(A word to the wise: there's drivers for Radeon 8500 and up posted from 16th Feb 2005 on the http://www.atitech.ca/ website. They even have x86_64 versions should you wish them. I don't have a Radeon, so I haven't checked how easy to install or reliable they are -- anecdotes say they're quite a bit better.)
I like the idea of an international body, but often these get sidelined into the domestic habits of whichever country has the most effective lobbiers at the organisation.
I think that software patents should have protection of at most three years and should only be enforcable if there is an actual product available for retail or download, featuring the patented method, within that period of time.
Re:They're finally going after individual infringe
on
European Piracy Crackdowns
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sorry for that, I'm trying to make the point that there should be public outcry if the public believe it is being robbed of its fair use rights. It isn't right to let individual people suffer because they're not you.
I'm not suggesting that we should burn our money so everything can be free. I'm more pragmatic than that. Further, I think that legal methods should be used to bring justice where the law is broken, but there remain questions about the way in which the industry associations have gone about suing filesharers.
I'm no mobile phone expert, but doesn't that step from Time-based frames to Code-based frames reflect the diversity of data that will be flowing through the 3G networks -- from video calls to multimedia messaging as well as the odd piece of voice data -- with the intention to share the bandwidth among more users?
(Did I hear that the move to CDMA methods had a lot to do with the American companies involved in drawing up the standards?:-P )
Re:They're finally going after individual infringe
on
European Piracy Crackdowns
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Individual infringers are somebody else's problem:
They sued the mp3 codec clones, but I didn't speak out because I use ogg vorbis, They sued the pirates of Windows, and I didn't speak out, 'cause I use Linux, They sued over CSS, but I didn't speak out because it wasn't in my country, They sued the music and movie downloaders, but I didn't speak out because I used a different filesharing network, They sued me, but there was no-one left to speak out for me.
While not an expert on this I find it credible that these larger operators have suffered because of a lack of diligent scrutiny in granting patents. I assume that this carelessness has ignored significant prior art and then permitted litigation by money-grabbers against the smaller companies in the industry; it could almost be seen as benevolent work for the computer industry in a culture that allows these kind of attacks: the big patent-holders are protecting themselves.
But that would prompt them to try and minimalise the possibility that other parts of the world suffer under this lunacy. However, the computer companies within the patent lobby are not supporting a wise implementation of methods to promote innovation (having called for "equality of intellectual property rights") and so there is reasonable suspicion that something more sinister is behind this.
It may appear foolish, but I trust the large corporations when they say they patent things to protect themselves. Submarine patents are a huge threat to the legitimate employment that these companies provide, to the real effort expended by their employees in developing solutions to the problems computers have (and "embracing and extending" these problems...) and to the money that funds this development. So it seems to make sense that Microsoft are seeking to limit their expenses in litigation by pushing for reform in the patent process.
Be careful, playing devil's advocate is often confused with trolling.
I think that the information system gains from having a database-focused file system in Windows XP would be hampered by the need to alter the user interface massively to cope with it. If the way you interact with your documents and storage changes, then the way you interact with the computer to find those things should change too. It doesn't seem the right move; a more suitable move would be Windows Server 2003 with WinFS if that assists the serving it does.
Should the computing power needed for Longhorn alienates a large number of users (as it threatens to do), then backporting WinFS will be an advantage, but one which will need to have a financial benefit to Microsoft (a paid upgrade?). The most reasonable place to deploy WinFS will be to claim that it enhances the security of WindowsXP by blocking access to certain files by software of a particular access level (perhaps in the manner of SELinux), but this seems to me to be more appropriate as a kernel-level adaption, which should be due in Longhorn.
What would WinFS-enhanced Explorer look like? It wouldn't revolve around the Start Menu but around the user space of recently edited files, and with buttons for "New File in Program Foo". You may need a task bar to switch between running applications, but there would be no need to have a Start Menu that's as it is today -- a presentation space for programs you regularly use -- but it would have to become a list of programs and files recently accessed, organised in a way you have specified.
I suspect that Smart Folders work like iTunes' Smart Playlists. In iTunes, you create a list of facts known about the music (Play Count, Genre, Last Played, etc.) and can make rules about them. If you could do that with files throughout your system (possibly including you.mac storage and other networked computers), the appropriate files would appear in that folder.
There would also be questions of anti-trust involved. We wouldn't want them to become monopolists.
To answer the question that the OP states, a low legal price point that is convenient for people to buy much and which also compensates the people who worked so you could get the music is good for the industry. If so many people buy the music, there won't be free online places to download it from and so people will say "five pennies, no problem".
The suggestion that it's a good idea that the computer companies buy up record companies and become media conglomerates fills me with dread.
(I understand this is a meme and joke all rolled into one, so please excuse my preempting those slashdotistas who fail to make this distinction. -1 Redundant)
I wasn't even sure that the article even said that much. Google refused to comment for the article (perhaps because it's irrelevant, perhaps because they're looking for something), and the article says that they pumped people for opinions.
My 16MB Rage card works happily under WinXP with the ATi drivers from their web site which provide the OpenGL that Half-Life needs.
You're right, it is funny that the drvier bundled with Windows XP doesn't work with Half Life. A more-recent one came to me through Windows Update which appeared to be the same as the ATi download, but I haven't tried running HL on it.
Should some major reworking of the guts of the kernel break a lot of stuff, which in turn requires a lot of fixing, then there will be a 2.7 developmental fork to tidy up this and to ease the adoption of the newer systems stuffed into the kernel. It's also possible that 2.6.all.your.base.are.belong.to.us will be renamed 2.7 or 2.8 to simplify the numbers.
At the moment, there aren't a great number of changes to major kernel architecture -- or at least changes which damage the way other stuff works -- so as to need a new minor (2.blah.x) version number. There is a great speed to the current spate of fixing and including stuff, but too few people testing the newer features.
I wonder if this process will be harmful to testing, should most home users (or their distributions) stick to an 2.6.even kernel for the sake of stability.
The EFF has been scheduling "build days" for people who may wish to have a HDTV-compatible PVR system free of Broadcast Flag limitation before the deadline date of 1 July. This mislabelled article features one of these days.
The beta test versions previously available have contained advert-displaying software from a company who do adware; the people behind Exeem maintain that these adverts don't record personal information and so it's not spyware.
It's up too you to make your mind up as to whether you want to use this software. Same as the CD's and DVD's you buy (it's a grey area as to what licence you are granted when you buy a legitimate DVD copy of a movie: what constitutes fair use and what is public performance, etc.), so buyer beware the uses you may not be permitted by the copyright owner.
Slashdot Mirror
Wonderful post with the smallest scent of flambait. Thank you for making me laugh.
(Posted from my parents' basement: the parking meter came from a Babylon Five convention, you insensitive clod!)
Ah, but that was because of a computer error.
(A word to the wise: there's drivers for Radeon 8500 and up posted from 16th Feb 2005 on the http://www.atitech.ca/ website. They even have x86_64 versions should you wish them. I don't have a Radeon, so I haven't checked how easy to install or reliable they are -- anecdotes say they're quite a bit better.)
http://www6.tomshardware.com/howto/20040908/ -- Make your own single-disk installer.
I like the idea of an international body, but often these get sidelined into the domestic habits of whichever country has the most effective lobbiers at the organisation.
I think that software patents should have protection of at most three years and should only be enforcable if there is an actual product available for retail or download, featuring the patented method, within that period of time.
Sorry for that, I'm trying to make the point that there should be public outcry if the public believe it is being robbed of its fair use rights. It isn't right to let individual people suffer because they're not you.
I'm not suggesting that we should burn our money so everything can be free. I'm more pragmatic than that. Further, I think that legal methods should be used to bring justice where the law is broken, but there remain questions about the way in which the industry associations have gone about suing filesharers.
I'm no mobile phone expert, but doesn't that step from Time-based frames to Code-based frames reflect the diversity of data that will be flowing through the 3G networks -- from video calls to multimedia messaging as well as the odd piece of voice data -- with the intention to share the bandwidth among more users?
:-P )
(Did I hear that the move to CDMA methods had a lot to do with the American companies involved in drawing up the standards?
Individual infringers are somebody else's problem:
They sued the mp3 codec clones, but I didn't speak out because I use ogg vorbis,
They sued the pirates of Windows, and I didn't speak out, 'cause I use Linux,
They sued over CSS, but I didn't speak out because it wasn't in my country,
They sued the music and movie downloaders, but I didn't speak out because I used a different filesharing network,
They sued me, but there was no-one left to speak out for me.
Please save us from that. It's interminably dull. Don't aim so low: you at least have a choice of colours watching paint drying.
I'm a UKanian, so http://www.ebay.co.uk/ has a link at the top to http://pages.ebay.co.uk/ebay_SUN.html, saying they're Sun hardware and Solaris users.
http://www.ebay.com/ has an IBM logo in the sam place, which links to: http://pages.ebay.com/ebay_IBM.html. That's not Windows, as far as I understand (and will apologise if I'm wrong).
While not an expert on this I find it credible that these larger operators have suffered because of a lack of diligent scrutiny in granting patents. I assume that this carelessness has ignored significant prior art and then permitted litigation by money-grabbers against the smaller companies in the industry; it could almost be seen as benevolent work for the computer industry in a culture that allows these kind of attacks: the big patent-holders are protecting themselves.
But that would prompt them to try and minimalise the possibility that other parts of the world suffer under this lunacy. However, the computer companies within the patent lobby are not supporting a wise implementation of methods to promote innovation (having called for "equality of intellectual property rights") and so there is reasonable suspicion that something more sinister is behind this.
It may appear foolish, but I trust the large corporations when they say they patent things to protect themselves. Submarine patents are a huge threat to the legitimate employment that these companies provide, to the real effort expended by their employees in developing solutions to the problems computers have (and "embracing and extending" these problems...) and to the money that funds this development. So it seems to make sense that Microsoft are seeking to limit their expenses in litigation by pushing for reform in the patent process.
Be careful, playing devil's advocate is often confused with trolling.
I think that the information system gains from having a database-focused file system in Windows XP would be hampered by the need to alter the user interface massively to cope with it. If the way you interact with your documents and storage changes, then the way you interact with the computer to find those things should change too. It doesn't seem the right move; a more suitable move would be Windows Server 2003 with WinFS if that assists the serving it does.
Should the computing power needed for Longhorn alienates a large number of users (as it threatens to do), then backporting WinFS will be an advantage, but one which will need to have a financial benefit to Microsoft (a paid upgrade?). The most reasonable place to deploy WinFS will be to claim that it enhances the security of WindowsXP by blocking access to certain files by software of a particular access level (perhaps in the manner of SELinux), but this seems to me to be more appropriate as a kernel-level adaption, which should be due in Longhorn.
What would WinFS-enhanced Explorer look like? It wouldn't revolve around the Start Menu but around the user space of recently edited files, and with buttons for "New File in Program Foo". You may need a task bar to switch between running applications, but there would be no need to have a Start Menu that's as it is today -- a presentation space for programs you regularly use -- but it would have to become a list of programs and files recently accessed, organised in a way you have specified.
I suspect that Smart Folders work like iTunes' Smart Playlists. In iTunes, you create a list of facts known about the music (Play Count, Genre, Last Played, etc.) and can make rules about them. If you could do that with files throughout your system (possibly including you .mac storage and other networked computers), the appropriate files would appear in that folder.
There would also be questions of anti-trust involved. We wouldn't want them to become monopolists.
To answer the question that the OP states, a low legal price point that is convenient for people to buy much and which also compensates the people who worked so you could get the music is good for the industry. If so many people buy the music, there won't be free online places to download it from and so people will say "five pennies, no problem".
The suggestion that it's a good idea that the computer companies buy up record companies and become media conglomerates fills me with dread.
(b/c it seems like vapourware) So I will pick up on your duping: I suspect that your "dudududupe!" lacks a 'du' before it.
I suspect that your "dudududupe!" lacks a 'du' before it.
I know I've just said that twice; I thought it was sufficiently important that I say it twice.
RTFA, mate.
(I understand this is a meme and joke all rolled into one, so please excuse my preempting those slashdotistas who fail to make this distinction. -1 Redundant)
I wasn't even sure that the article even said that much. Google refused to comment for the article (perhaps because it's irrelevant, perhaps because they're looking for something), and the article says that they pumped people for opinions.
"Nothing to see hear..."
But who will oversee these red-tapers so that there are no advances in the methods of halting progress by red-tape?
My 16MB Rage card works happily under WinXP with the ATi drivers from their web site which provide the OpenGL that Half-Life needs.
You're right, it is funny that the drvier bundled with Windows XP doesn't work with Half Life. A more-recent one came to me through Windows Update which appeared to be the same as the ATi download, but I haven't tried running HL on it.
NS 3.0 may be a reason to reinstall Half Life...
2.7182818 is closer...
Should some major reworking of the guts of the kernel break a lot of stuff, which in turn requires a lot of fixing, then there will be a 2.7 developmental fork to tidy up this and to ease the adoption of the newer systems stuffed into the kernel. It's also possible that 2.6.all.your.base.are.belong.to.us will be renamed 2.7 or 2.8 to simplify the numbers.
At the moment, there aren't a great number of changes to major kernel architecture -- or at least changes which damage the way other stuff works -- so as to need a new minor (2.blah.x) version number. There is a great speed to the current spate of fixing and including stuff, but too few people testing the newer features.
I wonder if this process will be harmful to testing, should most home users (or their distributions) stick to an 2.6.even kernel for the sake of stability.
The EFF has been scheduling "build days" for people who may wish to have a HDTV-compatible PVR system free of Broadcast Flag limitation before the deadline date of 1 July. This mislabelled article features one of these days.
The beta test versions previously available have contained advert-displaying software from a company who do adware; the people behind Exeem maintain that these adverts don't record personal information and so it's not spyware.
It's up too you to make your mind up as to whether you want to use this software. Same as the CD's and DVD's you buy (it's a grey area as to what licence you are granted when you buy a legitimate DVD copy of a movie: what constitutes fair use and what is public performance, etc.), so buyer beware the uses you may not be permitted by the copyright owner.
Mahatma is a title meaning something like Great Soul or conveying a respect for their wisdom.
Ghandi's first name was Mohandas; the title was later given to him and it is a common slip to think his non-family name was Mahatma.