I fail to see how this can possibly work with any P2P system that uses a secure hashing algorithm. Sure, if they use CRC32, anyone can make a garbage file... but all the P2P apps I use incorporate secure hashing algorithms like SHA1.
If they have succeeded in cracking SHA1 or MD5 hashes... well, I think they'll soon be into more lucrative avenues than P2P blocking... such as hacking secure government and bank communications for the Finnish government.:-)
is The Matrix. Not only was the movie good, it had excellent other features, such as 'Follow the White Rabbit' mode. These extra features followed in the theme of the movie, and were edited wonderfully. Montages of special effects methods merged with the movie itself wonderfully.
I don't know if The Matrix is on the top 50... I hope so... because despite trying, the site gives me error 414!? URI too long when I try to view the pages. Pfft.
You are right, my apologies. Several times I mistakenly cross theft with copyright infringement... sloppy thinking on my part.
Despite my sloppy rhetoric, my point stands. Copyright infringement in return for cash, or copyright infringement in return for bandwidth... they are ethically identical.
And you don't understand my argument... 'profit' is not narrowly defined as an increase in cash. You can profit in many ways, and when you are on P2P networks, the files you receive are your profit.
Try running bittorrent in 'no sharing' mode. You are giving away none of your precious bandwidth to the other users of the network. You are not 'paying'. And your download speed is pitiful.
Now, start uploading to the bittorrent network. As you start 'paying' for your bits by sending out bits, your downloading improves. The other users 'profit' by getting their files a bit faster, and you profit in return by getting your files faster. An exchange of goods and services... a virtual economy, where the currency is bandwidth.
I do agree that when you buy music you usually get more than when you steal it. Sometimes however, you get less... as is the case when you buy a DRM locked CD that does not work wherever you want it to.
But that's not really here nor there... many albums are shared along with the cover art. Maybe the extras that come with the CD are irrelevant to you... particularly for people who own portable mp3 players, everything but the music can be rather irrelevant, if you're going to be ripping it anyway. Some bootlegs are sold with well made covers and printed labels. Few storebought CDs come with a poster or added benefits beyond the music itself.
All that matters, when it all comes down to it, is this:
Would you have bought the music through legal channels if it had not been made available illegally?
In the end, that's ALL that matters, and there is serious debate (and no real conclusions) on that question. Some people buy the music legally BECAUSE it was first available illegally. Some people would never have gotten it legally, because the cost (in money or inconvenience) was too high. Some would have gotten it legally if they hadn't found it online first. How many people of each type are there? Nobody knows.
This actually is the only legitimate reason I can see to distinguish the two types of theft. However... what about the person who gives his friends a burnt copy of his CD? Isn't that just as bad as the guy selling bootlegs on the street? I now have a physical copy, why should I go buy it?
What if the guy on the street is selling at cost? Does that make it less bad for the copyright holder? Does it make him morally better? Compare this to the person running an FTP with a ratio... you have to upload 2MB to download 1MB. They are obviously getting 'paid' for the files they give you, in return for other files. It's just a different type of payment.
With bittorrent, people who just download and leave without sharing back are looked down upon as leeches... but aren't they, by this whole 'if it's free it's morally better', helping you stay 'pure'? By not 'paying you back' for the files you sent them, it means you really ARE giving it away for free. But people don't LIKE that do they. They want their payment for sharing files... in the form of others sharing in return. What is payment but getting one good or service in return for another.
File sharing is full of this 'tit for tat' exchange. You give me stuff, and I'll give you stuff. People in the warez world look down on leeches who take but don't give back... they are looked at as thieves because they did not PAY for the file they downloaded. It's still payment, whether in bits or in dollars. People who share files online demand payment as much as the guy on the street selling bootlegs, they just accept a different form of payment... bandwidth.
Except for the fact that you DO profit off of someone else's work when you use P2P applications. At least for the good P2P apps, those that share have an easier time than those that do not. Your 'pay' for giving out someones copyrighted work is streamlined access to MORE copyrighted works.
Cash is not the only form of 'pay' in the world.
From another angle, let's say I make an album, and 500 users download my song (illegally) over the Internet from a single user with a high bandwidth connection. Another 500 buy a pirate copy from a warezer on the street handing out CDRs. As the content holder who wants to make money off my work, and who PLANNED on doing it by legitimate CD sales, does it really MATTER how those 1000 people got my work an alternate way? Both the person with the fast pipe and the guy with the fast burner theoretically stole 500 potential customers from me.
Now, I support lessening IP law. I'm in favor of donations, gifting, and a move away from fewer ultra-rich artists toward a saner multiplicity of homegrown artists, who may or may not even fully support themselves with their art.
But that doesn't mean that under current US law, piracy is theft... whether it's bits on a wire or bits on a piece of circular plastic. Whether money exchanged hands, or bits exchanged hands. It's still theft, until these laws are changed, and one type of theft is not inherently more wrong than the other.
A common refrain from those in support of filesharing is that the network effect ("Hey, this band is really good, listen to this!") that piracy makes cheap and easy can lead to increased sales of legitimate CDs. Thus, the RIAA should support filesharing networks because it is 'free advertising'.
And yet, the same argument can be pointed at the makers of pirate CDs. They are like AOL CDs, a cheap way to try out a band you would not have blown $15 to listen to otherwise. Trying out music from pirate CDs, and showing it to your friends, could lead to increased legitimate sales of music you discovered via pirate sellers.
My point is that it is wrong to talk about P2P sharing as 'good' and pirate CD sales as 'bad'. It's wrong to argue about the benefits of one, but ignore the potentially identical benefits of the other. And it's wrong to cheer when a pirate factory in Hong Kong is shut down, but boo when a bittorrent website is shut down.
It's hypocricy. They're both equally bad or good, depending on your point of view.
Just as a note, I use bittorrent and iTunes. In the past I have used Napster, Gnutella, and Kazaa. I have not purchased a physical CD in years. I am not against piracy, but I am against hypocricy... it is THEFT (in the US), at least until the laws are revised. I support weakening of IP laws, but I do not support mealy mouthed thieves calling their behavior angelic. Own up to your crimes and move on, and donate money to organizations that are seeking to revise the laws so they are less insane. But don't pretend that you fart roses in the meantime.:-)
You say pirate CD sales have hit a record high... and thus the RIAA should be going after them. Umm. That's the same flawed logic that had the RIAA attacking Napster.
What if it is the Pirate CD sales that are the primary motivator behind the 2.4% increase? Come on guys... be consistent. All methods of piracy can have some beneficial network effects on sales. All methods of piracy can ALSO cause lower sales under different circumstances.
It is, in a word, wrong to deify music swapping online, but demonise pirate CD sales. They're both illegal... the only real difference is that one has a profit motive, and the other doesn't. But the actual level of illegality, under current law, is about equal. It's illogical to praise one and not the other, don't succumb to the same stupidity that is rife within the **AA.
Nice for us, but very rude to Wired, who depend on advertising revenue to support their business. If they get/.ted enough without advertising compensation, they might start being rude to/., by forcuing us to see interstitial ads and such.
It's polite, when directing hundreds of thousands of visitors to a site, to not undermine the revenue model of the site (if it has one).
Trackers update live. They are constantly receiving and sending data to the various bittorrent clients on a minute-to-minute basis. Usenet, Freenet, etc are slow 'post and retrieve' type services, unsuitable for Tracker traffic.
Your suggestion doesn't make much sense. Should mozilla know what to do if a usb mouse fails or is removed unexpectedly? Of course not, the mozilla developers expect that this will be taken care of.
No, but Mozilla could be written to survive a memory access failure. It oculd be written so that it does not assume that drives and ram are infallible.
Likewise when an correctably memory or disk error occurs... The memory controller or disk firmware should deal with it and the application should be none-the-wiser.
Should yes. But the application could also be written to survive data losses gracefully as well.
This is no different than driving on a highway. Most people can get by MOST of the time by assuming their neighboring cars will drive carefully and sanely. But it is the drivers who are careful and sane THEMSELVES, who do not get into situations where a mistake by another driver will cause them to crash, who are cautious and prudent... those people avoid accidents even when their neighbors are NOT careful or sane.
And if every application (driver) was cautious and sane, and did not ASSUME that their neighboring applications would never crash, and did not assume the system (roadway) would always be obstruction free, then the highway (computer) could continue to flow smoothly even when problems did occur.
Self reliance is the one key to self-healing. This self reliance is another form of redundancy... the hardware checks the data, and the driver checks the data, and the OS checks the data, and the application checks the data, and any of them are capable of handling a situation in which the data passed to it is wrong.
Most popular SHOOTER. Counterstrike is the most popular "Multiplayer First Person Shooter" ever. That is the ONLY contest it wins.
Now, that is not to say it is insignificant. But claiming CS is the most popular online game ever is like claiming that Harry Potter is the best selling book ever. It is not... every incarnation of the bible has sold more copies (and I do mean SOLD, not counting givaway) than any other work of fiction/fact.
But people tend to only look in their own narrow 'genre' and think that it encompasses the world. Harry Potter is the best selling childrens book ever... maybe... are you CERTAIN that Cat in the Hat hasn't sold more copies in the fourty years it's been sold? Where is your proof?
Er, I'm off ranting on a different subject, heh. Remember, CS is not the most popular online game of all time, not even close. There are asian MMOs that have a couple million subscribers, and have many more million 'player minutes' per month than Counterstrike.
They can 'endorse' the standard all they like. What matters is the drive that the Sony, Hitachi, etc produce. 'If you build it, they will come' is mostly true in the electronics world... the standard that wins in home theatre equipment and on store shelves is the standard that new-DVD creators will be forced to follow if they want people to buy/rent their content.
This is not the 70's... people don't rent their players, so I don't see a backdoor like video rental stores getting an inferior standard in the door.
If they can get the endorsement of Dell and Sony, then I'll be interested. But I think there's no news in this report. The big corporation content distributers are endorsing the more-DRM-enhanced standard... and they have some pull, but not enough to matter in the end, IMO.
I'm not a fan of this idea. I think it will be lots of talk, with little-to-no production. I could well be proven wrong, but more cooks doesn't make a better soup.
I would contrast this with the development of the Linux Kernel or Mozilla due to the highly specific domain knowledge required. The people who are deep into chip design are few and far between compared to the number of software coders out there. This much smaller communitee is further hobbled because it could seriously be seen as a conflict of interest for a person working at Intel, NVIDIA, Matrox, ATI or whoever to contribute anything... and if they did contribute, it could bring up contamination issues that could mire the project in legal problems.
In short, I think this idea will not fly as proposed. I'd be interested to be proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
I'm less interested in the new directions dev tools can take, and more interested in getting the good parts of existing tools more ubiquitous. MS tools (like the.NET Dev Studio) are very nicely created, with flexibility and convenience. I would like to see tools with the same capability for C on Linux.
A lot of developers poo-poo.NET programming like they poo-pood VB programming... but part of the reason for their popularity is the quality of their development tools. Bring some of those enhancements over to C on an alternate platform, and I think the results would be quite interesting.
6600 GT PCI-E costs more like $150 each, not $200... see pricewatch. The 6800 GT costs around $350 on pricewatch. So it works out about $50 cheaper, with the ability to pay $150 now, and $100 in 6 months (perhaps even $75 in 6 months). It will not be hard to find a matching model in only 6 months, and you will get a significant 50% boost in speed. Total price with the split purchase will likely be under $250, for equivalent speed. In 6 months, the 6800 GT will probably still cost over $250, judging from past price falloff speeds.
This is my educated guess. They do work out to be pretty close in terms of cost/dollar, but I like the flexibility that SLI gives me, so that's how I am planning my upgrade.
That's why it is called 'Data Mining'. There is an entire profession wrapped around finding useful information (nuggets of gold) among terabytes of data (tons of rock).
I'm not so sure that makes sense. What spawned from Netscape? Mozilla... and Mozilla and its progeny are gaining marketshare steadily. I'm not saying AOL didn't fumble the ball... but it's obvious that Netscape is not a dead property.
Now, if they'd only do to WinAMP what they did for the Netscape browser... whaddya think they should call it? OpenAMP? Winzilla? MozAMP?:-)
I was not let down. I keep waiting for the first Pixar flop or let-down... and I'm still waiting. To be honest, the car movie doesn't look all that interesting to me, but I'm perfectly willing to give it a chance.
I enjoyed how they portrayed the mothers domestic use of her powers. Elastigirl makes the best use of her powers through the movie I think, in many various ways. A superfamily trying to be normal... perhaps not the most original premise, but very well executed and hilarious nonetheless.
You can tell when someone makes excellent characters... you want to see more of them. You wish there was a longer movie, or a sequal, or something. And at the end of this movie, I was very much wanting to see Incredibles 2.
But... I am glad to say that there's a good chance we'll never see that. Pixar is very good about creating a new world with every movie... Toy Story 2 was a mandate from Disney, not a Pixar choice. And there's no real need to revisit the Incredibles... their story is done. I just loved the story, the world, and the delivery... impeccable.
An OS (or, depending on your viewpoint, a Window Manager) is also a set of conventions, both visual and in process, about HOW things work. If everyone codes directly to the video, lack of standards will make the OS and its applications harder to use. This can and does happen in X right now.
Usability is of PRIME importance. Using OS standardized widgets is crucial in giving the user a consistent interface, so they understand what will happen when they click, and what actions are likely to get them the results they want. Custom widgets FAIL in this.
Actually, that's false. Of the people who ran the ACTUAL TEST PROGRAM, most crashed their browser very quickly. Some ran it as many as 40 times, and it came out clean... but 40 is hardly conclusive. That's like running prime95 for 10 minutes and concluding that your processor has no issues.
Many people did not even run the real test app... they looked at the few examples posted and those did not crash, so they concluded it was false. There's a whole lot of 'did not read the whole article' going on with the people who claimed to have no issues.
Slashdot Mirror
I fail to see how this can possibly work with any P2P system that uses a secure hashing algorithm. Sure, if they use CRC32, anyone can make a garbage file... but all the P2P apps I use incorporate secure hashing algorithms like SHA1.
:-)
If they have succeeded in cracking SHA1 or MD5 hashes... well, I think they'll soon be into more lucrative avenues than P2P blocking... such as hacking secure government and bank communications for the Finnish government.
is The Matrix. Not only was the movie good, it had excellent other features, such as 'Follow the White Rabbit' mode. These extra features followed in the theme of the movie, and were edited wonderfully. Montages of special effects methods merged with the movie itself wonderfully.
I don't know if The Matrix is on the top 50... I hope so... because despite trying, the site gives me error 414!? URI too long when I try to view the pages. Pfft.
You are right, my apologies. Several times I mistakenly cross theft with copyright infringement... sloppy thinking on my part.
Despite my sloppy rhetoric, my point stands. Copyright infringement in return for cash, or copyright infringement in return for bandwidth... they are ethically identical.
You are right, my apologies. Several times I mistakenly cross theft with copyright infringement... sloppy thinking on my part.
Try running bittorrent in 'no sharing' mode. You are giving away none of your precious bandwidth to the other users of the network. You are not 'paying'. And your download speed is pitiful.
Now, start uploading to the bittorrent network. As you start 'paying' for your bits by sending out bits, your downloading improves. The other users 'profit' by getting their files a bit faster, and you profit in return by getting your files faster. An exchange of goods and services... a virtual economy, where the currency is bandwidth.
I do agree that when you buy music you usually get more than when you steal it. Sometimes however, you get less... as is the case when you buy a DRM locked CD that does not work wherever you want it to.
But that's not really here nor there... many albums are shared along with the cover art. Maybe the extras that come with the CD are irrelevant to you... particularly for people who own portable mp3 players, everything but the music can be rather irrelevant, if you're going to be ripping it anyway. Some bootlegs are sold with well made covers and printed labels. Few storebought CDs come with a poster or added benefits beyond the music itself.
All that matters, when it all comes down to it, is this:
- Would you have bought the music through legal channels if it had not been made available illegally?
In the end, that's ALL that matters, and there is serious debate (and no real conclusions) on that question. Some people buy the music legally BECAUSE it was first available illegally. Some people would never have gotten it legally, because the cost (in money or inconvenience) was too high. Some would have gotten it legally if they hadn't found it online first. How many people of each type are there? Nobody knows.This actually is the only legitimate reason I can see to distinguish the two types of theft. However... what about the person who gives his friends a burnt copy of his CD? Isn't that just as bad as the guy selling bootlegs on the street? I now have a physical copy, why should I go buy it?
What if the guy on the street is selling at cost? Does that make it less bad for the copyright holder? Does it make him morally better? Compare this to the person running an FTP with a ratio... you have to upload 2MB to download 1MB. They are obviously getting 'paid' for the files they give you, in return for other files. It's just a different type of payment.
With bittorrent, people who just download and leave without sharing back are looked down upon as leeches... but aren't they, by this whole 'if it's free it's morally better', helping you stay 'pure'? By not 'paying you back' for the files you sent them, it means you really ARE giving it away for free. But people don't LIKE that do they. They want their payment for sharing files... in the form of others sharing in return. What is payment but getting one good or service in return for another.
File sharing is full of this 'tit for tat' exchange. You give me stuff, and I'll give you stuff. People in the warez world look down on leeches who take but don't give back... they are looked at as thieves because they did not PAY for the file they downloaded. It's still payment, whether in bits or in dollars. People who share files online demand payment as much as the guy on the street selling bootlegs, they just accept a different form of payment... bandwidth.
Except for the fact that you DO profit off of someone else's work when you use P2P applications. At least for the good P2P apps, those that share have an easier time than those that do not. Your 'pay' for giving out someones copyrighted work is streamlined access to MORE copyrighted works.
Cash is not the only form of 'pay' in the world.
From another angle, let's say I make an album, and 500 users download my song (illegally) over the Internet from a single user with a high bandwidth connection. Another 500 buy a pirate copy from a warezer on the street handing out CDRs. As the content holder who wants to make money off my work, and who PLANNED on doing it by legitimate CD sales, does it really MATTER how those 1000 people got my work an alternate way? Both the person with the fast pipe and the guy with the fast burner theoretically stole 500 potential customers from me.
Now, I support lessening IP law. I'm in favor of donations, gifting, and a move away from fewer ultra-rich artists toward a saner multiplicity of homegrown artists, who may or may not even fully support themselves with their art.
But that doesn't mean that under current US law, piracy is theft... whether it's bits on a wire or bits on a piece of circular plastic. Whether money exchanged hands, or bits exchanged hands. It's still theft, until these laws are changed, and one type of theft is not inherently more wrong than the other.
I don't think you quite got my meaning.
:-)
A common refrain from those in support of filesharing is that the network effect ("Hey, this band is really good, listen to this!") that piracy makes cheap and easy can lead to increased sales of legitimate CDs. Thus, the RIAA should support filesharing networks because it is 'free advertising'.
And yet, the same argument can be pointed at the makers of pirate CDs. They are like AOL CDs, a cheap way to try out a band you would not have blown $15 to listen to otherwise. Trying out music from pirate CDs, and showing it to your friends, could lead to increased legitimate sales of music you discovered via pirate sellers.
My point is that it is wrong to talk about P2P sharing as 'good' and pirate CD sales as 'bad'. It's wrong to argue about the benefits of one, but ignore the potentially identical benefits of the other. And it's wrong to cheer when a pirate factory in Hong Kong is shut down, but boo when a bittorrent website is shut down.
It's hypocricy. They're both equally bad or good, depending on your point of view.
Just as a note, I use bittorrent and iTunes. In the past I have used Napster, Gnutella, and Kazaa. I have not purchased a physical CD in years. I am not against piracy, but I am against hypocricy... it is THEFT (in the US), at least until the laws are revised. I support weakening of IP laws, but I do not support mealy mouthed thieves calling their behavior angelic. Own up to your crimes and move on, and donate money to organizations that are seeking to revise the laws so they are less insane. But don't pretend that you fart roses in the meantime.
Hmm. Rambling rant. Oh well.
You say pirate CD sales have hit a record high... and thus the RIAA should be going after them. Umm. That's the same flawed logic that had the RIAA attacking Napster.
What if it is the Pirate CD sales that are the primary motivator behind the 2.4% increase? Come on guys... be consistent. All methods of piracy can have some beneficial network effects on sales. All methods of piracy can ALSO cause lower sales under different circumstances.
It is, in a word, wrong to deify music swapping online, but demonise pirate CD sales. They're both illegal... the only real difference is that one has a profit motive, and the other doesn't. But the actual level of illegality, under current law, is about equal. It's illogical to praise one and not the other, don't succumb to the same stupidity that is rife within the **AA.
Nice for us, but very rude to Wired, who depend on advertising revenue to support their business. If they get /.ted enough without advertising compensation, they might start being rude to /., by forcuing us to see interstitial ads and such.
It's polite, when directing hundreds of thousands of visitors to a site, to not undermine the revenue model of the site (if it has one).
Trackers update live. They are constantly receiving and sending data to the various bittorrent clients on a minute-to-minute basis. Usenet, Freenet, etc are slow 'post and retrieve' type services, unsuitable for Tracker traffic.
Does this mean the people who do bother to file get more money? Looks like they'll be getting about 1200 each at this point.
No, but Mozilla could be written to survive a memory access failure. It oculd be written so that it does not assume that drives and ram are infallible.
Should yes. But the application could also be written to survive data losses gracefully as well.
This is no different than driving on a highway. Most people can get by MOST of the time by assuming their neighboring cars will drive carefully and sanely. But it is the drivers who are careful and sane THEMSELVES, who do not get into situations where a mistake by another driver will cause them to crash, who are cautious and prudent... those people avoid accidents even when their neighbors are NOT careful or sane.
And if every application (driver) was cautious and sane, and did not ASSUME that their neighboring applications would never crash, and did not assume the system (roadway) would always be obstruction free, then the highway (computer) could continue to flow smoothly even when problems did occur.
Self reliance is the one key to self-healing. This self reliance is another form of redundancy... the hardware checks the data, and the driver checks the data, and the OS checks the data, and the application checks the data, and any of them are capable of handling a situation in which the data passed to it is wrong.
Raven
Nice, yes. Similar, no. That's like saying Windows Paint is 'similar' to Photoshop.
I would guess that he learned these terms in order to bypass safe-search filters when he was younger. :-)
Most popular SHOOTER. Counterstrike is the most popular "Multiplayer First Person Shooter" ever. That is the ONLY contest it wins.
Now, that is not to say it is insignificant. But claiming CS is the most popular online game ever is like claiming that Harry Potter is the best selling book ever. It is not... every incarnation of the bible has sold more copies (and I do mean SOLD, not counting givaway) than any other work of fiction/fact.
But people tend to only look in their own narrow 'genre' and think that it encompasses the world. Harry Potter is the best selling childrens book ever... maybe... are you CERTAIN that Cat in the Hat hasn't sold more copies in the fourty years it's been sold? Where is your proof?
Er, I'm off ranting on a different subject, heh. Remember, CS is not the most popular online game of all time, not even close. There are asian MMOs that have a couple million subscribers, and have many more million 'player minutes' per month than Counterstrike.
They can 'endorse' the standard all they like. What matters is the drive that the Sony, Hitachi, etc produce. 'If you build it, they will come' is mostly true in the electronics world... the standard that wins in home theatre equipment and on store shelves is the standard that new-DVD creators will be forced to follow if they want people to buy/rent their content.
This is not the 70's... people don't rent their players, so I don't see a backdoor like video rental stores getting an inferior standard in the door.
If they can get the endorsement of Dell and Sony, then I'll be interested. But I think there's no news in this report. The big corporation content distributers are endorsing the more-DRM-enhanced standard... and they have some pull, but not enough to matter in the end, IMO.
Raven
I'm not a fan of this idea. I think it will be lots of talk, with little-to-no production. I could well be proven wrong, but more cooks doesn't make a better soup.
I would contrast this with the development of the Linux Kernel or Mozilla due to the highly specific domain knowledge required. The people who are deep into chip design are few and far between compared to the number of software coders out there. This much smaller communitee is further hobbled because it could seriously be seen as a conflict of interest for a person working at Intel, NVIDIA, Matrox, ATI or whoever to contribute anything... and if they did contribute, it could bring up contamination issues that could mire the project in legal problems.
In short, I think this idea will not fly as proposed. I'd be interested to be proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
I'm less interested in the new directions dev tools can take, and more interested in getting the good parts of existing tools more ubiquitous. MS tools (like the .NET Dev Studio) are very nicely created, with flexibility and convenience. I would like to see tools with the same capability for C on Linux.
.NET programming like they poo-pood VB programming... but part of the reason for their popularity is the quality of their development tools. Bring some of those enhancements over to C on an alternate platform, and I think the results would be quite interesting.
A lot of developers poo-poo
Raven
6600 GT PCI-E costs more like $150 each, not $200... see pricewatch. The 6800 GT costs around $350 on pricewatch. So it works out about $50 cheaper, with the ability to pay $150 now, and $100 in 6 months (perhaps even $75 in 6 months). It will not be hard to find a matching model in only 6 months, and you will get a significant 50% boost in speed. Total price with the split purchase will likely be under $250, for equivalent speed. In 6 months, the 6800 GT will probably still cost over $250, judging from past price falloff speeds.
This is my educated guess. They do work out to be pretty close in terms of cost/dollar, but I like the flexibility that SLI gives me, so that's how I am planning my upgrade.
That's why it is called 'Data Mining'. There is an entire profession wrapped around finding useful information (nuggets of gold) among terabytes of data (tons of rock).
I'm not so sure that makes sense. What spawned from Netscape? Mozilla... and Mozilla and its progeny are gaining marketshare steadily. I'm not saying AOL didn't fumble the ball... but it's obvious that Netscape is not a dead property.
:-)
Now, if they'd only do to WinAMP what they did for the Netscape browser... whaddya think they should call it? OpenAMP? Winzilla? MozAMP?
I was not let down. I keep waiting for the first Pixar flop or let-down... and I'm still waiting. To be honest, the car movie doesn't look all that interesting to me, but I'm perfectly willing to give it a chance.
:-)
I enjoyed how they portrayed the mothers domestic use of her powers. Elastigirl makes the best use of her powers through the movie I think, in many various ways. A superfamily trying to be normal... perhaps not the most original premise, but very well executed and hilarious nonetheless.
You can tell when someone makes excellent characters... you want to see more of them. You wish there was a longer movie, or a sequal, or something. And at the end of this movie, I was very much wanting to see Incredibles 2.
But... I am glad to say that there's a good chance we'll never see that. Pixar is very good about creating a new world with every movie... Toy Story 2 was a mandate from Disney, not a Pixar choice. And there's no real need to revisit the Incredibles... their story is done. I just loved the story, the world, and the delivery... impeccable.
I'm a Pixar fanboy, I admit.
An OS (or, depending on your viewpoint, a Window Manager) is also a set of conventions, both visual and in process, about HOW things work. If everyone codes directly to the video, lack of standards will make the OS and its applications harder to use. This can and does happen in X right now.
Usability is of PRIME importance. Using OS standardized widgets is crucial in giving the user a consistent interface, so they understand what will happen when they click, and what actions are likely to get them the results they want. Custom widgets FAIL in this.
Actually, that's false. Of the people who ran the ACTUAL TEST PROGRAM, most crashed their browser very quickly. Some ran it as many as 40 times, and it came out clean... but 40 is hardly conclusive. That's like running prime95 for 10 minutes and concluding that your processor has no issues.
Many people did not even run the real test app... they looked at the few examples posted and those did not crash, so they concluded it was false. There's a whole lot of 'did not read the whole article' going on with the people who claimed to have no issues.