with the internet? Most students who wanted to look at such sites probably wouldn't for fear of getting caught, those who aren't afraid likelyget away with other things already.
Not all pre-commercial web content was bad. You're right in that only the commercial sites are updated very regularily, but a lot of quality content is still available. This is especially true of University web sites, which should stay "commercial free".
I might look forward to seeing a WWW that hosts more individual content, like it used to.