No, only people who use "paradigm" in a business or technology-related manner. It's a perfectly valuable philosophical construct when used properly.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying
that paradigm is ok under
the old paradigm for paradigm, but the new
paradigm paradigm is unacceptable.
In fact, what on earth makes anyone think that he would share these weapons? If he has them, they are a source of power. If he gives them away, he is giving power away to other people.
You obviously don't understand the
principles of the Free Weapons of Mass
Destruction Movement. If I make an atomic
bomb it gives me power. If I share it with you,
it doesn't diminish my power. All I ask in
return, is if you improve my bomb, is that
you share it back with me.
For example, let's say you build a thermonuclear bomb
using my atomic bomb as the initiator. It's only
fair that I get to share the benefits of your superior
nuclear firepower that I enabled you to obtain.
In the end, this works out best for everyone.
Deterrence only works well when everyone
is on a level playing field. The best way to ensure
this is to make sure that WMD knowhow
and materials are freely available to everyone.
Living next to a railway crossing - I wonder how loud it's going to be
In the railroads' minds, louder is safer. They'll
probably take advantage of the jet exhaust
by routing it through a huge whistle and horn.
It will continuously emit a piercing, deafening
alien wail audible dozens of miles away.
Railroad crossing accidents will become
a thing of the past, because it will be too painful
to remain near the tracks as the train approaches.
I thought AOL was based on the idea that people need a never-ending supply of drink coasters.
No, that useless idea surfaced only after AOL strayed
from its original fundamental charter: The principle that
no geek should ever again be forced to purchase blank
floppy disks.
Maybe they forsook their floppy responsibilities
because they thought their original
vision was actually realized. Indeed, I prospered
with their plan. Even now, the rare occasions
I need a floppy, I reach into my old box of
complimentary AOL disks.
Unfortunately, they forgot that new generations
of users sometimes need floppies, too. Forgetting
this fact was probably the source of their downfall.
then to be redundant, Intel should face up to the fact that most users have no need for 2.8 Ghz processors.
Actually, Intel's marketing for the P4 has always
seemed to focus on multimedia. If you think
of it as a glorified DSP used mainly to decode
video streams and support Winmodems, it
makes sense to have high reving, deeply pipelined
core and memory bus. These types of
streaming data algorithms
don't require tons of cache or hard-to-predict
branches.
As has been pointed out hundreds of times
here, other CPUs get more general-purpose
work done per dollar or per watt. However, Intel
has been successful in creating a chip intended
to be a souped up TV.
Copyrights shouldn't expire during an authors lifetime. How would you like it if the govt. took your business away after 10 years
They wouldn't be taking your business away.
Your business is writing. Pick up your damned
pen and get back to work. Business involves
work. Getting paid indefinitely for doing nothing new is
just a government entitlement program.
Greatly limiting the "brief [few years] economic advantage" for authors and inventors would destroy the ability for someone to live off their work, sending brilliant, independant minds back to the doldrums of corporate America.
If these people are so brilliant and independent,
then they should crank out some new
creative works if the copyrights on their old ones expire.
It doesn't mean that they're forced to get a corporate job.
The reason for copyrights is to stimulate
creative production, not to let a few lucky artists
and their heirs or corporate sugar daddies sit on their collective asses
for a century or more.
Translation: it cuts programming jobs by a significant percentage. You have to ask yourself, is this really what you want?
What I really want is for somebody to pay
me to sip tall drinks while I sit on a beach in
Hawaii. Unfortunately, very few employers
find that to be a productive enough activity to
staff up in that area. Oh well, life's a bitch.
So? If you're working at a job that has been made
effectively redundant by changes in technology
or economics, then you're just doing "busy work".
It's time to move on to greener pastures.
Anyway, the money not spent in the IT budget
doesn't just disappear. It is spent on something
else more directly related to the company's
business, thereby generating more jobs
somewhere else in the economy.
Those that did survive the Holocaust did so with neither free nor spendy software. Heck, they didn't so much as have an Apple II!
Many if not most of those who did survive
probably owe their good fortune to one of
the first "computers": the
British Colossus machine that was used
to crack German codes. This significatly
shortened the war, stopping Hitler's plans
before they were carried out to completion.
Where's the problem? You want the RIAA and MPAA to stop giving a fuck about DRM, stop stealing!
Apparently, you have no capacity to comprehend
English. I just got done saying that the RIAA and
the MPAA can put all of the DRM they want on their
products. I said that it makes sense for them
to do so, so that they don't depend on the self
restraint of millions of teenagers for their profits.
The problem is expecting the government to help
them out with special laws to cram it down
everybody's throats.
BTW, I hardly even watch movies or listen to
CDs, much less "steal" (or using proper terminology,
illegaly copy) the crap that they're dispensing
these days.
Off-topic: do you think your sig** is clever, or is just that your way of letting the world know that you're a total fuckwit?
Yeah, my sig is getting kind of old. But you've
given me a good idea for a new one. How about this one:
As for the way to make money despite consumers feeling free to steal your content, I've got a great idea. Legally mandated DRM.
DRM would be fine for those companies who
think anybody would buy it and it wouldn't be
cracked.
But if it was legally mandated, that
would be like going to the authorities and complaining
that since people seem to be stealing from your unattended
fruit stand, there need to be new draconian fruit
licensing and tracking laws enacted. In the real world, the
authorities would just tell you to hire somebody to
watch your fruit stand. That's a cost of doing
business, and there's no need to infringe
on everybody else's rights to enjoy unencumbered
fruit.
The authorities don't seem
as clued in w.r.t. content producers.
they -actually- believe that breaking the law with a computer is a world away from, say, lifting a sweater from a department store.
Of course, department stores keep a watch
over their sweaters. They don't try to make
a business model out of, for example: Leaving
piles of sweaters unattended at busy
street corners, with a sign saying "Sweaters
$39.99. Please take one and put your
cash payment in this evelope"
Anybody who understands human nature
would see that that scheme would be
utterly unworkable. Likewise, nobody should
be surprised when people cheat on
copyrights as soon as technology makes
it cheaper and easier than buying a real copy.
Copyright infringement may not be right, but your righteous indignation
isn't going to change things. The only way
to stop this behavior is to make it more like
a department store: physically protect the
merchandise. However, this is just about
impossible with copyable stuff. Too bad. If the
content producers go out of business under
the current model with current human nature,
there'll be a shortage of content. Then somebody
else will come along and figure out a new
way to make money on entertainment that
is more workable, and not dependent on the
honesty of millions of anonymous consumers.
If you want real science shows, try Discovery and The Learning Channel.
Long ago, TLC devolved into a channel of
bermuda triangle, police chase and medical
emergency pseudo-documentaries.
(And to think, IIRC, years ago they ran
excellent shows like "The
Secret Life of Machines". Sad.) In my
judgement, the Discovery
channel has lately started a transition down
the same path.
The History Channel still retains some shred
of respectability, but how long can it hold out?
Now the RIAA is going to be stuck paying your local station to broadcast CD quality music. How long before there is a Tivo for radio?
No problem. The RIAA and the Clear Channel
^W^W the radio industry will come to an agreement
where the DJs are obligated to talk over the
beginning and end of each song. Actually,
since this pretty much already happens, almost
nothing will have to change.
Show me that in the US Constitution or any State Constitution.
Exactly. That's why the guy said it was so USA.
We're a country of legal fundamentalists.
Suffering constant sales calls is one way to
prove your dedication to the one true set of laws.
If the founding fathers didn't mention telemarketing
in the Constitution, it just isn't important. We should
all leave our phones off the hook so we have
more time to study
the Constitution, anyway.
That future might suck. For example:
You finally meet the girl of your dreams.
She's smart, funny, beautiful, available, and she digs you.
She's perfect in every way -- except that
she's been wired for an incompatible
communications protocol.
"Yes sir, please take a 'relatively' low concentration of one of the world's most flammable substances on board!" Sounds like a GREAT idea. It's all too easy to start a fire with these, though.
O.M.G -- To think
that for all these years, I've been flying
in airplanes accompanied by dozens of little
1-ounce TICKING TIME BOMBS in the beverage
cart -- each one filled with a FLAMMABLE
ethanol mixture!
I'm not stepping onto an airplane again until
this situation is fixed!!!
(Hmm... I could offer to dispose of these dangerous
articles at no charge to the arlines.)
This is totally irresponsible of a major
news site to link to the DeCSS code.
After years of hard work, the content producers
had almost finished the task of putting
that genie back in its bottle.
Its simple: if
there are no links to DeCSS, then there is
no way to reach it. DeCSS would effectively
cease to exist in this universe.
(It might still technically exist,
like a physical object that falls within the event
horizon of a black hole, but that distinction is only
of interest to philosophers). Some would
argue that you could reach DeCSS via
non-hyperlink text URLs. Give me a break -
that's comparing apples and oranges. It
doesn't count as a valid way to pierce
the event horizon.
Now, by placing this valid hyperlink, they've created a huge
leak in the carefully constructed containment
barrier. We might be back almost to square one.
In short if the court rules that ADA applies to websites, unless the court is very specific to how it applies, all commercial websites regardless of size would be subject to the ruling...ouch!!!
That would suit me fine. Those features on a
website that are most likely to break screen
readers tend to be the exact same features that
are the most annoying, unnecessary and
browser incompatible.
FYI, all modern X86 CPUs (other than Crusoe)
remap the x86 instruction set to a RISC-like core.
The Crusoe remaps x86 instructions to a
VLIW core. Another key difference is that the
Crusoe runs software to remap the code, whereas
conventional CPUs use a dedicated hardware unit.
Much of the Crusoe's power savings can be
attributed simply to not trying to push the
performance curve so far. IIRC, Intel responded
to Transmeta's products by putting out a slower,
power optimized Pentium-III that was almost
as frugal as the Crusoe. This was done with mainly with
process tweaks and underclocking.
So what about all the nasty chemicals used to build components?
AMD had been working on a new CPU fabrication process
based on hemp fibers and herbal extracts instead of
silicon and solvents, but
the government shut the project down after
lobbying from chemical and mining companies.
Now keep in mind your development team for lack of a better word concist of PhD chemist and Biologist commanding a 6 figure per anum paycheck.
Those salaries are just a rounding error
compared to the main cost:
countless thousands of
6 figure per 30-second TV commercials.
The 5 years to recoup their investment
is really no big deal.
They just develop a new similar drug
under a new patent with a similar sounding name.
That way, they can leverage the millions
spent on the old TV ads.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that paradigm is ok under the old paradigm for paradigm, but the new paradigm paradigm is unacceptable.
That sounds like a tautology, because I bet you define "enterprise data" as any data that is stored in a mainframe.
You obviously don't understand the principles of the Free Weapons of Mass Destruction Movement. If I make an atomic bomb it gives me power. If I share it with you, it doesn't diminish my power. All I ask in return, is if you improve my bomb, is that you share it back with me.
For example, let's say you build a thermonuclear bomb using my atomic bomb as the initiator. It's only fair that I get to share the benefits of your superior nuclear firepower that I enabled you to obtain.
In the end, this works out best for everyone. Deterrence only works well when everyone is on a level playing field. The best way to ensure this is to make sure that WMD knowhow and materials are freely available to everyone.
In the railroads' minds, louder is safer. They'll probably take advantage of the jet exhaust by routing it through a huge whistle and horn. It will continuously emit a piercing, deafening alien wail audible dozens of miles away. Railroad crossing accidents will become a thing of the past, because it will be too painful to remain near the tracks as the train approaches.
No, that useless idea surfaced only after AOL strayed from its original fundamental charter: The principle that no geek should ever again be forced to purchase blank floppy disks.
Maybe they forsook their floppy responsibilities because they thought their original vision was actually realized. Indeed, I prospered with their plan. Even now, the rare occasions I need a floppy, I reach into my old box of complimentary AOL disks.
Unfortunately, they forgot that new generations of users sometimes need floppies, too. Forgetting this fact was probably the source of their downfall.
Actually, Intel's marketing for the P4 has always seemed to focus on multimedia. If you think of it as a glorified DSP used mainly to decode video streams and support Winmodems, it makes sense to have high reving, deeply pipelined core and memory bus. These types of streaming data algorithms don't require tons of cache or hard-to-predict branches.
As has been pointed out hundreds of times here, other CPUs get more general-purpose work done per dollar or per watt. However, Intel has been successful in creating a chip intended to be a souped up TV.
Apparently, the Soviet Union in Stalin's time was populated with excessive numbers of important people. Fortunately, that anomaly was fixed.
They wouldn't be taking your business away. Your business is writing. Pick up your damned pen and get back to work. Business involves work. Getting paid indefinitely for doing nothing new is just a government entitlement program.
If these people are so brilliant and independent, then they should crank out some new creative works if the copyrights on their old ones expire. It doesn't mean that they're forced to get a corporate job.
The reason for copyrights is to stimulate creative production, not to let a few lucky artists and their heirs or corporate sugar daddies sit on their collective asses for a century or more.
What I really want is for somebody to pay me to sip tall drinks while I sit on a beach in Hawaii. Unfortunately, very few employers find that to be a productive enough activity to staff up in that area. Oh well, life's a bitch.
Anyway, the money not spent in the IT budget doesn't just disappear. It is spent on something else more directly related to the company's business, thereby generating more jobs somewhere else in the economy.
Many if not most of those who did survive probably owe their good fortune to one of the first "computers": the British Colossus machine that was used to crack German codes. This significatly shortened the war, stopping Hitler's plans before they were carried out to completion.
Apparently, you have no capacity to comprehend English. I just got done saying that the RIAA and the MPAA can put all of the DRM they want on their products. I said that it makes sense for them to do so, so that they don't depend on the self restraint of millions of teenagers for their profits.
The problem is expecting the government to help them out with special laws to cram it down everybody's throats.
BTW, I hardly even watch movies or listen to CDs, much less "steal" (or using proper terminology, illegaly copy) the crap that they're dispensing these days.
Off-topic: do you think your sig** is clever, or is just that your way of letting the world know that you're a total fuckwit?
Yeah, my sig is getting kind of old. But you've given me a good idea for a new one. How about this one:
"mosch is an abrasive asshole"
DRM would be fine for those companies who think anybody would buy it and it wouldn't be cracked.
But if it was legally mandated, that would be like going to the authorities and complaining that since people seem to be stealing from your unattended fruit stand, there need to be new draconian fruit licensing and tracking laws enacted. In the real world, the authorities would just tell you to hire somebody to watch your fruit stand. That's a cost of doing business, and there's no need to infringe on everybody else's rights to enjoy unencumbered fruit.
The authorities don't seem as clued in w.r.t. content producers.
Of course, department stores keep a watch over their sweaters. They don't try to make a business model out of, for example: Leaving piles of sweaters unattended at busy street corners, with a sign saying "Sweaters $39.99. Please take one and put your cash payment in this evelope"
Anybody who understands human nature would see that that scheme would be utterly unworkable. Likewise, nobody should be surprised when people cheat on copyrights as soon as technology makes it cheaper and easier than buying a real copy.
Copyright infringement may not be right, but your righteous indignation isn't going to change things. The only way to stop this behavior is to make it more like a department store: physically protect the merchandise. However, this is just about impossible with copyable stuff. Too bad. If the content producers go out of business under the current model with current human nature, there'll be a shortage of content. Then somebody else will come along and figure out a new way to make money on entertainment that is more workable, and not dependent on the honesty of millions of anonymous consumers.
Long ago, TLC devolved into a channel of bermuda triangle, police chase and medical emergency pseudo-documentaries. (And to think, IIRC, years ago they ran excellent shows like "The Secret Life of Machines". Sad.) In my judgement, the Discovery channel has lately started a transition down the same path.
The History Channel still retains some shred of respectability, but how long can it hold out?
No problem. The RIAA and the Clear Channel ^W^W the radio industry will come to an agreement where the DJs are obligated to talk over the beginning and end of each song. Actually, since this pretty much already happens, almost nothing will have to change.
Exactly. That's why the guy said it was so USA. We're a country of legal fundamentalists. Suffering constant sales calls is one way to prove your dedication to the one true set of laws. If the founding fathers didn't mention telemarketing in the Constitution, it just isn't important. We should all leave our phones off the hook so we have more time to study the Constitution, anyway.
That future might suck. For example: You finally meet the girl of your dreams. She's smart, funny, beautiful, available, and she digs you. She's perfect in every way -- except that she's been wired for an incompatible communications protocol.
Bummer.
O.M.G -- To think that for all these years, I've been flying in airplanes accompanied by dozens of little 1-ounce TICKING TIME BOMBS in the beverage cart -- each one filled with a FLAMMABLE ethanol mixture!
I'm not stepping onto an airplane again until this situation is fixed!!!
(Hmm... I could offer to dispose of these dangerous articles at no charge to the arlines.)
Its simple: if there are no links to DeCSS, then there is no way to reach it. DeCSS would effectively cease to exist in this universe. (It might still technically exist, like a physical object that falls within the event horizon of a black hole, but that distinction is only of interest to philosophers). Some would argue that you could reach DeCSS via non-hyperlink text URLs. Give me a break - that's comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't count as a valid way to pierce the event horizon.
Now, by placing this valid hyperlink, they've created a huge leak in the carefully constructed containment barrier. We might be back almost to square one.
That would suit me fine. Those features on a website that are most likely to break screen readers tend to be the exact same features that are the most annoying, unnecessary and browser incompatible.
Much of the Crusoe's power savings can be attributed simply to not trying to push the performance curve so far. IIRC, Intel responded to Transmeta's products by putting out a slower, power optimized Pentium-III that was almost as frugal as the Crusoe. This was done with mainly with process tweaks and underclocking.
AMD had been working on a new CPU fabrication process based on hemp fibers and herbal extracts instead of silicon and solvents, but the government shut the project down after lobbying from chemical and mining companies.
Those salaries are just a rounding error compared to the main cost: countless thousands of 6 figure per 30-second TV commercials.
The 5 years to recoup their investment is really no big deal. They just develop a new similar drug under a new patent with a similar sounding name. That way, they can leverage the millions spent on the old TV ads.