Would be to burn the CPU spec in some kind of ROM on the CPU. I know intel puts some scrach ROM on their chips for info, and both of them have CISC->Microcode lookup tables on their chips. Return that number with some of the other CPU-ID stuff. Instaid of "Athlon 800" the system would say "Athlon spect @ 700mhz (Overclocked to 800)" at boot.
Bios's could even be set up to display a warning if the chip is running out of spec.
Anyway, I doubt that Remarking is really what the chip-makers are worried about. I'm sure AMD would rather have us pay the $500 for an Athlon 900 then get a Duron 600, overclock it to a Ghz and get the same performace for a tenth the cost. Sure, these chips would cheap if AMD just gave them away, but I think they are more intrested in making money then being good semaritans.
I ordered my Duron 600 today, I hope I get a good one, but if I don't, I won't be to pissed, I only paid $50 for it, I certanly wouldn't think of myself as stealing anything if I can run it faster. I havn't got any money at all, and I couldn't afford to get a highpowered athlon. but if I could, I still wouldn't if AMD didn't pull these pins.
Well, it depends. Frankly, some code is proprietary, and as such, we cannot legally look at it.
What the fuck?
What the hell is wrong with you people? if code is proprietary, then we may not distribute it without a license thats all There is no law anywhere that prohibits anyone from looking at something, (unless that something happens to portray minors in a sexual manner...)
I said to look it up, and subset to. You've basicaly made an arbitrary distinction, that dosn't really have anything in particular to do with reality. 'content' and 'information' can never have anything inherent or intrinsic they don't really even exist. They are only ideas (meta-ideas, actualy).
Anything that could ever be considered content, is always going to be 'information'
If we can look at them as merely products perhaps we can see a little more clearly. If you take a product that is for sale without paying for it and without having permission to do so, it is stealing by definition. This is where all the debate comes from: the clash between self-interest/capitalism, law, and morality.
And if we can look at them purely as bit patterns, what then? They are information. it dosn't matter how you want to look at it.
Why is it morally wrong to try and sell something "intelectual" that you spent hours and hours creating ??
There is nothing wrong with it, go ahead and try and sell it. If its any good, people will buy it. But that dosn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to produce any technology that might possibly allow someone to make a copy of that information.....
Now consider poorer countries. Compare the standard of living in Cuba (not starving), and the standard of living in a poor African capitalist country, say ethiopia (starving). Even though Ethiopia receives foriegn aid from the west and Cuba receives foriegn hostility.
I wouldn't really call ethiopia "capitalist" more "war-torn"
Creating information has a cost (in time at least), but duplicating it does not. You pay the doctor, or lawyer, or consultant to create information that you need. Do you think your doctor should be able to sue you if you tell your Wife what what the doctor told you? Should a laywer be able to sue the government for keeping cort records? If you pay a programmer to write a program for you, shouldn't you be able to distribute it however you see fit?
If photoshop cost a dollar I would buy it, certanly. I don't have the money for photoshop, and adobe wouldn't get money out of me wether I use the software or not?
To anyone I may have offended, tough. Grow up. Breaking the law is still breaking the law, no matter how you try to justify it.
If I choose to put my complete CD collection on the web, is it my fault that other people play the CDs. If I choose to publicise their location is that a crime?
Yes, its a crime. However, the people downloading the files are completly fine:P
The fact is our current system entitles us to some free information, and it requires us to purchase or license other information.
Why? Why should that be? Why is that morally right? There have been lots of systems, and they have had lots of different rules. Some have been better then others. I don't accept what The System entitles me to. If you have a problem, go cry to you're precious system, see what they do to me
But what they shouldn't do is license or buy existing information that is not free and then cut it loose without permission. That's just plain wrong
I'm sorry, but because The System believes something doesn't mean its true, and if you take that statement as fundamentally true, then you should seriously reconsider you're criteria for fundamental truth. WHY Is it 'just plain wrong'? Why should ideas be controlled? Saying simply that huge corporations loose money if it isn't observed is certainly not going to convince me.
This paper is seriously lacking in foundation, if this paper had been turned into my freshman English class at ISU, it would have been returned with a big fat F. I've heard this idea repeated with an almost religious air. And while there maybe economic reasons for this, I really don't get the moral ones. I'm not a religious man, and pirating is a lot more fun then not pirating.
And as far as his incendiary 'crookster' challenge, its 'gnutella' and win2k isn't exactly hard to find out there.
with the effect of weakening the political power of the slave states.
Actualy, the northern states said that the southern ones shouldn't get to count slaves in their population whatsoever, since, of course, they couldn't vote, wern't citizens, were not protected by the constitution, and were certanly not going to be represented fairly by the people in the house. Southern states wanted one black person to count as a whole person for purposes of assigning house seats.
When the Metcalf article came on slashdot, I looked up some of his older articles. He actually said that the entire Internet would die. His reason was well, weird.
He had written this during the time of the CDA, when people were really frightened about censorship on the Internet, naturally people were using the internet to discuss this. It was Metcalf's hypothesis that since people were using so much bandwidth discussing pornography, and censorship actual porn would be drowned out. Without porn, he figured, the Internet was pointless.
Yup, if there's thing wrong with the internet today, its not enough porn.
He also predicted (incorrectly, he admitted) that the internet stock bubble would collapse in 1997, and that Yahoo stock would be worthless. While stock went down a bit in 1999/2000, and new IPOs didn't go so crazy, he was way of with that to.
The Internet, pornography, E-commerce, dot-coms, and Linux. Clearly Metcalf knows a loser when he sees one....
Shit! I installed the Linux driver for this thing, and I've got 4th degree plasma burns. You're saying I have no right to complain about such an unsafe product??
The higer the 'degree' of a burn, the less serious it is, the higest number used is 3
Under IP law if we don't PROTECT our IP, we loose any remedies under law to PROTECT our IP.
WHY DO PEOPLE THINK THIS!?!?!
If you don't protect your trademarks Then you loose them. You do not loose patents, and you do not loose copyrights! I don't know what the hell kind of IP Digital:convergence thought they had, (or why it took them five years to make a barcode reader...) but it sure as hell wasn't a trademark, you didn't see these hackers using their l33t-4ss colon. did you?
There is no such thing as 'IP-laws', rather IP law referes to the laws governing patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Patents and copyrights are similar, but don't really have anything to do with trademarks.
and you never loose rights to the patent or copyright untill it exspires.
Slashdot Mirror
There is absolutly no reason whatsoever to assume that he had been arrested at all. The fact that he could be has no relivence to the above post.
Would be to burn the CPU spec in some kind of ROM on the CPU. I know intel puts some scrach ROM on their chips for info, and both of them have CISC->Microcode lookup tables on their chips. Return that number with some of the other CPU-ID stuff. Instaid of "Athlon 800" the system would say "Athlon spect @ 700mhz (Overclocked to 800)" at boot.
Bios's could even be set up to display a warning if the chip is running out of spec.
Anyway, I doubt that Remarking is really what the chip-makers are worried about. I'm sure AMD would rather have us pay the $500 for an Athlon 900 then get a Duron 600, overclock it to a Ghz and get the same performace for a tenth the cost. Sure, these chips would cheap if AMD just gave them away, but I think they are more intrested in making money then being good semaritans.
I ordered my Duron 600 today, I hope I get a good one, but if I don't, I won't be to pissed, I only paid $50 for it, I certanly wouldn't think of myself as stealing anything if I can run it faster. I havn't got any money at all, and I couldn't afford to get a highpowered athlon. but if I could, I still wouldn't if AMD didn't pull these pins.
why should you be forced to trust either.
you lipped off to that cop and got yourself arrested.
Do you know what the word 'plaintiff' means? It means that he started the legal stuff, it means that he sued them
Well, it depends. Frankly, some code is proprietary, and as such, we cannot legally look at it.
What the fuck?
What the hell is wrong with you people? if code is proprietary, then we may not distribute it without a license thats all There is no law anywhere that prohibits anyone from looking at something, (unless that something happens to portray minors in a sexual manner...)
I said to look it up, and subset to. You've basicaly made an arbitrary distinction, that dosn't really have anything in particular to do with reality. 'content' and 'information' can never have anything inherent or intrinsic they don't really even exist. They are only ideas (meta-ideas, actualy).
Anything that could ever be considered content, is always going to be 'information'
While Information can and should be free, content is intrinsically the property of the creator.
Do you know what 'intrinsic' means? My guess is that you don't. you might want to look up 'subset' as well.
If we can look at them as merely products perhaps we can see a little more clearly. If you take a product that is for sale without paying for it and without having permission to do so, it is stealing by definition. This is where all the debate comes from: the clash between self-interest/capitalism, law, and morality.
And if we can look at them purely as bit patterns, what then? They are information. it dosn't matter how you want to look at it.
True, but then by this logic even physical creations of man are natural. That doesn't mean that property wants to be free.
No, it dosn't. I never said that everything natural should be free. Information tends to distribute itself, and it is natural, two seperate things.
When information comes in contact with a human mind, it might be transfered to another one, thats the way these brain things work, naturaly.
Why is it morally wrong to try and sell something "intelectual" that you spent hours and hours creating ??
There is nothing wrong with it, go ahead and try and sell it. If its any good, people will buy it. But that dosn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to produce any technology that might possibly allow someone to make a copy of that information.....
Oh, and a big hi to everyone reading at -1.
Thanks!
Now consider poorer countries. Compare the standard of living in Cuba (not starving), and the standard of living in a poor African capitalist country, say ethiopia (starving). Even though Ethiopia receives foriegn aid from the west and Cuba receives foriegn hostility.
I wouldn't really call ethiopia "capitalist" more "war-torn"
Are you saying that there is a natural right to control the thoughts and words of other humans?
Creating information has a cost (in time at least), but duplicating it does not. You pay the doctor, or lawyer, or consultant to create information that you need. Do you think your doctor should be able to sue you if you tell your Wife what what the doctor told you? Should a laywer be able to sue the government for keeping cort records? If you pay a programmer to write a program for you, shouldn't you be able to distribute it however you see fit?
Everything created by man is natural, as man is a part of nature.
If photoshop cost a dollar I would buy it, certanly. I don't have the money for photoshop, and adobe wouldn't get money out of me wether I use the software or not?
To anyone I may have offended, tough. Grow up. Breaking the law is still breaking the law, no matter how you try to justify it.
so?
Hrm, the dewy decimal system dosn't apply to fiction. I loved the line about "My plan to make millions in poetry is ruined!"
If I choose to put my complete CD collection on the web, is it my fault that other people play the CDs. If I choose to publicise their location is that a crime?
:P
Yes, its a crime. However, the people downloading the files are completly fine
If I write a piece of software that I want to sell commercially, I don't want the l33t skr1pt k1dd33z spreading it all over the net.
Well, good for you. I my self want a million dolars. Since I can't have that, I'll just take your software.
The fact is our current system entitles us to some free information, and it requires us to purchase or license other information.
Why? Why should that be? Why is that morally right? There have been lots of systems, and they have had lots of different rules. Some have been better then others. I don't accept what The System entitles me to. If you have a problem, go cry to you're precious system, see what they do to me
But what they shouldn't do is license or buy existing information that is not free and then cut it loose without permission. That's just plain wrong
I'm sorry, but because The System believes something doesn't mean its true, and if you take that statement as fundamentally true, then you should seriously reconsider you're criteria for fundamental truth. WHY Is it 'just plain wrong'? Why should ideas be controlled? Saying simply that huge corporations loose money if it isn't observed is certainly not going to convince me.
This paper is seriously lacking in foundation, if this paper had been turned into my freshman English class at ISU, it would have been returned with a big fat F. I've heard this idea repeated with an almost religious air. And while there maybe economic reasons for this, I really don't get the moral ones. I'm not a religious man, and pirating is a lot more fun then not pirating.
And as far as his incendiary 'crookster' challenge, its 'gnutella' and win2k isn't exactly hard to find out there.
I do hate quicktime, the windows player sucks ass, I'd rather use a hacked player in windows then that crap.
with the effect of weakening the political power of the slave states.
Actualy, the northern states said that the southern ones shouldn't get to count slaves in their population whatsoever, since, of course, they couldn't vote, wern't citizens, were not protected by the constitution, and were certanly not going to be represented fairly by the people in the house. Southern states wanted one black person to count as a whole person for purposes of assigning house seats.
When the Metcalf article came on slashdot, I looked up some of his older articles. He actually said that the entire Internet would die. His reason was well, weird.
He had written this during the time of the CDA, when people were really frightened about censorship on the Internet, naturally people were using the internet to discuss this. It was Metcalf's hypothesis that since people were using so much bandwidth discussing pornography, and censorship actual porn would be drowned out. Without porn, he figured, the Internet was pointless.
Yup, if there's thing wrong with the internet today, its not enough porn.
He also predicted (incorrectly, he admitted) that the internet stock bubble would collapse in 1997, and that Yahoo stock would be worthless. While stock went down a bit in 1999/2000, and new IPOs didn't go so crazy, he was way of with that to.
The Internet, pornography, E-commerce, dot-coms, and Linux. Clearly Metcalf knows a loser when he sees one....
Shit! I installed the Linux driver for this thing, and I've got 4th degree plasma burns. You're saying I have no right to complain about such an unsafe product??
The higer the 'degree' of a burn, the less serious it is, the higest number used is 3
Those Tercel's kick ass! I've got one, a 97', and my mom still drives her 85'! I wish they hadn't stoped making them :(
Under IP law if we don't PROTECT our IP, we loose any remedies under law to PROTECT our IP.
WHY DO PEOPLE THINK THIS!?!?!
If you don't protect your trademarks Then you loose them. You do not loose patents, and you do not loose copyrights! I don't know what the hell kind of IP Digital:convergence thought they had, (or why it took them five years to make a barcode reader...) but it sure as hell wasn't a trademark, you didn't see these hackers using their l33t-4ss colon. did you?
There is no such thing as 'IP-laws', rather IP law referes to the laws governing patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Patents and copyrights are similar, but don't really have anything to do with trademarks.
and you never loose rights to the patent or copyright untill it exspires.