OK, so I was tired at the time I made the above statement. What it should read is "it would still win out in market share even if AMD sold 2 million processors at $49". Oops...that's what I get for posting on Slashdot right after getting home in the afternoon...
Note that the parent said that Intel was losing market share in certain areas. This statement is correct.
I've recently seen more and more Athlons in retail gaming machines as compared to the Pentium IV. The Athlons also perform much better in business applications, and the fact that they're pretty cheap are helping AMD penetrate that market segment.
Plus, remember that market share is based on pure percentages of sales. If Intel sells 1 million processors at $100, it would still win out in market share even if AMD sold 2 million processors at $90. It's not a very good indication of true sales.
AMD's never really played the bandwidth game. The issue with Pentium IV's is that the high gigahertz readings they have are quite misleading. For one, they can do far less work during each cycle. They may have more cycles, but the effect is lessened in that the AMDs can do far much more work per individual cycle. Second, the cache is much worse in the Pentium IV's. They have inclusive caches, which because of their design cause the chip to have to go to much-slower memory more often than the exclusive cache designs of the AMD Athlon processors.
Plus, you've got to remember that these "fast" Pentium IV's are months away from even being introduced on paper. By that time the comparably-performing Hammers should be out, running both 32 and 64-bit applications and from what I hear quite fast as well. Basically, the difference is this: Intel caters to the average Joe who thinks bigger numbers are better, while AMD takes much more care to ensure that their chips run at a fast, reliable speed that rivals that of higher-rated Pentium IV's.
On 29 July 2002, we notified you that VeriSign Registrar's Whois data for namezero.com (a domain sponsored in the registry by VeriSign Registrar) was inaccurate. The phone number is listed as "111-111-1111".)
So Verisign has false contact information for a site with whom they've worked closely for the last few years, and no one caught it and corrected it before now? Yeesh...
Considering that the last of the 42 employees remaining were "let go" yesterday, it's probably just something one of them whipped up on their way out the door. It's been up for quite a few hours...I would think they would have taken it down if they were hacked. Probably just some way of going out in style:).
What is the world coming to when manufactured, commercial "pop" singers can't get a decent ride through the Russian Space Program for free? I mean, gosh, that's just plain cruel and unusual, I'm telling you. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for allowing such an injustice to occur.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled reality, already in progress.
I don't think it will be much of an issue. Sure, sometimes it's neat to see a movie before its release, but there's a whole lot more to experiencing a movie than just staring at a screen. It's about that eardrum-blasting surround sound, that massive projection screen, and lots of times, the people you go to watch the movie with. The true loyal fans will either: 1) watch the pirated version and then see it in theaters or 2) realize that this copy is probably unrefined, and wait another 3 months for the movie.
By this time, there's probably in the range of a hundred or so screening versions of the movie. Why go through all the effort of trying to crack a computer and then hide your tracks (not an easy thing to do when you're talking about a movie that's likely stored in its complete form on only one or two servers). It would be much safer to just convince one of the screening copy owners to go home and use standard video editing tools to rip the video file off the disc.
Unlikely, since they already know from the first movie that demand will be high...there's really no need to doubt that the second one will go just as well.
Plus, don't we think we're overestimating the thought processes of the movie studios just a little too much, expecting them to have some bit of justifiable thought?;-)
Parodies, by definition, are designed to poke fun at the original work. You really can't say you're poking fun at a movie by editing out what you feel is inappropriate. Anyways, IIRC, the burden of proof is on the editor, to prove that a certain derivative work is a parody.
Where you would normally find the DVD was a DVD-R disk, presumably with a digitally edited version of the movie on it.
Aha, here's where the plot thickens. The simple act of even transferring the movie verbatim to a DVD-R disk, regardless of whether it was edited or not, constitutes copyright infringement. The fact that the movie was edited before copying to the DVD-R makes it an even worse situation. This is, of course, subject to some debate over the fact that it could be considered a backup copy, but a backup copy must also be verbatim. This certainly reveals how Clean Flicks is engaging in quite blatant copyright infringement.
There is a huge market for these films, and if they won't fill it then obviously someone else should. There's nothing wrong with wanting to edit out the 'dirty bits' so your kids can enjoy some good movies.
Well, I guess those bad, mean, evil movie studios don't want to edit their artistically-minded movies, so let's just illegally produce a supply for something that there is an (albeit relatively small) demand for. Just because there is a demand for something doesn't mean that you can go through illegal means to create a supply. If you don't like the movie, just don't buy it. Don't create a weak justification for purchasing/renting illegally modified versions just for the "feel good" effect it gives you.
ICANN could have gone with dotORG, only to find the principal operators of the registry losing interest over the next few years and handing the system over to college freshmen to run.
IIRC, ICANN still keeps a fairly high level of oversight over any group that owns a domain registry. I would highly doubt that they would hand over a perpetual contract to anyone over the.ORG domain space, and they probably (emphasis on probably) have some sort of say in changes in the main people behind the registry. I see this problem as a nonissue, myself.
Actually, the free basic version of Opera doesn't have standard Cydoor technology in it. As evidenced in this mailing list message, Opera did work with Cydoor, but only for the purpose of designing a totally new system for delivering ads. Cydoor never coded any of the advertisement software in the browser. Opera has a pretty extensive description of what their advertising software does. It explicity states that there is no spyware, and even gives, in great detail, how the system works. I use Opera daily, and I've never seen any evidence of spyware, so I doubt highly that there is any need to worry.
I've said this in another thread before, but I'll reiterate it.
Government is not meant to sanitize our lives and reduce it to the lowest common denominator in terms of the citizenry's beliefs. If parents do not assume responsibility for their children and their actions and purchases, it's not that I should be shouldered with part of the consequences. I didn't have anything to do with that parent's lax concern for their child. Society is meant to define its own standards of conduct, not have the government define it for us. If you don't want your kid playing violent games, don't have the gaming console, or at least monitor what games are being played on it.
The whole "traditionalist values" thing has gone too far these days. Contrary to popular belief, not all families were like "Leave It To Beaver" in the 1950s, and all problems couldn't be solved in the course of half an hour. There have always been less-than-positive experiences children are exposed to, it's just that there was a lack of widespread TV and newspaper coverage of those experiences in the past.
And addressing, if I may, real quickly the "introduction of morality that comes from attending mass" statement. Morality is not exclusive to Christianity. I know atheists and agnostics who are pillars of morality, because it's the RIGHT THING. They don't need a preacher telling them how to live virtuously, because it's innate within them and their beliefs. In fact, I would argue that they have a higher sense of morality, because they made the choice without the prodding of any religious figure, and I respect them highly for that. So please, don't cater to the beliefs that Christianity == the only way to morality.
This test has one serious fault in it that I can see. The tester didn't use a stock W2K disk on a clean system, he used a Sony restore disk, which is a lot different than what Windows 2000 would normally be installed as. A lot of that time installing Windows could be attributed to the restore disk installing all of the myriad programs that come with new computers
Sure, I truly believe that Linux can come out on top with new installs. But do we really need to bias test results in our favor, and then expect corporate users to take us seriously? If Linux users want to show the superiority of the OS, they need to present fair, unbiased tests that are indicative of real-life situations, instead of twisting tests around in subtle ways.
When companies set themselves up to charge hundreds of dollars for strings of unique data called Certificates. It's frigging disgusting.
There is a reason that they charge so much for certificates these days. Not only does a certificate allow you to use encrypted communications, but it also assures the end-user that a web site is who they claim to be (at least, that's how it's supposed to work).
So, to limit their liability, certificate authorities have to have insurance in case some person sues them for issuing an invalid certificate. Insurance costs money, and that cost is passed on to the certificate buyer.
The preview idea is equally short-sighted. They get the preview builds because they are going to be fair towards them. If they start ragging games for what they don't like, especially if the issues are to be addressed by the developers, then they are going to stop getting preview builds.
The problem with this system is that the writers aren't just looking at the previews and saying objectively, "this is what the game looks like, and how it's played." Instead, they make previews turn into a review of the game in and of itself. In that case, I think it's a perfectly valid argument that it's only expected (and dare I say, ethical) that these writers either write objective descriptions of pre-release games, or create fully-rounded reviews of these previews.
Nothing is perfect, but many times gaming (and other computer-oriented magazines) will create perfection by blatantly ignoring problems with the software. But, you've got to remember, these journalists are in the same group as the computer reviewers and editors that have been hyping Palladium for the last few months (I won't name any names *cough* Dvorak *cough*).
You couldn't have an Open Source Cookbook without this, so here's a pretty easy recipe for beef and broccoli:
Take a package of beef of your choice (stew meat works pretty well) and cut it into small chunks. Cook it in a frying pan until it's browned, adding soy sauce and ginger to taste. After that, throw in some broccoli (fresh works best) and let it cook for a while. Add a little cornstarch to thicken up the sauce as needed. If you can find some sesame oil, that has a pretty good taste for it too. Takes only about 15-20 minutes, but it's some pretty good stuff.
IMO, I hardly think that the Court would even begin to consider accepting any case such as the one you describe. The Court's aim is not to get between relatively petty arguments between the standards of two different countries. Instead, it's designed to prosecute those who commit serious crimes such as genocide in cases where countries are unwilling or unable to prosecute the criminals.
On a side note, a lot of people are trying to spin the Court's aim into something that's anti-American, but that's simply not true. If an American commits serious crimes during war, then yes, they should be held accountable for their actions. However, the Court only steps in when a citizen of a country is not properly prosecuted by their home country. It seems unlikely the US wouldn't prosecute a soldier if they committed a serious crime of war.
In summary, a case such as this one would never come under the jurisdiction of the Court. It's not designed for cases such as this one, and never will be. In issues such as this one, the ICC is relatively benign.
This isn't the first time a movie studio has come up with an elaborate scheme to promote a movie.
One that comes to mind was the game associated with the release of "Artificial Intelligence". The studio left clues hidden in billboards, interviews, and answering machine messages that led players on a complex hunt over the Internet that told a story related to the movie. It had quite a following up until the end.
For those of you interested in the whole plot of the thing, a group called the Cloudmakers documented all of the puzzles and clues. It's a pretty interesting read.
I'm still a fan of MP3.com, even as it has been sold out to a big record company.
You can find literally hundreds of files there of all different types of genres of electronic music, and I'm sure one type or another will work for most everyone. Some pretty good ones that come to mind are Bluetonicworld, Master Zap, and Synthetic Dream Foundation. I'm sure if you search around there something will appeal to you.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so I was tired at the time I made the above statement. What it should read is "it would still win out in market share even if AMD sold 2 million processors at $49". Oops...that's what I get for posting on Slashdot right after getting home in the afternoon...
Note that the parent said that Intel was losing market share in certain areas. This statement is correct.
I've recently seen more and more Athlons in retail gaming machines as compared to the Pentium IV. The Athlons also perform much better in business applications, and the fact that they're pretty cheap are helping AMD penetrate that market segment.
Plus, remember that market share is based on pure percentages of sales. If Intel sells 1 million processors at $100, it would still win out in market share even if AMD sold 2 million processors at $90. It's not a very good indication of true sales.
AMD's never really played the bandwidth game. The issue with Pentium IV's is that the high gigahertz readings they have are quite misleading. For one, they can do far less work during each cycle. They may have more cycles, but the effect is lessened in that the AMDs can do far much more work per individual cycle. Second, the cache is much worse in the Pentium IV's. They have inclusive caches, which because of their design cause the chip to have to go to much-slower memory more often than the exclusive cache designs of the AMD Athlon processors.
Plus, you've got to remember that these "fast" Pentium IV's are months away from even being introduced on paper. By that time the comparably-performing Hammers should be out, running both 32 and 64-bit applications and from what I hear quite fast as well. Basically, the difference is this: Intel caters to the average Joe who thinks bigger numbers are better, while AMD takes much more care to ensure that their chips run at a fast, reliable speed that rivals that of higher-rated Pentium IV's.
I think you're overestimating the intelligence of the low-life scum known as spammers ;-)
On 29 July 2002, we notified you that VeriSign Registrar's Whois data for namezero.com (a domain sponsored in the registry by VeriSign Registrar) was inaccurate. The phone number is listed as "111-111-1111".)
So Verisign has false contact information for a site with whom they've worked closely for the last few years, and no one caught it and corrected it before now? Yeesh...
Considering that the last of the 42 employees remaining were "let go" yesterday, it's probably just something one of them whipped up on their way out the door. It's been up for quite a few hours...I would think they would have taken it down if they were hacked. Probably just some way of going out in style :).
What is the world coming to when manufactured, commercial "pop" singers can't get a decent ride through the Russian Space Program for free? I mean, gosh, that's just plain cruel and unusual, I'm telling you. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for allowing such an injustice to occur.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled reality, already in progress.
I don't think it will be much of an issue. Sure, sometimes it's neat to see a movie before its release, but there's a whole lot more to experiencing a movie than just staring at a screen. It's about that eardrum-blasting surround sound, that massive projection screen, and lots of times, the people you go to watch the movie with. The true loyal fans will either: 1) watch the pirated version and then see it in theaters or 2) realize that this copy is probably unrefined, and wait another 3 months for the movie.
By this time, there's probably in the range of a hundred or so screening versions of the movie. Why go through all the effort of trying to crack a computer and then hide your tracks (not an easy thing to do when you're talking about a movie that's likely stored in its complete form on only one or two servers). It would be much safer to just convince one of the screening copy owners to go home and use standard video editing tools to rip the video file off the disc.
Unlikely, since they already know from the first movie that demand will be high...there's really no need to doubt that the second one will go just as well.
;-)
Plus, don't we think we're overestimating the thought processes of the movie studios just a little too much, expecting them to have some bit of justifiable thought?
Parodies, by definition, are designed to poke fun at the original work. You really can't say you're poking fun at a movie by editing out what you feel is inappropriate. Anyways, IIRC, the burden of proof is on the editor, to prove that a certain derivative work is a parody.
Where you would normally find the DVD was a DVD-R disk, presumably with a digitally edited version of the movie on it.
Aha, here's where the plot thickens. The simple act of even transferring the movie verbatim to a DVD-R disk, regardless of whether it was edited or not, constitutes copyright infringement. The fact that the movie was edited before copying to the DVD-R makes it an even worse situation. This is, of course, subject to some debate over the fact that it could be considered a backup copy, but a backup copy must also be verbatim. This certainly reveals how Clean Flicks is engaging in quite blatant copyright infringement.
There is a huge market for these films, and if they won't fill it then obviously someone else should. There's nothing wrong with wanting to edit out the 'dirty bits' so your kids can enjoy some good movies.
Well, I guess those bad, mean, evil movie studios don't want to edit their artistically-minded movies, so let's just illegally produce a supply for something that there is an (albeit relatively small) demand for. Just because there is a demand for something doesn't mean that you can go through illegal means to create a supply. If you don't like the movie, just don't buy it. Don't create a weak justification for purchasing/renting illegally modified versions just for the "feel good" effect it gives you.
ICANN could have gone with dotORG, only to find the principal operators of the registry losing interest over the next few years and handing the system over to college freshmen to run.
.ORG domain space, and they probably (emphasis on probably) have some sort of say in changes in the main people behind the registry. I see this problem as a nonissue, myself.
IIRC, ICANN still keeps a fairly high level of oversight over any group that owns a domain registry. I would highly doubt that they would hand over a perpetual contract to anyone over the
I agree, TV is bad. After all, it distracts us from Slashdot, eh? ;-)
Actually, the free basic version of Opera doesn't have standard Cydoor technology in it. As evidenced in this mailing list message, Opera did work with Cydoor, but only for the purpose of designing a totally new system for delivering ads. Cydoor never coded any of the advertisement software in the browser. Opera has a pretty extensive description of what their advertising software does. It explicity states that there is no spyware, and even gives, in great detail, how the system works. I use Opera daily, and I've never seen any evidence of spyware, so I doubt highly that there is any need to worry.
I've said this in another thread before, but I'll reiterate it.
Government is not meant to sanitize our lives and reduce it to the lowest common denominator in terms of the citizenry's beliefs. If parents do not assume responsibility for their children and their actions and purchases, it's not that I should be shouldered with part of the consequences. I didn't have anything to do with that parent's lax concern for their child. Society is meant to define its own standards of conduct, not have the government define it for us. If you don't want your kid playing violent games, don't have the gaming console, or at least monitor what games are being played on it.
The whole "traditionalist values" thing has gone too far these days. Contrary to popular belief, not all families were like "Leave It To Beaver" in the 1950s, and all problems couldn't be solved in the course of half an hour. There have always been less-than-positive experiences children are exposed to, it's just that there was a lack of widespread TV and newspaper coverage of those experiences in the past.
And addressing, if I may, real quickly the "introduction of morality that comes from attending mass" statement. Morality is not exclusive to Christianity. I know atheists and agnostics who are pillars of morality, because it's the RIGHT THING. They don't need a preacher telling them how to live virtuously, because it's innate within them and their beliefs. In fact, I would argue that they have a higher sense of morality, because they made the choice without the prodding of any religious figure, and I respect them highly for that. So please, don't cater to the beliefs that Christianity == the only way to morality.
This test has one serious fault in it that I can see. The tester didn't use a stock W2K disk on a clean system, he used a Sony restore disk, which is a lot different than what Windows 2000 would normally be installed as. A lot of that time installing Windows could be attributed to the restore disk installing all of the myriad programs that come with new computers
Sure, I truly believe that Linux can come out on top with new installs. But do we really need to bias test results in our favor, and then expect corporate users to take us seriously? If Linux users want to show the superiority of the OS, they need to present fair, unbiased tests that are indicative of real-life situations, instead of twisting tests around in subtle ways.
When companies set themselves up to charge hundreds of dollars for strings of unique data called Certificates. It's frigging disgusting.
There is a reason that they charge so much for certificates these days. Not only does a certificate allow you to use encrypted communications, but it also assures the end-user that a web site is who they claim to be (at least, that's how it's supposed to work).
So, to limit their liability, certificate authorities have to have insurance in case some person sues them for issuing an invalid certificate. Insurance costs money, and that cost is passed on to the certificate buyer.
The preview idea is equally short-sighted. They get the preview builds because they are going to be fair towards them. If they start ragging games for what they don't like, especially if the issues are to be addressed by the developers, then they are going to stop getting preview builds.
The problem with this system is that the writers aren't just looking at the previews and saying objectively, "this is what the game looks like, and how it's played." Instead, they make previews turn into a review of the game in and of itself. In that case, I think it's a perfectly valid argument that it's only expected (and dare I say, ethical) that these writers either write objective descriptions of pre-release games, or create fully-rounded reviews of these previews.
Nothing is perfect, but many times gaming (and other computer-oriented magazines) will create perfection by blatantly ignoring problems with the software. But, you've got to remember, these journalists are in the same group as the computer reviewers and editors that have been hyping Palladium for the last few months (I won't name any names *cough* Dvorak *cough*).
Of course there should be a requirement that the exchange server not be listed or ordb.org.
Wait a minute, you mean there actually are exchange servers not on ORDB? Schweet!
You couldn't have an Open Source Cookbook without this, so here's a pretty easy recipe for beef and broccoli:
Take a package of beef of your choice (stew meat works pretty well) and cut it into small chunks. Cook it in a frying pan until it's browned, adding soy sauce and ginger to taste. After that, throw in some broccoli (fresh works best) and let it cook for a while. Add a little cornstarch to thicken up the sauce as needed. If you can find some sesame oil, that has a pretty good taste for it too. Takes only about 15-20 minutes, but it's some pretty good stuff.
IMO, I hardly think that the Court would even begin to consider accepting any case such as the one you describe. The Court's aim is not to get between relatively petty arguments between the standards of two different countries. Instead, it's designed to prosecute those who commit serious crimes such as genocide in cases where countries are unwilling or unable to prosecute the criminals.
On a side note, a lot of people are trying to spin the Court's aim into something that's anti-American, but that's simply not true. If an American commits serious crimes during war, then yes, they should be held accountable for their actions. However, the Court only steps in when a citizen of a country is not properly prosecuted by their home country. It seems unlikely the US wouldn't prosecute a soldier if they committed a serious crime of war.
In summary, a case such as this one would never come under the jurisdiction of the Court. It's not designed for cases such as this one, and never will be. In issues such as this one, the ICC is relatively benign.
This isn't the first time a movie studio has come up with an elaborate scheme to promote a movie.
One that comes to mind was the game associated with the release of "Artificial Intelligence". The studio left clues hidden in billboards, interviews, and answering machine messages that led players on a complex hunt over the Internet that told a story related to the movie. It had quite a following up until the end.
For those of you interested in the whole plot of the thing, a group called the Cloudmakers documented all of the puzzles and clues. It's a pretty interesting read.
I'm still a fan of MP3.com, even as it has been sold out to a big record company.
You can find literally hundreds of files there of all different types of genres of electronic music, and I'm sure one type or another will work for most everyone. Some pretty good ones that come to mind are Bluetonicworld, Master Zap, and Synthetic Dream Foundation. I'm sure if you search around there something will appeal to you.