I swear, I think Greenpeace is more concerned about making sure nobody builds any new powerplants than they are about protecting the environment.
If we were to reduce the human population to a more sustainable level (say, a few hundred thousand) we could burn natural deadwood and buffalo chips for all the energy we need without causing unacceptable environmental damage.
Or at least that's the theory. For more detail read a Tom Clancy novel. Don't forget: shiny side out.
Intel doesn't have a monopoly, at least with PC chips.
Intel has a higher market share than IBM did during the height of the mainframe wars, by almost 20% -- the question isn't whether they have the market share, it's whether they have the power to command the market.
If proven, the allegations in AMD's suit would constitute a slam-dunk finding of market power and abuse of that power.
If you're of the John Carroll "there is no such thing as monopoly" school, none of this matters. On the other hand, most of us prefer a market where there is honest competition on the merits, not one where a competitor is frozen out by under-the-table payments and other dirty tricks.
It's not the fact that a Scandinavian country with a small population has had enough of being locked in, it's the fact that a sovereign country has woken up to the fact that using proprietary formats doesn't do anything for them, and has kicked sand in the face of the big bully.
The point being that from a normal economic perspective, this wouldn't be on Microsoft's radar.
The fact that MS will treat it like a strategic threat tells us that they are afraid of competition getting traction, not of the revenue loss.
My guess is that the "swingers" are hoping that this decision will put this issue enough to rest and quell the present ferment just enough that they won't have to revisit it any time soon. I think there is a lot of unease in that quarter about the implications of in effect outlawing an entire technology, and worse, with no clear definition that would differentiate that from virtually any network transaction involving one machine serving content to another.
And worst of all (as the amici pointed out) with no clear way to know in advance. I believe that the Court made that point at oral argument: how is a developer (think Bram Cohen) to know when deciding to introduce a technology whether he'll later find himself with an adjudicated liability of several million times statutory damages (a sum that would bankrupt Bill Gates.)
The only prudent business decision would be to never introduce any technology that could remotely be stretched to infringe. In other words, never introduce any technology.
As I've written elsewhere, Grokster and Streamcast are so nearly the xxAAs' dream defendents that if they hadn't volunteered, the xxAAs would have had to invent them.
IMHO, the Court couldn't let them off, which is why the Court was able to get a unanimous verdict, albeit on narrow grounds.
I mean, come on! District Court judges are far from infallible, and the Ninth collectively has no fear of being reversed (most-reversed circuit in the country, in fact.) However, anything that the USSC can agree on unanimously shouldn't get that far. I wonder if the Ninth affirmed in part so that the Supreme Court could have the choice of grounds for reversal.
The really fun stuff is in the concurring opinions. The Court's unanimous ruling was simply that the Ninth Circuit and the District Court read too much into Sony, and that Sony only applied in the absense of demonstrated intent. Remember, they were reversing a summary judgment.
Justice Ginsburg's concurring opinion (The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy joining in) argues for revisiting Sony at some later date in the direction that the content cartel want to, with 90% infringement being enough to ban a technology.
Justice Breyer's concurring opinion (Justices Stevens and O'Connor joining) rebuts Ginsburg and points out that the trial record from Sony also identified about 90% infringing uses! Rather changes the picture. More interesting, they also point to evolving positive uses of P2P for non-infringing distribution [1] and expect that, as with VCRs, noninfringing uses will grow with time. In other words, much what the EFF and others have argued.
This one ain't over yet. It looks like the Court is pretty evenly split and just ducked the question today.
Old legal maxim. The problem here is that Grokster was patently setting out to work around the law, and as an unsympathetic defendent they were the RIAA's ideal target in their attempt to overturn Betamax.
I'm waiting to see the decision, but from the sound of it the Court did about as well as I could hope: rather than address the technology point, they addressed the business model. For now, it seems, Bram Cohen is safe.
At this point, what I would love is a thermostat that runs both my swamp cooler and AC unit and can determine when to use one versus the other and switch automatically between them. Anybody know of such a device?
At least in my house, the automated switch wouldn't work because of the block I have on the return to keep air from blowing backwards through the AC and filter. Besides, I would only use it twice a year.
On the other hand, it's a good idea to use a cheap indoor/outdoor thermometer with humidity sensor to keep an eye on the discharge temperature, since that gives you a good advance clue when the dew point is headed towards "miserable."
What I miss is a sensor that would let the sucker blow cool, dry nighttime air in to chill the house during the spring and fall without adding water. Just turn off the pump, not the fan.
I'm using a MasterCool that's almost 10 years old and aside from having to change the pads every four years it's great.
Around here you can get them from Home Depot and the installation kit runs about $650; labor is up to you but if you're replacing an old one it shouldn't be too tough to do yourself.
At first I thought you'd reinvented the swamp cooler. On RTFL, however, I find that you've actually reinvented the 18th-century icehouse cooler, which is notably less efficient (like, where does the heat from the icemaker go?)
It didn't seem all that likely that most/.ers would care about evaporative cooling, since even in Arizona they only work part of the year (like now, although today the Phoenix dew point got up to 10C. I woke up just knowing it had gone up because the cooler was blowing full speed and it still wasn't all that cool.) Never mind next month when the monsoons start. AC time then for sure.
One thing I've noticed -- and it's not just that I'm getting older -- is that young adults are a lot less mature than 20 years ago.
Those professors are getting older, too.
I have three kids in college and compare the "you won't believe this!" stories with the stuff that went on in the 60s and 70s, and I'm putting my bet on the ability to edit memory over time.
For that matter, reading between the lines of the stories that my parents' generation told, the 60s weren't any different from the 40s. Read a few memoirs of the gang that fought WWII and read between the lines (they were a bit less frank.)
Put another way: if you remember the 60s, you weren't there.
Never mind official policies. If your boss, or her boss, or maybe just one customer, are uncomfortable with your fashion statements...
It doesn't even really matter whether they try to be objective and try to make allowances for personal taste. The effect is still there.
If you think it shouldn't matter, I'll agree with you. Just keep one thing in mind: the law says that you can't base employment, promotion, etc. decisions on color or gender. The statistics say it matters.
Microsoft bought a Rumanian company that produced border protection (protect MS clients by filtering on Linux hosts) and turned around to "cut off [McAfee's] air supply" with an MS client antivirus offering. Of course they shut down the Linux border filters.
In return, McAfee fills the vacuum by offering a Linux-hosted border filter.
I'm sure that without the broadcast flag they will stop showing movies on television. After all, we need their movies more than they need the revenue.
</sarcasm> for those who need the hint.
Remember what happened with the original Circuit City DivX? The MPAA told CC the same thing: without strong hardware encryption, there was no way they would allow their movies to go to market on DVD. Contrary to/. legend, DivX didn't die from consumer rebellion, it died from lack of content because all the movies were on plain DVD, not DivX.
Slashdot Mirror
If we were to reduce the human population to a more sustainable level (say, a few hundred thousand) we could burn natural deadwood and buffalo chips for all the energy we need without causing unacceptable environmental damage.
Or at least that's the theory. For more detail read a Tom Clancy novel. Don't forget: shiny side out.
If you subtract out every summer and figure a four-day workweek, how long will it actually take?
Intel has a higher market share than IBM did during the height of the mainframe wars, by almost 20% -- the question isn't whether they have the market share, it's whether they have the power to command the market.
If proven, the allegations in AMD's suit would constitute a slam-dunk finding of market power and abuse of that power.
If you're of the John Carroll "there is no such thing as monopoly" school, none of this matters. On the other hand, most of us prefer a market where there is honest competition on the merits, not one where a competitor is frozen out by under-the-table payments and other dirty tricks.
Looks like that explanation may have been a bit premature.
The point being that from a normal economic perspective, this wouldn't be on Microsoft's radar.
The fact that MS will treat it like a strategic threat tells us that they are afraid of competition getting traction, not of the revenue loss.
The one could solve the other, except that Microsoft doesn't pay taxes.
s/neglect/invade/
Population of Norway: 4,593,041
GDP of Washington State: 192,500,000,000
GDP of Norway: 183,000,000,000
So, like, Bill and Steve feel threatened?
And worst of all (as the amici pointed out) with no clear way to know in advance. I believe that the Court made that point at oral argument: how is a developer (think Bram Cohen) to know when deciding to introduce a technology whether he'll later find himself with an adjudicated liability of several million times statutory damages (a sum that would bankrupt Bill Gates.)
The only prudent business decision would be to never introduce any technology that could remotely be stretched to infringe. In other words, never introduce any technology.
IMHO, the Court couldn't let them off, which is why the Court was able to get a unanimous verdict, albeit on narrow grounds.
I mean, come on! District Court judges are far from infallible, and the Ninth collectively has no fear of being reversed (most-reversed circuit in the country, in fact.) However, anything that the USSC can agree on unanimously shouldn't get that far. I wonder if the Ninth affirmed in part so that the Supreme Court could have the choice of grounds for reversal.
Justice Ginsburg's concurring opinion (The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy joining in) argues for revisiting Sony at some later date in the direction that the content cartel want to, with 90% infringement being enough to ban a technology.
Justice Breyer's concurring opinion (Justices Stevens and O'Connor joining) rebuts Ginsburg and points out that the trial record from Sony also identified about 90% infringing uses! Rather changes the picture. More interesting, they also point to evolving positive uses of P2P for non-infringing distribution [1] and expect that, as with VCRs, noninfringing uses will grow with time. In other words, much what the EFF and others have argued.
This one ain't over yet. It looks like the Court is pretty evenly split and just ducked the question today.
[1] Notably, they cite Linux.
I'm waiting to see the decision, but from the sound of it the Court did about as well as I could hope: rather than address the technology point, they addressed the business model. For now, it seems, Bram Cohen is safe.
Just remember, anyone who pirates Microsoft software is raising your prices! Turn them in to the BSA today!
Not from around here, are you? I think the nearest frozen lake is a two-day drive.
Precisely. The trick is to change the thermostat algorithm so that instead of two zones it has three.
At least in my house, the automated switch wouldn't work because of the block I have on the return to keep air from blowing backwards through the AC and filter. Besides, I would only use it twice a year.
On the other hand, it's a good idea to use a cheap indoor/outdoor thermometer with humidity sensor to keep an eye on the discharge temperature, since that gives you a good advance clue when the dew point is headed towards "miserable."
What I miss is a sensor that would let the sucker blow cool, dry nighttime air in to chill the house during the spring and fall without adding water. Just turn off the pump, not the fan.
Anyone else notice that this isn't the first ABQ->Redmond migration for a "distribution" founder?
Around here you can get them from Home Depot and the installation kit runs about $650; labor is up to you but if you're replacing an old one it shouldn't be too tough to do yourself.
It didn't seem all that likely that most /.ers would care about evaporative cooling, since even in Arizona they only work part of the year (like now, although today the Phoenix dew point got up to 10C. I woke up just knowing it had gone up because the cooler was blowing full speed and it still wasn't all that cool.) Never mind next month when the monsoons start. AC time then for sure.
Those professors are getting older, too.
I have three kids in college and compare the "you won't believe this!" stories with the stuff that went on in the 60s and 70s, and I'm putting my bet on the ability to edit memory over time.
For that matter, reading between the lines of the stories that my parents' generation told, the 60s weren't any different from the 40s. Read a few memoirs of the gang that fought WWII and read between the lines (they were a bit less frank.)
Put another way: if you remember the 60s, you weren't there.
It doesn't even really matter whether they try to be objective and try to make allowances for personal taste. The effect is still there.
If you think it shouldn't matter, I'll agree with you. Just keep one thing in mind: the law says that you can't base employment, promotion, etc. decisions on color or gender. The statistics say it matters.
Which way do you want to bet?
Microsoft bought a Rumanian company that produced border protection (protect MS clients by filtering on Linux hosts) and turned around to "cut off [McAfee's] air supply" with an MS client antivirus offering. Of course they shut down the Linux border filters.
In return, McAfee fills the vacuum by offering a Linux-hosted border filter.
Works for me.
Precisely.
</sarcasm> for those who need the hint.
Remember what happened with the original Circuit City DivX? The MPAA told CC the same thing: without strong hardware encryption, there was no way they would allow their movies to go to market on DVD. Contrary to /. legend, DivX didn't die from consumer rebellion, it died from lack of content because all the movies were on plain DVD, not DivX.