Hmm...if free software is the enemy...wouldn't it make sense to counter free software by creating an Operating System that will only run programs that you deem acceptable to run, and then make it so that no free programs are "trusted", virtually eliminating free software as competition for the operating system within your control? Oh wait...they are already doing that with Palladium.
I guess Free Software is the enemy for MS right now, with 2000 and XP...but we all know that if you right buggy code and then don't fix it before a future OS release, and then end maintenance on the old, people will have to upgrade in order to protect themselves. (I will comment on this in a second) So in essence the "plague" of free software will disappear within a year of the release of Palladium.
What MS does with its purposeful bug-filled OS releases is just plain terrible. Create something purposely that has security flaws, then never fully update it so that those flaws are never completely fixed, and then end maintenance once a newer OS is released is just sick. The last time I checked, praying on people's emotions, like sense of lack of security, in order to "force" them to purchase something newer (which is I guess "not flawed") was called a SCAM. I'm also fairly certain that SCAMMING is ILLEGAL and that SCAM ARTISTS go to jail when caught. I guess money does buy freedom.
and the solution is the exact opposite of what they are worrying about. They think that using these PVRs and what not you will be able to make a perfect copy of the broadcast...which is of course absolutely true. But, as technology gets better and the quality of these shows/movies gets better, so too does their size. All they have to do is make the movies so perfect that it would be impractical not only to send it to someone over the internet but also to store it on a hard drive. The RIAA and MPAA are a bunch of morons.
funny...a performance boost might refer to render times...i've seen measures of dual P4s, dual AMD MPs, and dual 1 ghz g4s in a comparison test of adobe photoshop 7 and premiere 6...and the P4s and MPs blow away the dual g4s. here... So there appears to be a performance benefit from switching over...at least as far as rendering goes.
I disagree with you. The underlying purpose of a weblog is to make the writer feel important.
No matter what kind of ruse is adopted for a particular weblog, it is designed to pull the wool over the eyes of the reader, the goal being to convince someone else that goon writer x is not a run-of-the-mill...it is an identity issue, a confidence issue. It is incredibly sad that we live in a world where people are not happy with themselves. Weblogs are pitiful attemps at making oneself appear important. No matter what though, this is an empty game that isn't fooling anyone. Soon enough the empty sense of imporance these things provide will ebb; the logs themselves will rot away like the readers who have nothing better to do than to marvel at their own existence and charitable contribution to the filth and waste that is becoming the Internet. Who better than we prideful Americans to adopt such a self-centered, vain mecca to ourselves?
Especially when we could be converting this obvious talent and intelligence into something that actually aids mankind instead of distracting it. Let us now bow down to the shrine of Earl, local pin monkey by day, Super Thought Provoker by night. Hooray!
Oh, I also think that following the lives of celebrities who earn it through entertainment is also a ridiculouse farse. And I do agree that the only people worth listening to have obtained fame; that's why I read the stories of Hemingway and grasp at the concepts of Einstein, as opposed to the scientific discoveries of Bubba Joe Smith. People with fame earn it because they have something worth giving them notice or mention; they contribute.
Hmm...if you knew anything about college football you would know that the SEC shares all its earnings from bowl and television appearances evenly among all teams. Vandy raked in about 9.5 million for football alone.
Oh, I almost forgot. Considering right now Vanderbilt has the highest single donation record for a major institution from Martha Ingram (several hundred million dollars) and that they charge 35,000 plus per undergrad, I think you would find it hard to argue that they are financially unable to build a computer network.
Maybe I was a bit confused by what you are asking, but if you are talking about public computer terminals, running a *nix, where all students have the ability to login and use the computer, Vanderbilt University does this. Not only are there several Windows computers on the campus that will enable any student to login and access his or her online storage space and the internet and whatever applications are available on that particular machine, but there are several iMacs and *nix (running some gui, not sure which one or what distro) computers as well.
Did I completely miss the ball on this one? I only read it briefly.
If Hollywood wins this lawsuit, it is nothing more than a signal of the end of the decline of American Law and Her Courts as something more just than law itself. Seriously. How in the name of all that is just in this world could Hollywood's claims be found true based on an implied contract that the viewers are going to watch the commercials in exchange for the television content? If Hollywood wins, maybe I'll file a suit claiming that Hollywood and I had an implied contract that I never have to watch the commercials. (Remember your Simplicio? in On Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres- The Fifth Element making the imperfect heavenly spheres like the Moon or Mars into perfect ones? And the response that there were imperfect mountains of this clear element on top of the layers that make the heavenly spheres perfect?) Galileo was a pimp. (That was Galileo wasn't it? Maybe Copernicus...but to the best of my recollection it was the former.)
I understand the need for a rate for people who never use the Internet for more than surfing and email. A bandwidth pricing option for them would be extremely useful.
But for people like me, a tiering system (and I'm talking about a system much like cell phone plans - where you pay for X and get raped over excess ) based only on how much you expect to use per month would be horrible. My use fluctuates so dramatically from month to month that in the event of having a huge bandwidth month, I would never be able to be prepared for how large my bill might be (assuming I'm on a tight budget). If this becomes the case, the ISPs need to have some sort of system in place so that you can monitor your bandwidth consumption in the same way that you can monitor the amount of cell phone minutes you have remaining for the month. The flat rate plan keeps me from having to worry about one more thing every single day of the month. (I'm Jack's ulcer...)
Obviously posted anonymously because he or she is too much of a coward to stand up for what they believe in. If that person actually believes that, then that is fine.
Not only was it proven before the RIAA did their "study," but it was proven again when another study was done independantly from the RIAA and its wealth of money. People who love music share files "illegally." Those same people discover new music that isn't mainstream and go purchase it. I support artists. I also download music. I just don't support middlemen posing as corporate executives who reap the benefits of some musician's work, i.e. MusicNet, where artists get a whopping quarter of a cent per downloaded song, while I'm sure music industry execs pull in X times more than that. It's outrageous.
Do you feel that the current trend the Government is showing of providing more protection to Big Business over consumers/American Public is in violation of the Rights of the People that the Government is supposed to be in place to protect? Do you think that the Government will ever get rid of the DMCA and other bills protecting Businesses over Consumer's Rights and start to protect the people they were sworn to protect?
It seems kind of disturbing to me what this partnership could ultimately lead to...
If I recall correctly earlier today a Time Warner executive labeled all users of PVRs "theives" for breach of contract with the carriers for not watching the ads we "agreed" to watch in payment for the show.
Now AOL is going to know what I'm watching with my TiVo. They'll know when I'm "stealing" television from them (and probably jump to the conclusion that I skipped the commercials, which of course would be true).
What kind of implications might this have with Copyright Law/Intellectual Property Laws being the way they are today?
The reason this story made it to the frontpage is that the app has support for hardware acceleration...meaning that the GPU which is otherwise underworked during normal desktop operation takes the transparency workload instead of using the APIs which would use the CPU to do the transparency work. The concept of using the GPU for the work in transparency is new. Its in plain English on the main page. You might try reading the post fully and comprehending what it says before ranting about it.
well...unfortunately you are wrong. Windows 2000 had this feature included in pre-release betas. For any person who knows what hes/shes doing (i.e. anyone using 2k should know this), they would have been able to render windows transparent. This isn't what the hype is about. This app has hardware acceleration...meaning that the APIs that normally do this on the CPU aren't used and instead the calculations and rendering is done on the otherwise underworked GPU...or Graphics Card...this is a new concept. So not only were you wrong about OS X being first...you were wrong about the point of the article. Perhaps you would like to read the article all the way through before you make an ass of yourself in a public forum. And its always turned on in Windows 2k...its just set to 0% transparency...
Im pretty sure you can customize what you want transparent and how transparent...for each individual window...so it doesn't have to look like the screenshot. It can look however the user wants it to look. The main hype about this app is the hardware acceleration included...meaning the GPU does the work load, instead of the cpu...since the gpu wasn't really doing anything anyways...assuming its a modern gpu.
Actually the point is that the app uses hardware acceleration instead of the included APIs that already came with Windows 2000 that supported transparency. So now instead of the processor doing the workload for the transparency...the GPU does it. This concept being new is why this is news. I dont believe there are any transparency apps for OS X that have hardware acceleration, but I could be wrong, especially since I dont use non x86.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm...if free software is the enemy...wouldn't it make sense to counter free software by creating an Operating System that will only run programs that you deem acceptable to run, and then make it so that no free programs are "trusted", virtually eliminating free software as competition for the operating system within your control? Oh wait...they are already doing that with Palladium. I guess Free Software is the enemy for MS right now, with 2000 and XP...but we all know that if you right buggy code and then don't fix it before a future OS release, and then end maintenance on the old, people will have to upgrade in order to protect themselves. (I will comment on this in a second) So in essence the "plague" of free software will disappear within a year of the release of Palladium. What MS does with its purposeful bug-filled OS releases is just plain terrible. Create something purposely that has security flaws, then never fully update it so that those flaws are never completely fixed, and then end maintenance once a newer OS is released is just sick. The last time I checked, praying on people's emotions, like sense of lack of security, in order to "force" them to purchase something newer (which is I guess "not flawed") was called a SCAM. I'm also fairly certain that SCAMMING is ILLEGAL and that SCAM ARTISTS go to jail when caught. I guess money does buy freedom.
and the solution is the exact opposite of what they are worrying about. They think that using these PVRs and what not you will be able to make a perfect copy of the broadcast...which is of course absolutely true. But, as technology gets better and the quality of these shows/movies gets better, so too does their size. All they have to do is make the movies so perfect that it would be impractical not only to send it to someone over the internet but also to store it on a hard drive. The RIAA and MPAA are a bunch of morons.
funny...a performance boost might refer to render times...i've seen measures of dual P4s, dual AMD MPs, and dual 1 ghz g4s in a comparison test of adobe photoshop 7 and premiere 6...and the P4s and MPs blow away the dual g4s. here...
So there appears to be a performance benefit from switching over...at least as far as rendering goes.
I disagree with you. The underlying purpose of a weblog is to make the writer feel important. No matter what kind of ruse is adopted for a particular weblog, it is designed to pull the wool over the eyes of the reader, the goal being to convince someone else that goon writer x is not a run-of-the-mill...it is an identity issue, a confidence issue. It is incredibly sad that we live in a world where people are not happy with themselves. Weblogs are pitiful attemps at making oneself appear important. No matter what though, this is an empty game that isn't fooling anyone. Soon enough the empty sense of imporance these things provide will ebb; the logs themselves will rot away like the readers who have nothing better to do than to marvel at their own existence and charitable contribution to the filth and waste that is becoming the Internet. Who better than we prideful Americans to adopt such a self-centered, vain mecca to ourselves? Especially when we could be converting this obvious talent and intelligence into something that actually aids mankind instead of distracting it. Let us now bow down to the shrine of Earl, local pin monkey by day, Super Thought Provoker by night. Hooray! Oh, I also think that following the lives of celebrities who earn it through entertainment is also a ridiculouse farse. And I do agree that the only people worth listening to have obtained fame; that's why I read the stories of Hemingway and grasp at the concepts of Einstein, as opposed to the scientific discoveries of Bubba Joe Smith. People with fame earn it because they have something worth giving them notice or mention; they contribute.
Along with the other suggestions, you might try shopper.com. Sometimes I find a few items that are lower priced than items on pricewatch.
Hmm...if you knew anything about college football you would know that the SEC shares all its earnings from bowl and television appearances evenly among all teams. Vandy raked in about 9.5 million for football alone. Oh, I almost forgot. Considering right now Vanderbilt has the highest single donation record for a major institution from Martha Ingram (several hundred million dollars) and that they charge 35,000 plus per undergrad, I think you would find it hard to argue that they are financially unable to build a computer network.
Maybe I was a bit confused by what you are asking, but if you are talking about public computer terminals, running a *nix, where all students have the ability to login and use the computer, Vanderbilt University does this. Not only are there several Windows computers on the campus that will enable any student to login and access his or her online storage space and the internet and whatever applications are available on that particular machine, but there are several iMacs and *nix (running some gui, not sure which one or what distro) computers as well. Did I completely miss the ball on this one? I only read it briefly.
If Hollywood wins this lawsuit, it is nothing more than a signal of the end of the decline of American Law and Her Courts as something more just than law itself. Seriously. How in the name of all that is just in this world could Hollywood's claims be found true based on an implied contract that the viewers are going to watch the commercials in exchange for the television content? If Hollywood wins, maybe I'll file a suit claiming that Hollywood and I had an implied contract that I never have to watch the commercials. (Remember your Simplicio? in On Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres- The Fifth Element making the imperfect heavenly spheres like the Moon or Mars into perfect ones? And the response that there were imperfect mountains of this clear element on top of the layers that make the heavenly spheres perfect?) Galileo was a pimp. (That was Galileo wasn't it? Maybe Copernicus...but to the best of my recollection it was the former.)
I understand the need for a rate for people who never use the Internet for more than surfing and email. A bandwidth pricing option for them would be extremely useful. But for people like me, a tiering system (and I'm talking about a system much like cell phone plans - where you pay for X and get raped over excess ) based only on how much you expect to use per month would be horrible. My use fluctuates so dramatically from month to month that in the event of having a huge bandwidth month, I would never be able to be prepared for how large my bill might be (assuming I'm on a tight budget). If this becomes the case, the ISPs need to have some sort of system in place so that you can monitor your bandwidth consumption in the same way that you can monitor the amount of cell phone minutes you have remaining for the month. The flat rate plan keeps me from having to worry about one more thing every single day of the month. (I'm Jack's ulcer...)
Obviously posted anonymously because he or she is too much of a coward to stand up for what they believe in. If that person actually believes that, then that is fine. Not only was it proven before the RIAA did their "study," but it was proven again when another study was done independantly from the RIAA and its wealth of money. People who love music share files "illegally." Those same people discover new music that isn't mainstream and go purchase it. I support artists. I also download music. I just don't support middlemen posing as corporate executives who reap the benefits of some musician's work, i.e. MusicNet, where artists get a whopping quarter of a cent per downloaded song, while I'm sure music industry execs pull in X times more than that. It's outrageous.
Do you feel that the current trend the Government is showing of providing more protection to Big Business over consumers/American Public is in violation of the Rights of the People that the Government is supposed to be in place to protect? Do you think that the Government will ever get rid of the DMCA and other bills protecting Businesses over Consumer's Rights and start to protect the people they were sworn to protect?
I thought that Suse 8.0 had already shipped in mid to late April. It was to include KDE 3 as well.
It seems kind of disturbing to me what this partnership could ultimately lead to... If I recall correctly earlier today a Time Warner executive labeled all users of PVRs "theives" for breach of contract with the carriers for not watching the ads we "agreed" to watch in payment for the show. Now AOL is going to know what I'm watching with my TiVo. They'll know when I'm "stealing" television from them (and probably jump to the conclusion that I skipped the commercials, which of course would be true). What kind of implications might this have with Copyright Law/Intellectual Property Laws being the way they are today?
The reason this story made it to the frontpage is that the app has support for hardware acceleration...meaning that the GPU which is otherwise underworked during normal desktop operation takes the transparency workload instead of using the APIs which would use the CPU to do the transparency work. The concept of using the GPU for the work in transparency is new. Its in plain English on the main page. You might try reading the post fully and comprehending what it says before ranting about it.
well...unfortunately you are wrong. Windows 2000 had this feature included in pre-release betas. For any person who knows what hes/shes doing (i.e. anyone using 2k should know this), they would have been able to render windows transparent. This isn't what the hype is about. This app has hardware acceleration...meaning that the APIs that normally do this on the CPU aren't used and instead the calculations and rendering is done on the otherwise underworked GPU...or Graphics Card...this is a new concept. So not only were you wrong about OS X being first...you were wrong about the point of the article. Perhaps you would like to read the article all the way through before you make an ass of yourself in a public forum. And its always turned on in Windows 2k...its just set to 0% transparency...
Im pretty sure you can customize what you want transparent and how transparent...for each individual window...so it doesn't have to look like the screenshot. It can look however the user wants it to look. The main hype about this app is the hardware acceleration included...meaning the GPU does the work load, instead of the cpu...since the gpu wasn't really doing anything anyways...assuming its a modern gpu.
Actually the point is that the app uses hardware acceleration instead of the included APIs that already came with Windows 2000 that supported transparency. So now instead of the processor doing the workload for the transparency...the GPU does it. This concept being new is why this is news. I dont believe there are any transparency apps for OS X that have hardware acceleration, but I could be wrong, especially since I dont use non x86.