.. one of the strips had Calvin watching a really violent TV-show, and saying something like (not excact quote): "Does video violence glorify violence? Sure. Does it lower our tolerance level for violence? You bet. Does it cause violence? That's hard to prove...." followed by the moral (:-)) "the trick is to ask the right question". The point is that, while both video and computerviolence, may glorify murder and violence. It is really hard to prove that it causes it. People have tried with studies concerning the fact that a lot of kids that plays violent computer games, is aggressive and violent in the real world. The problem is that it is very easy to jump to the wrong conclusion. You can say that: "this proves that computer games causes violence". But in reality any good statistics professor will tell you that this is abusing the statistic facts. It is a sort of "chicken and egg" situation. Does computer games cause violence, or does violent kids have a tendency to play violent games. My opinion is that it is a little of both. Although I'm not trying to say that it can be proved. I just think that people that have a potential to be violent could be triggered by graphical violence. On the other hand, alcohol causes a lot of grief for some people. Even lethal accidents with "innocent" people involved. Does this mean that we should ban all alcohol? I don't think so. Rather than taking the extreme way out, without even knowing the real facts, we should focus on trying to help the people that do seem to get affected by computerviolence. Parents have a tendency to blame the games, when they are the ones that should be held liable, for not looking after their children.
Why do people often make the assumption, that everybody here is from the US? Slashdot has a lot of European readers, and Norway, Sweden, Germany, France, Belgium, United Kingdom, etc. may all suffer from nuclear disasters in eastern Europe.
The point is that when considering a nuclear power plant, it's more to worry about than just the energy resource being defect. Perhaps the extra cooling that is needed, and that is supposed to arrive at 22.31, doesn't start because the year is 1900, and it doesn't start for 100 years... Perhaps the reactor is supposed to stop at 04.00, but it doesn't because the computer can't figure out what to do, because it doesn't understand the date. Result: the reactor operates out of limit and regulations --> it overheats, and has a meltdown --> mayhem. For the most part the y2k-bug is blow out of proportions, but some parts of it is really serious.
If you want real answers, my general view is that you look to science, trying to explain nature, conciousness and everything else.. But you can never really _prove_ anything, perhaps only your own conciousness, and then only for yourself. Philosophy is great, incredibly interesting, but most of the time, it doesn't get you anywhere. People could rightly laugh of me if I said that the world was created by a pink elephant, but I could argue that they could prove me wrong, and actually I would be right.
..you wouldn't get there. You just can't prove that any of our physical laws are omnipresent. What if these physical laws only apply to our concious world, but in reality it is all an illusion. You provide a scientific explanation to conciousness, but anyone can just as easily say that for you to prove to me that the proof is valid, you must first prove to me that you even exist. Neither is possible.
He proves that you can't prove the non-existance of God, by saying that for you to prove it, you must at least be able to prove that yourself, and the world, existed 5 minutes ago. You can't do that. Because, everything _could_ hva just been created, complete with your memory, All of our science and all of our knowledge, _could_ have been created with the world. Besides, this whole world could just be an illusion, and all our technical data with it. In reality we are all just sitting right besides God, in heaven, we just don't know it. You can never prove me wrong with science, because I could just say: "prove to me that all your work, science and view of life is not an illusion. Heck.. prove to me that YOU exist". Of course, this isn't possible. Now.. I don't believe in either God or the world as an illusion, but I can't prove my view, and neither can you.
..That java is overkill for most things. As much as I love java, PHP lets you do simple things very easily. Of course, if you want to do extremely complicated things, java servlets might be the way to go. There's no "true" answer, just choose what suits you best.
When you release something GPL, it is because you want the software to be open and free for the community forever. You DON'T want some big softwarehouse taking the code, modifiying it, publishing their own proprietary system, never giving anything back to the community.
If you wanted the software to be able to become proprietary, you would have chosen a different license in the first place.
This means.. if developers complain about their lack of rights to just copy all of your code, and keep it proprietary, they should look at themselves, and think about what they are complaining about:
"My neighbour is being such an ass about his new revolutionary open and free cold fusion technology. He won't let me steal it and lock it up."
If developers don't want to create GPL-code, they shouldn't use GPL-code. GPL-code was created for everyone to use, profit from and develop, as long as the community got something back (new, better code). It wasn't created to make developers rich.
"Oh look at all that code I can just call my own, make proprietary and save me a lot of work". Is not the responce the people that creates free software is looking for.
I'm not saying that the GPL is something for everything and everyone, far from it. I'm not against developing GPL software myself, but right now I feel that doesn't suit me. But..this also means that I shouldn't go looking for help from GPL-software. I have to respect the wishes of the creators. The GPL is not the General Public Virus. It has no viral effect whatsoever, if you just keep the _point_ behind the GPL in mind.
"But I can't make my own closedsource version derived from it". NO! That is the point of the GPL. It was created with this in mind, now accept it, or don't use it.
..I don't see why they couldn't just supply needed chemicals for us. It may not be something that is possible today, but this scenario is also way off. If someone did want to control our emotions to make us happy, and make us don't care about the police state we're in, they could probably make us dependent on some endorfin-supplying drug. I'm not a chemist, and not a doctor, so I don't really know, but there are research on ways to boost this natural process, isn't there?
Don't get up on your high horse here now.. You should know that Russia, although totally wasted, can still pack a punch. What is the point of being victorious when 40% of your population is killed? Besides, the US isn't excactly angels. The united states is just about the only regime left in the West, that _still_ has the death-penalty. The US violates an enormous amount of human-rights every year, and still thinks of itself as a "free country".
..And see all the FREE software for Linux and KDE. Shareware and Linux rarely goes together, because most GPL-software is far better than shareware anyway. Big commercial-applications may be better, but the companies behind those have no problem with the license-fee.
Does anyone have any idea why Intel changed the socket (besides money). I find it rather unlikely that Intel HAD to do it. It has become known that the socketed coppermines won't be using the socket-370, but a new socket. I find this repulsive, I wanted a dual coppermine in my BP6
The Athlon CPUs out there does NOT use.18 micron technology. It uses.25 technology. The Coppermine has better cache and 4x AGP, All of which will be simple to bring to the Athlon. The fact that AMDs Athlon can reach 700mhz WITH 0.25 micron, while Intel could ONLY get there with 0.18, says a lot of the Athlon core. AND: Intel needed Rambusmemory to beat the Athlon.
This is the situation: Intel uses 4x AGP, 0.18 micron (to get higher MHZ), RAMBUS and better caching. And it _still_ isn't a Athlon-killer. Think of an Athlon with 4 x AGP, 0.18 micron copperprocessors (can you say 1.6GHZ?) and 512kb full-speed cache and DDR-sdram or rambus. It _will_ beat a similiarly clocked Coppermine by about 20-30 %. The Willamette might come out summer 2k, but the Athlon is here now, and will be available in dual-processorboards at 1GHZ come February. Besides the Athlon has not yet shown it's full potential. The motherboards out have not gone through 2 years of tweaking, like the BX-boards. AND: the Athlon was designed to reach high frequencies. Which means higher latencies, and slower functioning at similiar MHZ as a processor only designed for medium/low frequencies (P6). You sometimes have to sacrifice something, to be able to create a processor capable of going into the future, Intel will have to do it with the Willamette. Another point: Amd high busspeed isn't at it's highest. the EV6 is spec'd to reach 400mhz, AMD is just holding out, because other components really aren't ready for this. Besides, the 200mhz bus we have today isn't showing it's full potential either, because of the slow RAM.
What??? I think your sources are Intel themselves.
on
AMD Planning 1GHz CPUs
·
· Score: 1
This chip has been out for a couple of months, and is way beyond anything Intel has to offer. It is seriously better than the PIII in all respects. You're saying that you DON'T mean failure in the sense that nobody is buying them. Then WHAT are you trying to say? There are three things Amd tried with the Athlon: 1. Creating a chip that would better the latest intel offering. -Check! Done... better in both floating point and integer operations. 2. Creating a chip whose design would have a lot of headroom for future revisions and speed. -Check! Done... the design can supposedly go far over 2 GHZ. And is supposedly not that difficult to move over to 64bit. 3. Creating a chip that sells far better than intels (to make AMD profitable). -This one has a bit to go.. The processor _IS_ better, but Intel has better yield, and motherboardmanufacturers enough.
You just have to make sure that other people _can_ take it back to the main tree or any other tree if they want to. I can do whatever I want with the linuxsource, as long as I publish it under a different _name_ after I fix it. I can't call it linux unless Linus approves of it, but I sure can take it and make my very own unix-clone: "gautux".
Check your facts. Linus Torvalds does NOT own Linux. He owns the brand name "linux", sure, but not the actual code or programs. GPL is excactly the opposite of what you are trying to say. NOBODY(or everyone) owns GPLed code, that's the whole point. However people tend to respect the views of Linus Torvalds, and thus makes him in control. I could however just take the linuxcode, put my own name on it..call it "Gautux" and develop it in a totally different direction than linux. It would most assurably suck, but that's another story. Have you watched the development of Mozilla lately? No? If things produced by big companies never had any quality, then this world would look quite different, I assure you.
...calling people "science nerds" in a negative way is not the way to go at slashdot.
Actually, if humanity always dropped something that isn't practical, and shut down all of this kind of research, we would get nowhere. Besides we spend billions on sports, beer, music etc. Although I find these good purposes, it just goes to show that the world can afford some research that some people find unnecessary.
The "Guns for protection" argument has perhaps saved some lives, but it's probably killed more than it has saved. You need only look at societies with strict gun laws, and you'll se that deadly force is much less normal. But banning guns in an already violent society is unprecendented. I don't really know. You need something in addition.
The mass murders you're talking about is way more seldom than the act of killing _one_ or _two_ other people with guns.
"Guns don't kill people" and "people kill people" are catchy sentences that seem very sensible. But carrying guns actually makes it more likely that you end up a murder victim at the end of the day. How many times do you think "playing hero" gets someone killed? Carrying guns very often makes a simple fight into deadly force.
"The very worst of those killers".. I'm not afraid of the worst killers, it's probably easier to get struck by lightning than being killed by one of those. "The punk kid" that kills someone he doesn't like because he snaps and happens to have a gun is far more likely.. as is guns that go off by mistake. I find it quite probable that a lot of killings wouldn't have happened if the murderer or victim didn't carry guns, but had to resort to knives or fists instead.
The hypothetical situation might as well be reversed:
Small company A tries to make a living by making car-tires. But suddenly BIG company B comes up with the fantastic idea that we should use something else instead of tires.
Of course, company A stops producing tires, it has to adjust or be killed off, but it's not possible to adjust because huge company B has patented the idea.
You're right. Besides you will always profit from a great idea, because you come to the market first.
Patents encourage staying put with you wonderful patent, producing things nobody else can. No pantents would encourage trying new inventions all the time because you need the upperhand at all times.
Hypothetical situation: Sometimes a small company "A" invent something incredibly useful. Of course "A" deserves to profit from that invention. But because there is no patents, the BIG company "B" just steals my invention, and makes millions, and squeezes A out of business, because it is so much larger. This isn't "society benefit".. the patents exist because the original inventor, person or corporation, deserves to profit from their invention. Of course, it works horrible today. As the original poster pointed out. It needs reforming, but getting rid of it is NOT the answer.
Slashdot Mirror
.. one of the strips had Calvin watching a really violent TV-show, and saying something like (not excact quote): "Does video violence glorify violence? Sure. Does it lower our tolerance level for violence? You bet. Does it cause violence? That's hard to prove...." followed by the moral (:-)) "the trick is to ask the right question". The point is that, while both video and computerviolence, may glorify murder and violence. It is really hard to prove that it causes it. People have tried with studies concerning the fact that a lot of kids that plays violent computer games, is aggressive and violent in the real world. The problem is that it is very easy to jump to the wrong conclusion. You can say that: "this proves that computer games causes violence". But in reality any good statistics professor will tell you that this is abusing the statistic facts. It is a sort of "chicken and egg" situation. Does computer games cause violence, or does violent kids have a tendency to play violent games. My opinion is that it is a little of both. Although I'm not trying to say that it can be proved. I just think that people that have a potential to be violent could be triggered by graphical violence. On the other hand, alcohol causes a lot of grief for some people. Even lethal accidents with "innocent" people involved. Does this mean that we should ban all alcohol? I don't think so. Rather than taking the extreme way out, without even knowing the real facts, we should focus on trying to help the people that do seem to get affected by computerviolence. Parents have a tendency to blame the games, when they are the ones that should be held liable, for not looking after their children.
Why do people often make the assumption, that
everybody here is from the US?
Slashdot has a lot of European readers, and
Norway, Sweden, Germany, France, Belgium, United
Kingdom, etc. may all suffer from nuclear
disasters in eastern Europe.
The point is that when considering a nuclear
power plant, it's more to worry about than just the energy resource being defect.
Perhaps the extra cooling that is needed, and
that is supposed to arrive at 22.31, doesn't
start because the year is 1900, and it doesn't start for 100 years...
Perhaps the reactor is supposed to stop at 04.00,
but it doesn't because the computer can't figure out what to do, because it doesn't understand the
date.
Result: the reactor operates out of limit and regulations --> it overheats, and has a meltdown
--> mayhem.
For the most part the y2k-bug is blow out of
proportions, but some parts of it is really serious.
If you want real answers, my general view
is that you look to science, trying to explain
nature, conciousness and everything else..
But you can never really _prove_ anything, perhaps
only your own conciousness, and then only for
yourself.
Philosophy is great, incredibly interesting, but
most of the time, it doesn't get you anywhere.
People could rightly laugh of me if I said that
the world was created by a pink elephant, but
I could argue that they could prove me wrong, and
actually I would be right.
..you wouldn't get there.
You just can't prove that any of our physical
laws are omnipresent. What if these physical
laws only apply to our concious world, but in
reality it is all an illusion.
You provide a scientific explanation to conciousness, but anyone can just as easily say
that for you to prove to me that the proof is valid, you must first prove to me that you even
exist. Neither is possible.
He proves that you can't prove the non-existance
of God, by saying that for you to prove it, you
must at least be able to prove that yourself,
and the world, existed 5 minutes ago.
You can't do that. Because, everything _could_
hva just been created, complete with your memory,
All of our science and all of our knowledge, _could_ have been created with the world.
Besides, this whole world could just be an illusion, and all our technical data with it.
In reality we are all just sitting right besides
God, in heaven, we just don't know it.
You can never prove me wrong with science, because
I could just say: "prove to me that all your work,
science and view of life is not an illusion. Heck.. prove to me that YOU exist".
Of course, this isn't possible.
Now.. I don't believe in either God or the world
as an illusion, but I can't prove my view, and neither can you.
had a redudant "don't" there, but you'll probably
understand me anyway.
They don't want everyone who has NT4, to upgrade
to Win2k, that's why they don't release
DX6-7 for NT. Crappy attitude if you ask me..
..That java is overkill for most things.
As much as I love java, PHP lets you do simple
things very easily. Of course, if you want to
do extremely complicated things, java servlets
might be the way to go.
There's no "true" answer, just choose what suits
you best.
When you release something GPL, it is because
you want the software to be open and free for
the community forever. You DON'T want some
big softwarehouse taking the code, modifiying it,
publishing their own proprietary system,
never giving anything back to the community.
If you wanted the software to be able to become
proprietary, you would have chosen a different
license in the first place.
This means.. if developers complain about their
lack of rights to just copy all of your code,
and keep it proprietary, they should look at themselves, and think about what they are complaining about:
"My neighbour is being such an ass about his
new revolutionary open and free cold fusion technology. He won't let me steal it and
lock it up."
If developers don't want to create GPL-code,
they shouldn't use GPL-code. GPL-code was created
for everyone to use, profit from and develop,
as long as the community got something back
(new, better code).
It wasn't created to make developers rich.
"Oh look at all that code I can just call my own,
make proprietary and save me a lot of work". Is
not the responce the people that creates free software is looking for.
I'm not saying that the GPL is something for everything and everyone, far from it.
I'm not against developing GPL software myself,
but right now I feel that doesn't suit me.
But..this also means that I shouldn't go looking
for help from GPL-software. I have to respect
the wishes of the creators.
The GPL is not the General Public Virus. It has no
viral effect whatsoever, if you just keep the _point_ behind the GPL in mind.
"But I can't make my own closedsource version
derived from it". NO! That is the point of the
GPL. It was created with this in mind, now
accept it, or don't use it.
..I don't see why they couldn't just supply
needed chemicals for us.
It may not be something that is possible today,
but this scenario is also way off.
If someone did want to control our emotions to
make us happy, and make us don't care about
the police state we're in, they could probably
make us dependent on some endorfin-supplying
drug.
I'm not a chemist, and not a doctor, so I don't
really know, but there are research on ways to
boost this natural process, isn't there?
Don't get up on your high horse here now..
You should know that Russia, although totally
wasted, can still pack a punch.
What is the point of being victorious when
40% of your population is killed?
Besides, the US isn't excactly angels.
The united states is just about the only regime
left in the West, that _still_ has the death-penalty. The US violates an enormous amount
of human-rights every year, and still thinks of
itself as a "free country".
..And see all the FREE software for Linux and
KDE. Shareware and Linux rarely goes together,
because most GPL-software is far better than
shareware anyway.
Big commercial-applications may be better,
but the companies behind those have no problem
with the license-fee.
Does anyone have any idea why Intel changed
the socket (besides money).
I find it rather unlikely that Intel
HAD to do it.
It has become known that the socketed coppermines
won't be using the socket-370, but a new
socket.
I find this repulsive, I wanted a dual coppermine
in my BP6
Intel changed the socket. It doesn't use
socket-370 but a new one.
I really find this rather repulsive.
The Athlon CPUs out there does NOT use .18 micron .25 technology.
technology. It uses
The Coppermine has better cache and 4x AGP,
All of which will be simple to bring to the Athlon.
The fact that AMDs Athlon can reach 700mhz
WITH 0.25 micron, while Intel could ONLY get there
with 0.18, says a lot of the Athlon core.
AND: Intel needed Rambusmemory to beat the Athlon.
This is the situation:
Intel uses 4x AGP, 0.18 micron (to get higher MHZ), RAMBUS and better
caching. And it _still_ isn't a Athlon-killer.
Think of an Athlon with 4 x AGP, 0.18 micron
copperprocessors (can you say 1.6GHZ?) and
512kb full-speed cache and DDR-sdram or rambus.
It _will_ beat a similiarly clocked Coppermine
by about 20-30 %.
The Willamette might come out summer 2k,
but the Athlon is here now, and will be available
in dual-processorboards at 1GHZ come February.
Besides the Athlon has not yet shown it's full
potential. The motherboards out have not gone through 2 years of tweaking, like the BX-boards.
AND: the Athlon was designed to reach high frequencies. Which means higher latencies, and
slower functioning at similiar MHZ as a processor
only designed for medium/low frequencies (P6).
You sometimes have to sacrifice something, to
be able to create a processor capable of going
into the future, Intel will have to do it with
the Willamette.
Another point: Amd high busspeed isn't at it's
highest. the EV6 is spec'd to reach 400mhz,
AMD is just holding out, because other components
really aren't ready for this. Besides, the
200mhz bus we have today isn't showing it's full
potential either, because of the slow RAM.
This chip has been out for a couple of months,
and is way beyond anything Intel has to offer.
It is seriously better than the PIII in all
respects. You're saying that you DON'T mean
failure in the sense that nobody is buying them.
Then WHAT are you trying to say?
There are three things Amd tried with the Athlon:
1. Creating a chip that would better the latest
intel offering.
-Check! Done... better in both floating point and
integer operations.
2. Creating a chip whose design would have a lot
of headroom for future revisions and speed.
-Check! Done... the design can supposedly go far
over 2 GHZ. And is supposedly not that difficult
to move over to 64bit.
3. Creating a chip that sells far better than
intels (to make AMD profitable).
-This one has a bit to go.. The processor _IS_
better, but Intel has better yield, and motherboardmanufacturers enough.
Make a mistake and your talking 80kBIT/s
instead of 10.
You just have to make sure that other people
_can_ take it back to the main tree or any other
tree if they want to.
I can do whatever I want with the linuxsource,
as long as I publish it under a different _name_
after I fix it. I can't call it linux unless
Linus approves of it, but I sure can take it
and make my very own unix-clone: "gautux".
Check your facts. Linus Torvalds does NOT own
Linux. He owns the brand name "linux", sure,
but not the actual code or programs.
GPL is excactly the opposite of what you are
trying to say. NOBODY(or everyone) owns GPLed code, that's the whole point.
However people tend to respect the views of
Linus Torvalds, and thus makes him in control.
I could however just take the linuxcode, put
my own name on it..call it "Gautux" and develop
it in a totally different direction than linux.
It would most assurably suck, but that's another
story.
Have you watched the development of Mozilla lately? No?
If things produced by big companies never had
any quality, then this world would look quite
different, I assure you.
...calling people "science nerds" in a negative
way is not the way to go at slashdot.
Actually, if humanity always dropped something
that isn't practical, and shut down all of this
kind of research, we would get nowhere.
Besides we spend billions on sports, beer, music
etc. Although I find these good purposes, it just
goes to show that the world can afford some research that some people find unnecessary.
The "Guns for protection" argument has perhaps saved some lives, but it's probably killed more
than it has saved.
You need only look at societies with strict gun
laws, and you'll se that deadly force is much
less normal.
But banning guns in an already violent society
is unprecendented. I don't really know.
You need something in addition.
The mass murders you're talking about is
way more seldom than the act of killing _one_
or _two_ other people with guns.
"Guns don't kill people"
and "people kill people"
are catchy sentences that seem very sensible.
But carrying guns actually makes it more likely
that you end up a murder victim at the end of the
day. How many times do you think "playing hero"
gets someone killed?
Carrying guns very often makes a simple fight
into deadly force.
"The very worst of those killers"..
I'm not afraid of the worst killers, it's probably
easier to get struck by lightning than being killed by one of those.
"The punk kid" that kills someone he doesn't like because he snaps and happens to have
a gun is far more likely.. as is guns that go off
by mistake.
I find it quite probable that a lot of killings
wouldn't have happened if the murderer or victim
didn't carry guns, but had to resort to knives
or fists instead.
The hypothetical situation might as well be reversed:
Small company A tries to make a living by making
car-tires. But suddenly BIG company B comes up
with the fantastic idea that we should use
something else instead of tires.
Of course, company A stops producing tires, it
has to adjust or be killed off, but it's not
possible to adjust because huge company B has
patented the idea.
You're right. Besides you will always profit from
a great idea, because you come to the market first.
Patents encourage staying put with you wonderful
patent, producing things nobody else can.
No pantents would encourage trying new inventions
all the time because you need the upperhand at
all times.
Hypothetical situation: Sometimes a small company "A" invent something incredibly useful. Of course "A" deserves to profit from that invention. But because there is no patents, the BIG company "B" just steals my invention, and makes millions, and squeezes A out of business, because it is so much larger. This isn't "society benefit".. the patents exist because the original inventor, person or corporation, deserves to profit from their invention. Of course, it works horrible today. As the original poster pointed out. It needs reforming, but getting rid of it is NOT the answer.