If you want to bring legal charges against the RIAA, consider charging them with being an illegal monopoly. The RIAA is, by every meaning of the words, an illegal monopoly, and the items you listed help to back up that assertion. I think it's a winnable case, but after seeing the pathetic slap on wrist Microsoft got for being found guilty of the same charge, I don't have much faith in our legal system to fix the problem.
I'm writing the letter in response to your proposed legislation that would allow copyright holders to "destroy" the computers of file traders, etc. This legislation suggests that people should take the law into their own hands instead of letting the courts decide. This type of action goes against established principles of "due processes" and "innocent until proven guilty". It also sounds like the first seedlings of creating an anarchy. I seriously hope this isn't what you intended.
If computer hardware was build with the ability to destroy itself, it would be only a matter of time before some weakness was exposed that would allow cyber terrorists to trigger this ability and use it to command terror over computer users nationwide. This level of control would give such individuals unprecedented power over US citizens. In essence, it would be a powerful new weapon terrorists could use against us. Are you sure you want to be responsible for this?
One last thing before I go. This letter is, by definition, copyrighted by me. If it appears on your computer, it means that you now have property copyrighted by me in your possession, thus giving me the right (under your proposed law) to destroy your computer. If you say this wouldn't be covered by your law, then where do you draw the line? What if I emailed copyrighted music to you? Would that be covered?
Thanks for your time, and I truly hope you'll reconsider what you're trying to do.
"I've never had a piece of hardware Linux couldn't handle, including webcams, digital cameras, printers, home automation kits, etc."
One word: windmodem.
Windmodems (nice Freudian slip, BTW) are of no cosequence to me. I don't use dialup modems. All my networking is done through ethernet. My internet connection is served through a cable modem. I simply have no need for a dialup modem, but if I did, I would make sure to buy a real one.
Also, did you ever consider that the reason you've never bought a piece of hardware that Linux couldn't handle is because you were SPECIFICALLY looking for Linux-compatible hardware?
I've been given machines to use at work, including desktops and laptops, in which I had no voice in what brand to buy, and they've always worked flawlessly. Hard/floppy/CDROM drives, USB/Parallel/Serial ports, video, sound, PCMCIA, ethernet, temperature/voltage sensors -- it all worked 100%. There wasn't a thing that didn't work on these machines. And without exception, these machines were bought for running Windows. Linux compatability was never a consideration.
As for me buying hardware I know will work with Linux, I think that's fairly obvious. Am I to assume you don't do the same with Windows? Do you look through the Mac section of your local computer store when shopping for Windows hardware? Somehow, I doubt it, yet you chastise me for doing the same with Linux. Please stop trying to impose your double standards on me.
I was trying to point out that your post was meaningless. You said Linux won't run incompatible software, so I pointed out that Windows won't run incompatible software either. You say that OpenOffice can't handle all the esoteric features of an incompatible Office program, so I pointed out that MS Office can't handle all the esoteric formats of an incompatible Office program either.
You say Linux can't handle hardware outside of generic stuff like hard drives and mice. I've never had a piece of hardware Linux couldn't handle, including webcams, digital cameras, printers, home automation kits, etc. Can't speak for Windows personally, but I've heard others say they've had less trouble with hardware under Linux than Windows. *shrug*
Ultimitely your post came down to saying "Linux doesn't work with stuff it's incompatible with". A true master of the obvious. I simply pointed out that the same applies to Windows. It also applies to every OS of the past, present, and future.
If you have a need to run Windows software, then you should probably stick with Windows. If you have a need to run Linux software, you should probably stick with Linux. If you have a need for MacIntosh software, you should probably stick with MacIntosh. Got it?
You need to stop kidding yourself if you think that Windows XP can adequately work as a replacement for Linux.
On the software side, Windows XP can't run a lot of Linux software, and many programs that it can run (via porting) don't always work correctly. MS Office DOES NOT work as a 100% replacement for OpenOffice. Just because you can move simple to moderately complex documents back and forth between OO and Office doesn't mean that Office can seamlessly replace OO. It's not just "weird OO features that no one ever uses" that Office can't do, it's a lot of stuff. It'll work pretty well, but it's not a complete replacement for OO by any means. Also, do you really think that you could just buy Linux software off the shelf, pop it into your Windows machine, and have it autorun, install, and work properly? Keep dreaming.
On the hardware side, unless you go and buy hardware that works in a fairly generic method (hard drives, mice, etc.) you're not going to have a lot of luck. Buy a piece of hardware that needs special drivers (webcams, video input cards, etc.) and you're going to see your chance of successfully getting Windows working with the hardware drop to zero.
So in light of all this, free seems like a deal. No money to get software and hardware to "just work" without jumping through hoops. Not a bad deal.
Not a troll, just trying to give you a reality check...
My vision of a p2p web would make the web servers into the seeds and trackers. They would also serve as traditional web servers for browsers that don't support the p2p protocol. When a person views a web page, it gets stored in their browser's cache where it can be uploaded to others for as long as it remains cached (all the traditional rules for how long a browser should keep something cached will remain).
We've seen how BitTorrent is valuable for distributing large files (like iso images) across the internet, but have you thought about other uses for the technology? A couple ideas that come to mind are:
(1) extending the HTTP protocol to allow web sites to become p2p. This would alleviate bandwidth problems for sites that serve medium to large sized files (such as photo galleries).
(2) file servers. A company with a heavily utilized file server could offload a substantial amount of the load to the client machines for commonly accessed files.
These would only apply to static/read-only data, of course. Any thoughts?
The game was called Sentry. I remember playing it on my C-64 back in the days. If you're interested, there's a modernized port of it at http://eicart.free.fr/sentry/ for Windows. As a Linux user, I'm curious if I could get it running under Wine or WineX. I'll have to try that after when I get home tonight.
You forgot the other ingredient that makes movies successful -- hype. I can think of certain movies *cough* Phantom Menace *cough* that did well from this.
That's the crux of the common complaint. IPC = "interprocess communication". Some other prominent GUI systems don't require interprocess communication to update the screen, and can provide quicker response with less overhead. IPC will always be slower than system calls with no context switching.
But the IPC overhead consumes less than 1/100th of 1 percent of the time it takes to draw a window or widget when running locally. Removing it would make no noticable difference. Even a benchmark would be hard pressed to see any difference.
This is a possible reason why Microsoft Windows 98(tm) running on a 100mhz Pentium seems so much snappier for minor UI-interaction tasks (pulling down a menu) than a same-vintage Gnome on identical hardware.
Gnome does a lot of things that make it slow. But that doesn't mean X is slow by association. Back in the 100MHz Pentium days, I was running FVWM, which was very quick and snappy even on the machines of the day. And it was running on X. If you want to complain about the slowness of Gnome, then blame it on Gnome, not X.
Now consider the following: Because X is network transparent and modular, someone could write a server-side toolkit for it. Let's say gtk+ is ported to X as a module, and the gtk+ libraries are modified to look for this. This means that running programs remotely no longer requires large amounts of network traffic, since drawing the widgets and basic interactions with them would be handled entirely on the display server. This would make running remotely nice and snappy. This type of extension would be relatively easy on X because of its flexibility, whereas on Windows it would be extremely difficult. I praise this type of flexibility. You bash it.
I just love all the posts in this thread that say, "Well the GIMP doesn't have it, but you can always write your own..."
Who said that? I mean besides the one sarcastic post.
Do y'all have any idea who uses Photoshop? My graphic designer gf would laugh her pretty little ass off if I sugguested that she just whip up a patch in C or whatever-fu.
So what does she do if she needs some functionality that Photoshop doesn't provide? I would guess that she just goes through the steps to re-create the effect manually. You can do that in the GIMP too, you know.
Open Source kicks ass, but come-on guys. Most people just want to use software, not write it.
So use it. I've never had to write code to use any open source program. If something doesn't have the functionality I need, I'll just find another program that does. I don't see where that requires me to write code.
Does the Gimp support adjustment layers
Yes, but unlike with Photoshop, there's no confusing separation between regular layers and adjustment layers -- a regular layer is an adjustment layer with no adjustment.
provide compatibility with the scads of available Photoshop plugins (or existing equivalents)
That's hardly a fair question. Does photoshop provide compatability with the scads of available GIMP plugins? However, as another poster pointed out, yes GIMP does provide that compatability.
16-bits/channel processing
Yes, through Film GIMP, aka, CinePaint. If 16 bits per channel is important, you can use this version of GIMP.
histogram adjustments, including automatic color balancing and adjustment based on photograph "temperature"
Yes, including all the auto stretch contrast and hsv, color enhance and normalize, color temperature adjustments, selective colormap rotations, lines, curves, etc. It doesn't have a specific "histogram adjustment", but all the functionality is there.
color calibration based on monitor and printer
Not that I'm aware of, but considering all the patents surrounding color representations, and the heavy royalties imposed to use them, it's not surprising.
Does photoshop support animated gifs and mpegs? Can users write scripts in high level languages like lisp, perl, and python? Does Photoshop still have that bug with png images where it doesn't compress them correctly?
Photoshop is a fine program, I'm not suggesting that it isn't. But I still resent Adobe for the whole Dimitry Sklyrov ordeal, and when there's a Photoshop alternative that does everything I need and so much more, I just don't see why I would use Photoshop.
The real question I have is: how many games are there for the G3? And don't say there aren't any. Hell, I bet it would make a fine hockey puck. For $800, it'd better, because I can buy pucks a whole lot cheaper, but I demand quality.
And to think, I just bought a 10D. Although, with a long enough lens, I might be able to use it as a golf club.
<humor>
Given that it's Amazon that filed the patent application, I think these knee-jerk reactions are justified. I looked up "frivolous patent" in the dictionary and it said "see Amazon". You just can't argue against that.
</humor>
Re:My first RMS memory
on
RMS Turns 50
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I remember the days of typing in programs from the pages of magazines like COMPUTE!, COMPUTE!'s Gazette, RUN magazine, and Ahoy!. I tend to believe it was these types of magazines that got me into programming in the first place, and I often wonder if I would be into programming today if it were not for them. I also remember when COMPUTE! stopped publishing code because, according to them, their readers no longer wanted it. I never renewed with them after that. It's too bad kids today don't have resources like this to get them into programming like they did for me and so many others.
Another stat, 73% of US downloaders report that their motivation for trading was to sample music for later purchase.
Of course, sampling songs for later purchase doesn't necessarily mean you're going to purchase anything. The whole point of sampling is to decide if you want to purchase the album or not. I've learned from prior experience never to buy an album based on any one song, so if I've only heard one song from a band on the radio, there's no way I'll buy the album without hearing more of their music. It's too bad the RIAA wants to take that ability away from me.
I can't understand some cyclists. Around where I live, there are bike trails all over the place, and yet I still see people on their bicycles riding down the middle of *VERY* busy streets during rush hour! I've seen these people back up traffic for miles when there's a bike trail 3 feet from the road!
Don't get me wrong -- I ride a bicycle, too. But you'll never catch me riding in the street when there's no reason for it. That goes doubly true for busy streets during rush hour.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to bring legal charges against the RIAA, consider charging them with being an illegal monopoly. The RIAA is, by every meaning of the words, an illegal monopoly, and the items you listed help to back up that assertion. I think it's a winnable case, but after seeing the pathetic slap on wrist Microsoft got for being found guilty of the same charge, I don't have much faith in our legal system to fix the problem.
Thanks for the link. Here's my letter:
Dear Sen Hatch:
I'm writing the letter in response to your proposed legislation that would allow copyright holders to "destroy" the computers of file traders, etc. This legislation suggests that people should take the law into their own hands instead of letting the courts decide. This type of action goes against established principles of "due processes" and "innocent until proven guilty". It also sounds like the first seedlings of creating an anarchy. I seriously hope this isn't what you intended.
If computer hardware was build with the ability to destroy itself, it would be only a matter of time before some weakness was exposed that would allow cyber terrorists to trigger this ability and use it to command terror over computer users nationwide. This level of control would give such individuals unprecedented power over US citizens. In essence, it would be a powerful new weapon terrorists could use against us. Are you sure you want to be responsible for this?
One last thing before I go. This letter is, by definition, copyrighted by me. If it appears on your computer, it means that you now have property copyrighted by me in your possession, thus giving me the right (under your proposed law) to destroy your computer. If you say this wouldn't be covered by your law, then where do you draw the line? What if I emailed copyrighted music to you? Would that be covered?
Thanks for your time, and I truly hope you'll reconsider what you're trying to do.
This discussion has run its course and no longer serves any purpose. I'm ending it here. Respond it you must, but I'm not wasting any more time on it.
"I've never had a piece of hardware Linux couldn't handle, including webcams, digital cameras, printers, home automation kits, etc."
One word: windmodem.
Windmodems (nice Freudian slip, BTW) are of no cosequence to me. I don't use dialup modems. All my networking is done through ethernet. My internet connection is served through a cable modem. I simply have no need for a dialup modem, but if I did, I would make sure to buy a real one.
Also, did you ever consider that the reason you've never bought a piece of hardware that Linux couldn't handle is because you were SPECIFICALLY looking for Linux-compatible hardware?
I've been given machines to use at work, including desktops and laptops, in which I had no voice in what brand to buy, and they've always worked flawlessly. Hard/floppy/CDROM drives, USB/Parallel/Serial ports, video, sound, PCMCIA, ethernet, temperature/voltage sensors -- it all worked 100%. There wasn't a thing that didn't work on these machines. And without exception, these machines were bought for running Windows. Linux compatability was never a consideration.
As for me buying hardware I know will work with Linux, I think that's fairly obvious. Am I to assume you don't do the same with Windows? Do you look through the Mac section of your local computer store when shopping for Windows hardware? Somehow, I doubt it, yet you chastise me for doing the same with Linux. Please stop trying to impose your double standards on me.
Nah, 20,000 amps would be safe. The 20 amp circuit breakers in my house would trip before I ever felt a thing.
I was trying to point out that your post was meaningless. You said Linux won't run incompatible software, so I pointed out that Windows won't run incompatible software either. You say that OpenOffice can't handle all the esoteric features of an incompatible Office program, so I pointed out that MS Office can't handle all the esoteric formats of an incompatible Office program either.
You say Linux can't handle hardware outside of generic stuff like hard drives and mice. I've never had a piece of hardware Linux couldn't handle, including webcams, digital cameras, printers, home automation kits, etc. Can't speak for Windows personally, but I've heard others say they've had less trouble with hardware under Linux than Windows. *shrug*
Ultimitely your post came down to saying "Linux doesn't work with stuff it's incompatible with". A true master of the obvious. I simply pointed out that the same applies to Windows. It also applies to every OS of the past, present, and future.
If you have a need to run Windows software, then you should probably stick with Windows. If you have a need to run Linux software, you should probably stick with Linux. If you have a need for MacIntosh software, you should probably stick with MacIntosh. Got it?
You need to stop kidding yourself if you think that Windows XP can adequately work as a replacement for Linux.
On the software side, Windows XP can't run a lot of Linux software, and many programs that it can run (via porting) don't always work correctly. MS Office DOES NOT work as a 100% replacement for OpenOffice. Just because you can move simple to moderately complex documents back and forth between OO and Office doesn't mean that Office can seamlessly replace OO. It's not just "weird OO features that no one ever uses" that Office can't do, it's a lot of stuff. It'll work pretty well, but it's not a complete replacement for OO by any means. Also, do you really think that you could just buy Linux software off the shelf, pop it into your Windows machine, and have it autorun, install, and work properly? Keep dreaming.
On the hardware side, unless you go and buy hardware that works in a fairly generic method (hard drives, mice, etc.) you're not going to have a lot of luck. Buy a piece of hardware that needs special drivers (webcams, video input cards, etc.) and you're going to see your chance of successfully getting Windows working with the hardware drop to zero.
So in light of all this, free seems like a deal. No money to get software and hardware to "just work" without jumping through hoops. Not a bad deal.
Not a troll, just trying to give you a reality check...
Just make sure you send it C.O.D.
Ok, 105% (+/- 5%) of all Slashdot posts are wrong. That includes this one.
My vision of a p2p web would make the web servers into the seeds and trackers. They would also serve as traditional web servers for browsers that don't support the p2p protocol. When a person views a web page, it gets stored in their browser's cache where it can be uploaded to others for as long as it remains cached (all the traditional rules for how long a browser should keep something cached will remain).
We've seen how BitTorrent is valuable for distributing large files (like iso images) across the internet, but have you thought about other uses for the technology? A couple ideas that come to mind are:
(1) extending the HTTP protocol to allow web sites to become p2p. This would alleviate bandwidth problems for sites that serve medium to large sized files (such as photo galleries).
(2) file servers. A company with a heavily utilized file server could offload a substantial amount of the load to the client machines for commonly accessed files.
These would only apply to static/read-only data, of course. Any thoughts?
I stand corrected. The game was indeed called "The Sentinel". There's a brief mention of it at http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/amiga/data/25081. html, including a couple screen shots.
The game was called Sentry. I remember playing it on my C-64 back in the days. If you're interested, there's a modernized port of it at http://eicart.free.fr/sentry/ for Windows. As a Linux user, I'm curious if I could get it running under Wine or WineX. I'll have to try that after when I get home tonight.
You forgot the other ingredient that makes movies successful -- hype. I can think of certain movies *cough* Phantom Menace *cough* that did well from this.
Why, when I was your age, we didn't have them new fangled hard media. But our floppies were 8 inches, and by god, we liked 'em!
Slashdot's wireless networking icon does kind of look like the Eiffel tower. They must have known.
That's the crux of the common complaint. IPC = "interprocess communication". Some other prominent GUI systems don't require interprocess communication to update the screen, and can provide quicker response with less overhead. IPC will always be slower than system calls with no context switching.
But the IPC overhead consumes less than 1/100th of 1 percent of the time it takes to draw a window or widget when running locally. Removing it would make no noticable difference. Even a benchmark would be hard pressed to see any difference.
This is a possible reason why Microsoft Windows 98(tm) running on a 100mhz Pentium seems so much snappier for minor UI-interaction tasks (pulling down a menu) than a same-vintage Gnome on identical hardware.
Gnome does a lot of things that make it slow. But that doesn't mean X is slow by association. Back in the 100MHz Pentium days, I was running FVWM, which was very quick and snappy even on the machines of the day. And it was running on X. If you want to complain about the slowness of Gnome, then blame it on Gnome, not X.
Now consider the following: Because X is network transparent and modular, someone could write a server-side toolkit for it. Let's say gtk+ is ported to X as a module, and the gtk+ libraries are modified to look for this. This means that running programs remotely no longer requires large amounts of network traffic, since drawing the widgets and basic interactions with them would be handled entirely on the display server. This would make running remotely nice and snappy. This type of extension would be relatively easy on X because of its flexibility, whereas on Windows it would be extremely difficult. I praise this type of flexibility. You bash it.
Trojan? Porn? Yeah, I'll leave it to you to make up your own jokes.
I just love all the posts in this thread that say, "Well the GIMP doesn't have it, but you can always write your own..."
Who said that? I mean besides the one sarcastic post.
Do y'all have any idea who uses Photoshop? My graphic designer gf would laugh her pretty little ass off if I sugguested that she just whip up a patch in C or whatever-fu.
So what does she do if she needs some functionality that Photoshop doesn't provide? I would guess that she just goes through the steps to re-create the effect manually. You can do that in the GIMP too, you know.
Open Source kicks ass, but come-on guys. Most people just want to use software, not write it.
So use it. I've never had to write code to use any open source program. If something doesn't have the functionality I need, I'll just find another program that does. I don't see where that requires me to write code.
Does the Gimp support adjustment layers
Yes, but unlike with Photoshop, there's no confusing separation between regular layers and adjustment layers -- a regular layer is an adjustment layer with no adjustment.
provide compatibility with the scads of available Photoshop plugins (or existing equivalents)
That's hardly a fair question. Does photoshop provide compatability with the scads of available GIMP plugins? However, as another poster pointed out, yes GIMP does provide that compatability.
16-bits/channel processing
Yes, through Film GIMP, aka, CinePaint. If 16 bits per channel is important, you can use this version of GIMP.
histogram adjustments, including automatic color balancing and adjustment based on photograph "temperature"
Yes, including all the auto stretch contrast and hsv, color enhance and normalize, color temperature adjustments, selective colormap rotations, lines, curves, etc. It doesn't have a specific "histogram adjustment", but all the functionality is there.
color calibration based on monitor and printer
Not that I'm aware of, but considering all the patents surrounding color representations, and the heavy royalties imposed to use them, it's not surprising.
unsharp mask
Yes.
automated noise reduction...
Despeckle? Convolution matrix? Yes.
Does photoshop support animated gifs and mpegs? Can users write scripts in high level languages like lisp, perl, and python? Does Photoshop still have that bug with png images where it doesn't compress them correctly?
Photoshop is a fine program, I'm not suggesting that it isn't. But I still resent Adobe for the whole Dimitry Sklyrov ordeal, and when there's a Photoshop alternative that does everything I need and so much more, I just don't see why I would use Photoshop.
The real question I have is: how many games are there for the G3? And don't say there aren't any. Hell, I bet it would make a fine hockey puck. For $800, it'd better, because I can buy pucks a whole lot cheaper, but I demand quality.
And to think, I just bought a 10D. Although, with a long enough lens, I might be able to use it as a golf club.
instead of writing knee-jerk reaction posts
<humor>
Given that it's Amazon that filed the patent application, I think these knee-jerk reactions are justified. I looked up "frivolous patent" in the dictionary and it said "see Amazon". You just can't argue against that.
</humor>
I remember the days of typing in programs from the pages of magazines like COMPUTE!, COMPUTE!'s Gazette, RUN magazine, and Ahoy!. I tend to believe it was these types of magazines that got me into programming in the first place, and I often wonder if I would be into programming today if it were not for them. I also remember when COMPUTE! stopped publishing code because, according to them, their readers no longer wanted it. I never renewed with them after that. It's too bad kids today don't have resources like this to get them into programming like they did for me and so many others.
Another stat, 73% of US downloaders report that their motivation for trading was to sample music for later purchase.
Of course, sampling songs for later purchase doesn't necessarily mean you're going to purchase anything. The whole point of sampling is to decide if you want to purchase the album or not. I've learned from prior experience never to buy an album based on any one song, so if I've only heard one song from a band on the radio, there's no way I'll buy the album without hearing more of their music. It's too bad the RIAA wants to take that ability away from me.
I can't understand some cyclists. Around where I live, there are bike trails all over the place, and yet I still see people on their bicycles riding down the middle of *VERY* busy streets during rush hour! I've seen these people back up traffic for miles when there's a bike trail 3 feet from the road!
Don't get me wrong -- I ride a bicycle, too. But you'll never catch me riding in the street when there's no reason for it. That goes doubly true for busy streets during rush hour.