Maybe it's not better, but that is still the argument that RDRAM is presenting to the court. The fact that it is speculation is the core of the lawsuit. Without seeing evidence, it's impossible to know whether their claim is without merit; they could very well be right about the colusion even if they deserved what they got.
Most things computer related are proprietary, it's only their interfaces to the rest of the components that is standardized.
Part of the problem with this is that by assuming the "Evil Government" approach you already preclude certain reasonable explanations. Have you considered that the "right" answer to the questions, ie the ones the agents were hoping he'd give so they could quit talking to some kid at some school, were that "Yes, I belong to this well known organization that is already known to be safe" so they can say, "Ok he's just inquisitive".
The only question that concerned me was the one about how he knew the law, but that could have been the agent just being vaguely curious.
Not exactly. They are claiming that the chip makers deliberating conspired to make their chip FAIL because of higher prices because the chip makers weren't getting the profit margin they wanted on them.
It may very well be true, but it could easily be that all the chip makers said, Screw this we don't get the profit we want individually. The catch is that RDRAM really was much better, so the argument is none of them would have neglected it if they hadn't agreed to collectively neglect it, which is illegal.
No, true geeks use correct names for companies and thier products WITH VERSION AND REVISION NUMBERS.
Re:SIlence is a pipe dream for me
on
A Silent PC Solution?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Not trying to sounds like a know it all myself, but my understand is 10V for a "silent" fan is still considered ungodly by the purists. Consider Zalman's FANMATE-1 that adjusts down to less than 5V with 11V as a MAX.
Have you browsed, for example, a Some of the websites dedicated to silent PC's? The one I linked has a recommended page where they give noise to performance. For hard drives, the far and ahead winner is the Seagate Barracuda IV which is apparently discontinued. Your PSU is also generally one of the largest sources of noise on your whole machine, what do you use?
You people should be ashamed of yourselves. These people have the right to make money like everyone else!
This is the most common fallacy I see in today's political atmosphere. No one has the right to make money and the government's job isn't to make sure people with crappy ideas or products no one wants stay in business.
Newsflash to programmers: If people will work cheaper than you they will get your job. Newsflash to farmers: Some crops don't grow well in some states. Newsflash to RIAA: No one NEEDS you anymore, Musicians can produce without you and we can sure as hell distribute without you. Newsflash to Unions: See Newsflash to programmers
This is typical privacy nut FUD. For example, Gator only has EIGHT eyes, and he can't possibly keep track of your every move because sometimes he's slowing down your internet connection when he secretly downloads ads, and other times he's busy crashing your computer. Do you really think he can download ads, crash your computer, AND track you all at the same time?
No one seems to mind the checkboxes that already come when installing massive multicomponent programs such as Windows or Linux to begin with. You know the ones, they have tree hierarchies and let you select the features you want and not to select the features you don't.
Solving the problem for MOST legitimate software is as simple as requiring any software by a third party to have it's own checkbox and explanation of what that software does. Require a set of privacy keywords that is legally enforcable in those explanations. For example, a legal description for Gator may contain three keywords words: ADVERTISEMENT POPUP PHONEHOME. They could define as many keywords as the public wants, performing a "spyware function" without notifying via the keyword would trigger heavy fines. Requiring a link to a privacy policy wouldn't be a bad idea, assuming that policy had any legal weight to it.
You are wrong. This is a play list change which is an intentional restriction of the TOOL not the music. It works the same for songs with DRM and songs I import as MP3s. They intentionally designed the tool not to allow a function. It matters a great deal that it affects playlists and not songs because they never made any promises about the sanctity of your playlist.
I acknowledge the points others are making about making changes to the DRM in general, but the change to the playlists isn't one of them. Read the Terms of Sale, playlists aren't mentioned beyond them pointing out: Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners of any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition or artwork embodied in any Product.
You're right about the DRM agreement changing, but only sorta. They EXPANDED what you could do, DRM wise.
They agreed to let you play on 3 computers, that's what I agreed to when I signed up and bought many many songs. Now they said I can use 5 computers, I'm happy.
The second change isn't to the DRM. I can still burn a song to a CD as many times as I'd like, as I agreed to. What they don't let me do, through software, is burn the same PLAYLIST more than 7 times. In other words, I can't make the exact same CD more than 7 times. Change a single song or (I believe) even reorder the songs and you can burn them another 7 times. It's not a DRM change, it's a tool change.
Exactly, that's the entire point of Copyright law, it says under what conditions you are forbidden to redistribute. The license, on the other hand, lists conditions under which you CAN redistribute.
You can be sure there's something in their arsenal (and if not in theirs, the UK will have something) to blow a carrier battle group operating near your shore away. You don't really have all that much experience with carriers vs. modern weapons.
Actually, wrong. The US Navy has EXCELLENT defenses against high tech weaponery. Feel free to read up on The Aegis Combat System. It's low tech that we continue to have a problem with, as men in row boats and boobytrapped bikes have proved and continue to prove. It's easier to fight a civilized country; they use civilized weapons. Weapons we largely know exactly how to counteract because we were crucial to the design of most of them.
If we were to engage France, we'd probably blow the hell out of them with a First Strike policy. The only sane way to fight a first world country is with inhumane weapons. In Iraq the battle was possible without having to play defense, if we fought France clearly they are able to reach us, so we would have to be sure our first strike was devastating. Translation: Nuclear wasteland.
In my admittedly biased American oppinion, the people who have arrogance problems are the rest of the world. If you aren't being targetted for attacks, if you aren't providing money, and if you aren't powerful enough to have an effect with your own sanctions against us, what gives you the right to dictate policy on how the United States should defend itself. Spain wants to withdraw their armed forces because they had a train bombed? Fine. I don't see them giving the destroyers back that we subsidized so they could afford them. Spain will most likely learn a painful lesson; they've just demonstrated that it only takes a couple bombs on a train track to derail the entire government. Our government was hit directly, the difference is we hit back.
Just post your name, address, CC# and mother's maiden name (So we can verify your identity) here and we'll bill you and send you the info you requested.
a title talking about "Cleaning" the projects due to a suicide is racist.
No, it's anti-projects. You surely aren't suggesting that: 1) Everyone in the projects is black Or (possibly worse) 2) Everyone in the projects is a different RACE than everyone more affluent than them?
He's certainly classist, but I still think the racist argument is tenuous at best.
I'm sorry about your loss, and I agree with the first part. Why though, does it make him racist? Simply because the guy was black? The guy shot himself in the lobby of a housing project, hence the title. There are other options than the guy being racist, like maybe he hates poor people, maybe he's tired of dealing with guns and death in the projects in general. You don't even know who released the tape, or HIS skin color.
Being an asshole doesn't necessarily make you racist. Heartless bastard I agree with.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure there is any reason to deport him to India... bu dum CHING. Thank you I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.
No, it's illegal.
Very simply put:
YOUR company decides not to make something or how to price something -- Legal
YOUR company and OTHER companies together discuss and agree to not making something or how to price something -- Illegal
Maybe it's not better, but that is still the argument that RDRAM is presenting to the court. The fact that it is speculation is the core of the lawsuit. Without seeing evidence, it's impossible to know whether their claim is without merit; they could very well be right about the colusion even if they deserved what they got.
Most things computer related are proprietary, it's only their interfaces to the rest of the components that is standardized.
Part of the problem with this is that by assuming the "Evil Government" approach you already preclude certain reasonable explanations. Have you considered that the "right" answer to the questions, ie the ones the agents were hoping he'd give so they could quit talking to some kid at some school, were that "Yes, I belong to this well known organization that is already known to be safe" so they can say, "Ok he's just inquisitive".
The only question that concerned me was the one about how he knew the law, but that could have been the agent just being vaguely curious.
Not exactly. They are claiming that the chip makers deliberating conspired to make their chip FAIL because of higher prices because the chip makers weren't getting the profit margin they wanted on them.
It may very well be true, but it could easily be that all the chip makers said, Screw this we don't get the profit we want individually. The catch is that RDRAM really was much better, so the argument is none of them would have neglected it if they hadn't agreed to collectively neglect it, which is illegal.
No, true geeks use correct names for companies and thier products WITH VERSION AND REVISION NUMBERS.
Not trying to sounds like a know it all myself, but my understand is 10V for a "silent" fan is still considered ungodly by the purists. Consider Zalman's FANMATE-1 that adjusts down to less than 5V with 11V as a MAX.
Have you browsed, for example, a Some of the websites dedicated to silent PC's?
The one I linked has a recommended page where they give noise to performance. For hard drives, the far and ahead winner is the Seagate Barracuda IV which is apparently discontinued. Your PSU is also generally one of the largest sources of noise on your whole machine, what do you use?
You people should be ashamed of yourselves. These people have the right to make money like everyone else!
This is the most common fallacy I see in today's political atmosphere. No one has the right to make money and the government's job isn't to make sure people with crappy ideas or products no one wants stay in business.
Newsflash to programmers: If people will work cheaper than you they will get your job.
Newsflash to farmers: Some crops don't grow well in some states.
Newsflash to RIAA: No one NEEDS you anymore, Musicians can produce without you and we can sure as hell distribute without you.
Newsflash to Unions: See Newsflash to programmers
This is typical privacy nut FUD. For example, Gator only has EIGHT eyes, and he can't possibly keep track of your every move because sometimes he's slowing down your internet connection when he secretly downloads ads, and other times he's busy crashing your computer. Do you really think he can download ads, crash your computer, AND track you all at the same time?
Yeah I didn't think so tinfoil man.
No one seems to mind the checkboxes that already come when installing massive multicomponent programs such as Windows or Linux to begin with. You know the ones, they have tree hierarchies and let you select the features you want and not to select the features you don't.
Solving the problem for MOST legitimate software is as simple as requiring any software by a third party to have it's own checkbox and explanation of what that software does. Require a set of privacy keywords that is legally enforcable in those explanations. For example, a legal description for Gator may contain three keywords words: ADVERTISEMENT POPUP PHONEHOME. They could define as many keywords as the public wants, performing a "spyware function" without notifying via the keyword would trigger heavy fines. Requiring a link to a privacy policy wouldn't be a bad idea, assuming that policy had any legal weight to it.
You are wrong. This is a play list change which is an intentional restriction of the TOOL not the music. It works the same for songs with DRM and songs I import as MP3s. They intentionally designed the tool not to allow a function. It matters a great deal that it affects playlists and not songs because they never made any promises about the sanctity of your playlist. I acknowledge the points others are making about making changes to the DRM in general, but the change to the playlists isn't one of them. Read the Terms of Sale, playlists aren't mentioned beyond them pointing out: Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners of any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition or artwork embodied in any Product.
Well sorta, but also largely wrong.
You're right about the DRM agreement changing, but only sorta. They EXPANDED what you could do, DRM wise.
They agreed to let you play on 3 computers, that's what I agreed to when I signed up and bought many many songs. Now they said I can use 5 computers, I'm happy.
The second change isn't to the DRM. I can still burn a song to a CD as many times as I'd like, as I agreed to. What they don't let me do, through software, is burn the same PLAYLIST more than 7 times. In other words, I can't make the exact same CD more than 7 times. Change a single song or (I believe) even reorder the songs and you can burn them another 7 times. It's not a DRM change, it's a tool change.
Not to mention, doesn't some of that nasty nasty Patriot Act require tracability in the phone system?
Operator: Hello, this is the righteous wrath of Red Front calling to order fertilizer.
Exactly, that's the entire point of Copyright law, it says under what conditions you are forbidden to redistribute. The license, on the other hand, lists conditions under which you CAN redistribute.
You can be sure there's something in their arsenal (and if not in theirs, the UK will have something) to blow a carrier battle group operating near your shore away. You don't really have all that much experience with carriers vs. modern weapons.
Actually, wrong. The US Navy has EXCELLENT defenses against high tech weaponery. Feel free to read up on The Aegis Combat System. It's low tech that we continue to have a problem with, as men in row boats and boobytrapped bikes have proved and continue to prove. It's easier to fight a civilized country; they use civilized weapons. Weapons we largely know exactly how to counteract because we were crucial to the design of most of them.
If we were to engage France, we'd probably blow the hell out of them with a First Strike policy. The only sane way to fight a first world country is with inhumane weapons. In Iraq the battle was possible without having to play defense, if we fought France clearly they are able to reach us, so we would have to be sure our first strike was devastating. Translation: Nuclear wasteland.
In my admittedly biased American oppinion, the people who have arrogance problems are the rest of the world. If you aren't being targetted for attacks, if you aren't providing money, and if you aren't powerful enough to have an effect with your own sanctions against us, what gives you the right to dictate policy on how the United States should defend itself. Spain wants to withdraw their armed forces because they had a train bombed? Fine. I don't see them giving the destroyers back that we subsidized so they could afford them. Spain will most likely learn a painful lesson; they've just demonstrated that it only takes a couple bombs on a train track to derail the entire government. Our government was hit directly, the difference is we hit back.
I simply meant anyone that doesn't drink the one true cola is a pervert.
As in: One who has been perverted; one who has turned to error, especially in religion
TOM is meant for pepsi.... need more pepsi....
Pervert.
Public software that causes DoS?
Hmmm, can they link the service to slashdot?
Maybe, but I hope they scan the rooms for bugs very very carefully and check their cords for keystroke loggers and other forms of EM taps.
Why hack it when you can walk in the front door using the password you picked up from a video above the keyboard?
At Slashdot, Anonymous Cowards make your profits for you, you insensitive clod.
Just post your name, address, CC# and mother's maiden name (So we can verify your identity) here and we'll bill you and send you the info you requested.
You have BLACK pigeons too?
I just time the gaps between the white ones and make assumptions. It works okay until I use compression.
No a terminator gene is like a semicolon in the DNA.
a title talking about "Cleaning" the projects due to a suicide is racist.
No, it's anti-projects. You surely aren't suggesting that:
1) Everyone in the projects is black
Or (possibly worse)
2) Everyone in the projects is a different RACE than everyone more affluent than them?
He's certainly classist, but I still think the racist argument is tenuous at best.
I'm sorry about your loss, and I agree with the first part. Why though, does it make him racist? Simply because the guy was black? The guy shot himself in the lobby of a housing project, hence the title. There are other options than the guy being racist, like maybe he hates poor people, maybe he's tired of dealing with guns and death in the projects in general. You don't even know who released the tape, or HIS skin color.
Being an asshole doesn't necessarily make you racist. Heartless bastard I agree with.