A primates have a big-assvisual cortex. In fact, up to 50% of the brain is involved in processing visual information. It's therefore unsurprising to see such investment in video I/O for computers.
In other words: the interfaces of a computer are (often) intended to provide immersive experiences for their users. Computer users are humans, so you would expect the processing power dedicated to each component of I/O to reflect the discernment of humans in their corresponding sense.
In yet more words: if a dog designed a computer, it would have a crappy GPU but a beast of a smell-processing system.
You forget that you can't buy the Mac without a software license. The capabilities of Linux on x86 also far exceed those of Windows (the comparison with OS X is a matter for flamewars).
Factor in this difference and an AMD64 workstation may look rather better value. Of course, design junkies would just get the mac anyway. You can't really put a price on chic.
Abortion is murder (simple biological fact, aborted human life == dead human)
Simple fact, you say? Wow, I think you'll be putting a lot of bio-ethicists out of their jobs. While Christianity may be benign as a belief system, it is not benign as a political football. eg. I don't see many world leaders "turning the other cheek".
But that's part of the fun! Some people so strongly expect fascistic behaviour in (sci-fi) movies, that they refuse to believe that Starship Troopers is itself satirical. Rather, they see it as just another straight Hollywood product.
It's not just Heinlein that Verhoeven is satirising, it's movie-making itself. Action-hero stereotypes are, for Verhoeven, fascist stereotypes. Genius.
I think if such a parody appears 'so bad it's good', then it's actually good. As in, the effect is intentional. This is the case in Starship Troopers.
It's not the same thing when a non-parodic film (like Fist of the North Star, live action version) is 'so bad it's good'. In such cases, the badness is unintentional, and the film actually is bad, although amusing.
And yes, Fist of the North Star is bad. Baad. Even the exploding heads suck.
The fact that information/ideas can be exchanged for money is a byproduct of historical scarcity of the means of duplication of information (monks, presses, photocopiers, and so on).
The existence of a market in X does not imply that X is a kind of property: for example, I can give you money to shine my shoes, but you are not giving me any of your property.
Nonetheless, there is provision in law for certain kinds of business model related to the exchange of information/ideas for money. These provisions are called patents, copyrights and trademarks. They are not property rights; for example, there are statutory limits on their duration, transferability and extent (cf fair use).
RMS objects to some of these provisions. This is because their rationale is not understood by legislators, and hence they set e.g. copyright terms to ludicrous lengths.
OK, I was going to mod you flamebait but I think I should rebut your meandering efforts instead.
RMS will complain that the blueprints of the CPUs aren't public
No. RMS has never asked hardware manufacturers to expose their blueprints, only their interfaces. RMS might well complain if the interfaces of the CPUs were protected by NDAs, patents, or secrecy.
Now if the interfaces involve encryption, and keys are not available to free software, then certainly a lot of people, not just RMS, would complain. But it seems unlikely that this will happen, since the large chip companies make money from Linux-on-x86 sales.
RMS's philosophy that the only kind of software is the kind that you can not only have the rights to change and republish but also to tinker with in any way is directly in contrast with the philosophy of Capitalism
You seem really keen on this, but it is false. The only way RMS contradicts capitalism is that he refuses to admit the crude monetisation of so-called 'intellectual property'. RMS instead says: ideas are not property. And our existing copyright and patent laws in fact state this.
The capitalist system will optimize out the industry. I don't drink RMS's cool aid, though
OK, at this point I have no idea what you are talking about. Free software is not going to destroy the computing industry, although it might cause some unemployment (just like other disruptive market changes). Surely "people who are smart enough and motivated enough" can cope with that.
We have this thing called the Internet now. And hence, you don't need to do any 'system programming' to snoop network traffic. The tools are widely available.
Tux has a nice simple 3-colour design, is cute and unique.
The image is also more recognisable than the small square Mac logos you see on packaging, and less ugly than the Windows 'window'.
Handled correctly, Tux could be an extremely powerful way of communicating hardware compatibility. All that's needed is a standard way to identify which kernel versions support the item. Hardware boxes should come with "[Tux] 2.4, 2.6" printed on the side. If enough manufacturers and marketers get on board, the logo and version designation could become almost as ubiquitous as stickers saying "XP-compatible" were a couple of years ago.
Like XP, if Linux becomes known as something you 'trade up to', then the name-brand hardware companies will all play along. Hopefully.
Microsoft (or rather, the prevailing faction Joel called the MSDN camp) just really doesn't quite get the idea of "backward compatibility"
WTF? You're getting away with this on/.? Take a look at Windows XP. You can run programs from 9 years ago (Windows 95) on that system! Compatibility is a key part of the Windows business.
Having said that, we know that MS love to botch backwards compatibility for some apps (such as competing word processors...ahem). It comes down to this: MS are a past master at the compatibility game. If there are architectural reasons to break with Xbox 1 they will surely sweeten the deal for their favoured development partners - with the ultimate aim of cornering the console market, of course.
They preach the revolution, because they know you guys will pony up your cash
I think that's a bit of a stretch. Just because Lennon wanted to make money didn't mean he cynically told people what they wanted to hear. Just as a surgeon may make wads of cash and yet earnestly believe that he does as much as he can for his patients.
Not all artists lack integrity. I think the Beasties are one of the better groups in this regard.
All well and good, but we don't know what happened in this case. Quite likely, the label didn't tell the group they were going to mung the CD until mastering was under way. (And they aren't even 'protecting' the US/UK release.)
In any case, what is an artist supposed to do? The Beastie Boys wanted to broadcast a political message with this album (NB, released just before the US presidential election). If your label springs some crap like this on you, what can you do instead of releasing your chosen work? Just suddenly come up with some mediocre crap instead? That makes no sense.
In reality, making music is expensive for most major-label artists, even established ones. If the Beasties run out their contract with terrible albums, they could well end up in a few years owing EMI money. And I'm sure that by rock-star standards they aren't that rich. You don't see them endorsing Pepsi.
PS Having said that, I did actually buy the US/UK release of To The 5 Boroughs (which is not affected by the EMI 'protection' system). Don't blame groups for DRM and disc damage; blame the RIAA, their labels, and their stupid contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
To clarify:
... It's called conversational implicature. It's part of pragmatics. And it's the reason WE DON'T HAVE THREADS LIKE THIS.
He never said you said he called it a scam.
But wait!
You never said he said you said he called it a scam! Aargh!
<commits suicide>
Miller's Tale reference? Are you some kind of crypto-intellectual?
In other words: the interfaces of a computer are (often) intended to provide immersive experiences for their users. Computer users are humans, so you would expect the processing power dedicated to each component of I/O to reflect the discernment of humans in their corresponding sense.
In yet more words: if a dog designed a computer, it would have a crappy GPU but a beast of a smell-processing system.
Really? Holy crap. I've got the same kit and I get less than half the FPS you do. What is this tweaking you're talking about?
Factor in this difference and an AMD64 workstation may look rather better value. Of course, design junkies would just get the mac anyway. You can't really put a price on chic.
Simple fact, you say? Wow, I think you'll be putting a lot of bio-ethicists out of their jobs. While Christianity may be benign as a belief system, it is not benign as a political football. eg. I don't see many world leaders "turning the other cheek".
It's not just Heinlein that Verhoeven is satirising, it's movie-making itself. Action-hero stereotypes are, for Verhoeven, fascist stereotypes. Genius.
It's not the same thing when a non-parodic film (like Fist of the North Star, live action version) is 'so bad it's good'. In such cases, the badness is unintentional, and the film actually is bad, although amusing.
And yes, Fist of the North Star is bad. Baad. Even the exploding heads suck.
But they definitely checked girl.com before going to press. I think they knew katie.com was also already registered, but went ahead anyway. Assholes.
The existence of a market in X does not imply that X is a kind of property: for example, I can give you money to shine my shoes, but you are not giving me any of your property.
Nonetheless, there is provision in law for certain kinds of business model related to the exchange of information/ideas for money. These provisions are called patents, copyrights and trademarks. They are not property rights; for example, there are statutory limits on their duration, transferability and extent (cf fair use).
RMS objects to some of these provisions. This is because their rationale is not understood by legislators, and hence they set e.g. copyright terms to ludicrous lengths.
Now if the interfaces involve encryption, and keys are not available to free software, then certainly a lot of people, not just RMS, would complain. But it seems unlikely that this will happen, since the large chip companies make money from Linux-on-x86 sales.
You seem really keen on this, but it is false. The only way RMS contradicts capitalism is that he refuses to admit the crude monetisation of so-called 'intellectual property'. RMS instead says: ideas are not property. And our existing copyright and patent laws in fact state this. OK, at this point I have no idea what you are talking about. Free software is not going to destroy the computing industry, although it might cause some unemployment (just like other disruptive market changes). Surely "people who are smart enough and motivated enough" can cope with that.Exactly. I (heart) Epic for putting Linux binaries on the disk for UT2004. Even though there's no official support, it's a great PR move.
If they really *just bought* a computer, it's unlikely to fail any of the spec requirements. Even a geforce 4 mx is good enough to run this game.
Actually it does -- I think stencil shadows and render-to-texture are missing :(
We have this thing called the Internet now. And hence, you don't need to do any 'system programming' to snoop network traffic. The tools are widely available.
They could provide a text-to-speech MP3 of the email address as well.
Straw is a very nice app for Linux (Gnome): website here... be careful about the dependencies when compiling it.
Handled correctly, Tux could be an extremely powerful way of communicating hardware compatibility. All that's needed is a standard way to identify which kernel versions support the item. Hardware boxes should come with "[Tux] 2.4, 2.6" printed on the side. If enough manufacturers and marketers get on board, the logo and version designation could become almost as ubiquitous as stickers saying "XP-compatible" were a couple of years ago.
Like XP, if Linux becomes known as something you 'trade up to', then the name-brand hardware companies will all play along. Hopefully.
Er, no. Trusts were evil business cartels. The term antitrust derives from the US law which was originally formulated to combat business trusts - now commonly known as cartels.
For audio, try an iRiver H-series. Record to WAV or MP3, digital or analogue I/O, no built-in DRM. They also have video models, I believe.
So I am supposed to use the most popular product? Is the most popular product, by definition, the best?
WTF? You're getting away with this on /.? Take a look at Windows XP. You can run programs from 9 years ago (Windows 95) on that system! Compatibility is a key part of the Windows business.
Having said that, we know that MS love to botch backwards compatibility for some apps (such as competing word processors...ahem). It comes down to this: MS are a past master at the compatibility game. If there are architectural reasons to break with Xbox 1 they will surely sweeten the deal for their favoured development partners - with the ultimate aim of cornering the console market, of course.
Play with MS, get burnt.
I think that's a bit of a stretch. Just because Lennon wanted to make money didn't mean he cynically told people what they wanted to hear. Just as a surgeon may make wads of cash and yet earnestly believe that he does as much as he can for his patients.
Not all artists lack integrity. I think the Beasties are one of the better groups in this regard.
In any case, what is an artist supposed to do? The Beastie Boys wanted to broadcast a political message with this album (NB, released just before the US presidential election). If your label springs some crap like this on you, what can you do instead of releasing your chosen work? Just suddenly come up with some mediocre crap instead? That makes no sense.
In reality, making music is expensive for most major-label artists, even established ones. If the Beasties run out their contract with terrible albums, they could well end up in a few years owing EMI money. And I'm sure that by rock-star standards they aren't that rich. You don't see them endorsing Pepsi.
- Bleep - Warp Records etc. (mp3)
- Audio Lunchbox - lots of independent music (mp3/ogg)
I can also vouch for the coolness of Magnatune.PS Having said that, I did actually buy the US/UK release of To The 5 Boroughs (which is not affected by the EMI 'protection' system). Don't blame groups for DRM and disc damage; blame the RIAA, their labels, and their stupid contracts.