I'm not a windows fanboi but what you are saying is a load of turds.
And you are completely full of shit, or you don't know what you are talking about.
I was complaining about 32-bit apps on XP-64. Yea, the 64-bit apps and drivers are fine. I don't know what games you are running, but WTF does X64 have to do with having less spam, spyware, etc. ??? All that will run on XP-64, too, only it will run emulated, and thus *much slower* (yep, really).
I'll give you a great example that you can really *see* (no performance measuring required). Load up iTunes on XP-64 and on XP, on the same or similar machine. Now go to the album view and flip through the album art work. Yea, tres' suckey, huh? You can complain about iTunes performance all you want, but the *only* difference here is running native 32-bit verses emulated 32-bit on 64. The performance degradation is just TOO large. There are lots of apps with the same issue - VideoStudio is another good example.
I don't see this kind of difference in 32-bit binaries under 64-bit linux (and I run Gentoo as well).
Their 64-bit OSs have WoW64, which emulates a 32-bit machine.
And it's completely horrible, at least on XP-64 on my AMD Opteron. I actually tried running 64-bit XP for a while, but there were not enough 64-bit apps. The 32-bit apps ran with about 1/4 the performance under XP-64 as they do under XP-32 (on the exact same machine).
Compare this with the linux IA-32 emulation. The 32-bit binaries are bound to be taking some kind of performance hit, but it's so small that I can't even tell the difference.
But that's Microsoft's typical modus-operandi: if it's running too slow, it just means you need more hardware!
Do you really think that the only benefit you get from an open platform is that you can audit the code?
Maybe not the only benefit, but certainly a top benefit, if not the top benefit. I can't even count the number of times that I have gone trouble-shooting a system issue, and tracked it down to some specific binary or another, then was stuck because I didn't have the source code. At that point, I have to hope that the vendor still exists, still supports that binary, and will be responsive enough to actually help with the problem.
More than once the final answer from the vendor has been "yes, that's a known issue, and it will be fixed in the next release"... which doesn't have a release date yet, and will require $ to obtain. And the worst part is how nonchalant they are giving an answer like that, and act like they've solved the problem.
The level of sex offense issue has been talked about a lot, and is always brought up when discussing ways to reduce the harm to society that sex offenses can cause.
Most states have acknowledged the distinction and dealt with it appropriately. Here in Virginia, all sex offenders must register (to comply with federal regulations), but only *violent* sex offenders are listed on the publicly accessible web site. The more draconian measures for dealing with sex offenders are also reserved for only the more heinous offenders.
So the non-violent offenders are not subject to the restrictions that the dangerous ones are. Statutory rape, indecent exposure (drunks pissing in the wrong place), etc. are not treated as violent crimes.
about 60% for universal health care (and years ago)
I don't know where you are getting this figure, unless you are simply lying. Maybe you are stretching the response about 62% thinking guaranteed *insurance* was favorable - but that's way different than universal health care. What I found from the resource you linked was this:
"Which of the following approaches for providing health care in the United States would you prefer: replacing the current health care system with a new government run health care system, or maintaining the current system based mostly on private health insurance?"
Replace: 39%
Maintain: 51%
Unsure: 10%
The majority favors maintaining private health insurance.
This is why so many folks are in fear of the far-left dems. During the campaign they argue that "not enough people have health insurance" (which the voters agree with). But then they get into office and it turns into "... and so this is a voter mandate for government-run health care!"
Something to be able to break away from this situation : a good educational system, a good medical system, a good social-security system.
what do the republicans do : strip away these systems to their bare minimum... and LESS.
Hear, hear! Let's promote the Democratic agenda instead, so that we can pump more money into the public school system and further prop up the teachers unions and increase the requirements for teaching credentials. Hopefully this will allow our public school administrators to continue the tremendous progress they have made in the last 70 years.... Oh, wait...
Um, no. The total amount of 'money' would remain the same, so you get no increased inflation. Further, on a competetive market, prices fall towards the cost of production, so prices do not rise to follow disposable capital.
The fallacy in your argument is that you assume that production costs will not rise. Not so. The only way to re-distribute that wealth would be through taxation or higher pay for laborers. Either way, the cost of labor automatically increases, and so does the cost of goods, and everybody is back where they started.
I've challenged my local audiophile friend to a blind test several times and he refuses to give it a go [especially since he listens to the audio really loudly which will mask most tones anyways].
That's probably because your friend realizes such a test can be rigged (even unintentionally) to get the result you want - and he doesn't listen to the same kind of music. Some types of music *can* be converted to a lossy format without any discernible difference. Others cannot.
I came across a good example - try listening to Led Zeppelin's "No Quarter" (from Houses of the Holy), or "Achilles Last Stand" from Presence. Use any lossy format you like. Compare that to the same song without compression (or a lossless format). I guarantee even *you* will notice a difference right away (of course, this also assumes you listen using some equipment that will reproduce the signal fairly well - it doesn't need to be "audiophile" quality).
For some reason, many of Led Zeppelin's tracks do not lend themselves to lossy compression. I have many more examples, but this is probably the best mainstream example of music that is significantly screwed up by lossy compression.
That may have been what Kyoto *set out* to do, but that's not what it *does*. If you think that Kyoto is a solution to global warming, you don't have all the information.
A more credible solution is to use some asteroids to pull the Earth into a slightly wider orbit. How much cool do you want?
You're kidding, right? Lives is the biggest PITA for editing video that I've ever seen. A single DV tape is about 18GB of space. I don't know if Lives can load up the whole thing or not, but after a couple of hours of waiting on my AMDX2/ATI X1600 box I gave up. Pick a few 2-3 minute clips and you can throw something together suitable for youtube - anything more ambitious and you might as well forget it.
Cinelerra is a better option, but it has almost as many broken features as lives.
Don't even get me started on the hoops you have to go through for DVDAuthor to burn an actual DVD.
And although I *used* to be able to burn DVDs just fine on my linux box - nice, reliable DVDs that would play anywhere, my new install (Gentoo AMD64) only burns DVDs that can be played on PCs and a few standalone players - and not at all on either my component Pioneer DVDRecorder or my Panasonic DVD player. What's with that, anyway?
I do a lot of videos, and in the past I've spent a lot of time booting back and forth between Windows and Linux because neither did everything I wanted very good, but at this point Ulead Video Studio (version 8) does about 95% of it.
Not counting the little bit of duplicated functionality, Lives does 0%.
They are essentially cross-licensing with Novell. Which means they are using Novell as a proxy to acquire Linux IP.
Um... no. It's not Linux IP they are after - it's Novell's. And believe it or not, even though Microsoft have tried for years, they still don't have the kind of large installation enterprise tools that Novell has. Namely eDirectory and Zenworks. And that's what they are planning to steal, along with whatever contributions Novell can make to virtualization technologies.
Remember, Novell is not allowed to sue Microsoft either - so when MS comes out with "Microsoft Server 2009", which includes these really nice tools like Active_eDirectory and SMzenS (but surely better names), there will be nothing Novell can do about it. Now - why were you using those Novell tools again? Identity Managment like eDir? MS has it! Enterprise desktop management like Zenworks? MS has it!
Novell better hope they can get by selling SLES alone, because they won't have anything else.
The judge in Graham v. James , 144 F.3d 229, 236 (2d Cir. 1998) has said that a "copyright owner who grants a non-exclusive license to use his copyrighted material waives his right to sue the licensee for copyright infringement"
Ok, IANAL (but I play one on/.). I read the decision that you have sited, and it cannot be applied to a case involving the GPL, for several reasons. First, the contract between Graham and James was strictly an oral contract for distribution rights, many terms of which had to be inferred by the district court. From the decision:
... Thus, as James concedes, the district court could not have found that Graham infringed James's copyright unless the licensing agreement already had been rescinded; the problem is that the district court made no such finding.
The GPL states explicitly that all rights granted by it are recinded if the terms are violated. So it's pretty simple to demonstrate that the agreement is void.
Further, the decision is based on whether the defendant could conclude that they maintained rights under the license, even though they had violated some terms. Check this out:
This argument turns--and fails--on the distinction in contract between a condition and a covenant.... However, "[i]f the nature of a licensee's violation consists of a failure to satisfy a condition to the license . .., it follows that the rights dependant upon satisfaction of such condition have not been effectively licensed, and therefore, any use by the licensee is without authority from the licensor and may therefore, constitute an infringement of copyright." [3 Nimmer on Copyright , supra , 10.15[A], at 10-120.] Id. at 10-121 (citations omitted);
The court makes the distinction here - and the GPL makes it explicit. The court is re-stating the affirmation that is used in the GPL itself, paraphrased as "violate the conditions of this license, and you have no rights to the code".
Sorry, but there is NO WAY that that decision can be used to argue that you are not liable for copyright infringement just because the code is being distributed under a license. Your interpretation of the case is just too simplistic.
because there's this stupid precedent that says that if you provide redistribution rights then you've forfeit your right to sue third parties who violate the license. Under pre-1998 copyright law the GPL is rock solid, this change to the copyright law by precedent puts a gapping big hole in the GPL.
you cannot install (with a single license) Windows Vista on physical AND virtual hardware at the same time unless you have Business/Ultimate.
I call bullshit. Here is the exact clause from the license:
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
Despite the commentator's interpretation, the impetus of this bill was the New Orleans Katrina disaster. Everyone blamed Bush and the Feds for not doing enough, even though the responsibility for disaster planning and mobilizing the national guard rested solely with the local and state governments. Well, this bill fixes that - the next time there is a disaster the the feds don't act fast enough, it really *will* be their fault, because this gives the the authority to do something, which they did *not* have during Katrina.
So - you *wanted* this - you *cried* for it! "Bush didn't act fast enough! He should have done more!" Ok, if you think so, we'll give him that authority. Remember the looting in the streets? The local police deserted, and the ones left couldn't maintain order. The governor refused to call in the troops. Next time, the president can do it.
Be careful what you ask for - you just might get it!
I think freedom of speech is a really difficult (yet important) issue. It's certainly *not* as simple as "everyone should be able to say whatever they want."
Maybe not, but very close. Just about the only thing that maybe should *not* be protected as free speech is the purposeful and direct inciting of violence or panic (the old "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre").
Here's a simple test: if you support freedom of speech, then you *have* to defend speakers that have something to say that is offensive and repugnant to you. It's easy to defend someone saying something you agree with, or even that you disagree with but seems reasonable. And if that's the only kind of speech that you think is OK, then, well, you're against the idea of free speech. And many people are.
Germany does not really allow free speech. Yea, they complain about the government and don't punish dissent, but many types of speech are strickly verbotin. We currently have a German exchange student staying with us. He has a very good sense of humor - really loves Robot Chicken. But when he saw the 'lil Hitler episode he was completely taken aback. He was really uptight and upset about it. The worst part of it was that he refused to even discuss why it offended him so much, and what he found offensive, or anything else about the whole thing. The entire topic was just completely off-limits. I think it's much preferable to have everything out in the open.
Also I wish Wired would have elaborated a bit regarding the ethical issues of suspended animation.
Umm... I think they were talking about the ethical issues of doing the clinical trials on humans, not the actual precedure once it's been proven. If somebody comes into the trauma room with gunshot wounds, do you do everything to save him, or do you try this risky new procedure that's never been tried on a human before, hoping to buy more time for the surgery? Ethical delimma. Cross your fingers and hope the guy doesn't come out with the cognitive abilities of a domesticated farm animal.
Let me guess, you also believe that if you pay for a ticket to a concert, you're entitled to attend all future performances of the same songs for free, right?
Bzzzt. Please return to the back of the line.
You've gotta be a troll to make such an asinine remark, but I'll bite anyway. Let's see... what's the difference between making a copy of a song that has already been performed, edited, mixed, produced and mass-marketed years ago and a new concert performance? Hmmm... cost? And... it's a NEW performance. Lots of people have to actually *work* to put on that performance, and they all deserve to get paid. Yea, if I'm interested, I'll pay for a new ticket. In fact, there are bands that *gave their music away* for years and I bought a *LOT* of their concert tickets.
Try this one on. You have a bookshelf full of books - you pull one down to read one evening and surprise! Opening the book reveals a protection device that has erased all the pages except the one that says "I'm sorry, but you have already read this book, and it has self-destructed. Please return to the bookstore or call our toll-free number to order another copy if you would like to read it again. Thank you!"
You must be a record company executive, because you seem to think you're allowed to make a living forever from something sombody else did back in the sixties. We don't want to support your lifestyle anymore.
In essence they're trying to limit our rights in regards to our own legally purchased content - to me THEY are the real thieves in all of this. Just ask the artists, who also get royally screwed...
Yes, very insightful. You've come very close to the real issue, here. See, when CDs came out (never mind the promises about the prices coming down - they never did), everybody started re-buying albums that they already had to get the CD version. (How many copies has "Dark Side of the Moon" sold again?) So many people paid for the same music twice.
The next format was the DVD-Audio, but that never really caught on. So the next market was the iPod and on-line music. Well, guess what? I can just rip my CD's to populate my iPod. "NOOOOO! We can't allow that!" Too late now, the genie is out of the bottle. But that doesn't stop the greed.
Control everything.
All downloaded music must be paid for.
No more ripping CDs (how many now come without copy protection?)
I know you were just trying to be flippant, but if you think about it, which is easier?
Develop a reliable model of Earth's climate (completely untestable on a small scale, BTW, due to all the variables involved, and the emergent properties of atmosphere on a global scale that are not fully understood), change everything about the way every major industry (and many individuals) use energy and deal with the waste, or
Use our precise knowledge of newtonian physics and relativity, and existing space technologies, to make some minor adjustments to the orbits of 3-4 objects.
I think option #2 has a greater likelyhood of success.
We still need to get some fairly accurate model for Earth climate, but even if it is not entirely accurate, the fix is just to monitor the process, and tweak our orbit-tugging comet(s) if things turn out to be a little "off". This feedback goes back into the model, too.
But it is a pretty radical idea. It's not an original idea, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that the kind of talk that Spoko was complaining about?
And you are completely full of shit, or you don't know what you are talking about.
I was complaining about 32-bit apps on XP-64. Yea, the 64-bit apps and drivers are fine. I don't know what games you are running, but WTF does X64 have to do with having less spam, spyware, etc. ??? All that will run on XP-64, too, only it will run emulated, and thus *much slower* (yep, really).
I'll give you a great example that you can really *see* (no performance measuring required). Load up iTunes on XP-64 and on XP, on the same or similar machine. Now go to the album view and flip through the album art work. Yea, tres' suckey, huh? You can complain about iTunes performance all you want, but the *only* difference here is running native 32-bit verses emulated 32-bit on 64. The performance degradation is just TOO large. There are lots of apps with the same issue - VideoStudio is another good example.
I don't see this kind of difference in 32-bit binaries under 64-bit linux (and I run Gentoo as well).
And it's completely horrible, at least on XP-64 on my AMD Opteron. I actually tried running 64-bit XP for a while, but there were not enough 64-bit apps. The 32-bit apps ran with about 1/4 the performance under XP-64 as they do under XP-32 (on the exact same machine).
Compare this with the linux IA-32 emulation. The 32-bit binaries are bound to be taking some kind of performance hit, but it's so small that I can't even tell the difference.
But that's Microsoft's typical modus-operandi: if it's running too slow, it just means you need more hardware!
Maybe not the only benefit, but certainly a top benefit, if not the top benefit. I can't even count the number of times that I have gone trouble-shooting a system issue, and tracked it down to some specific binary or another, then was stuck because I didn't have the source code. At that point, I have to hope that the vendor still exists, still supports that binary, and will be responsive enough to actually help with the problem.
More than once the final answer from the vendor has been "yes, that's a known issue, and it will be fixed in the next release" ... which doesn't have a release date yet, and will require $ to obtain. And the worst part is how nonchalant they are giving an answer like that, and act like they've solved the problem.
Most states have acknowledged the distinction and dealt with it appropriately. Here in Virginia, all sex offenders must register (to comply with federal regulations), but only *violent* sex offenders are listed on the publicly accessible web site. The more draconian measures for dealing with sex offenders are also reserved for only the more heinous offenders.
So the non-violent offenders are not subject to the restrictions that the dangerous ones are. Statutory rape, indecent exposure (drunks pissing in the wrong place), etc. are not treated as violent crimes.
I don't know where you are getting this figure, unless you are simply lying. Maybe you are stretching the response about 62% thinking guaranteed *insurance* was favorable - but that's way different than universal health care. What I found from the resource you linked was this:
The majority favors maintaining private health insurance.
This is why so many folks are in fear of the far-left dems. During the campaign they argue that "not enough people have health insurance" (which the voters agree with). But then they get into office and it turns into "... and so this is a voter mandate for government-run health care!"
Hear, hear! Let's promote the Democratic agenda instead, so that we can pump more money into the public school system and further prop up the teachers unions and increase the requirements for teaching credentials. Hopefully this will allow our public school administrators to continue the tremendous progress they have made in the last 70 years.... Oh, wait...
The fallacy in your argument is that you assume that production costs will not rise. Not so. The only way to re-distribute that wealth would be through taxation or higher pay for laborers. Either way, the cost of labor automatically increases, and so does the cost of goods, and everybody is back where they started.
Lesson learned: Don't point out the facts, it will get you modded as "Flamebait". Because facts just get in the way of our opinions.
That's probably because your friend realizes such a test can be rigged (even unintentionally) to get the result you want - and he doesn't listen to the same kind of music. Some types of music *can* be converted to a lossy format without any discernible difference. Others cannot.
I came across a good example - try listening to Led Zeppelin's "No Quarter" (from Houses of the Holy), or "Achilles Last Stand" from Presence. Use any lossy format you like. Compare that to the same song without compression (or a lossless format). I guarantee even *you* will notice a difference right away (of course, this also assumes you listen using some equipment that will reproduce the signal fairly well - it doesn't need to be "audiophile" quality).
For some reason, many of Led Zeppelin's tracks do not lend themselves to lossy compression. I have many more examples, but this is probably the best mainstream example of music that is significantly screwed up by lossy compression.
This was marked flamebait, and the parent comment (which really *is* flamebait) is marked +5 insiteful. Great going, mods. Your bias is showing.
More credible than thinking Kyoto is the answer to global warming, yes.
That may have been what Kyoto *set out* to do, but that's not what it *does*. If you think that Kyoto is a solution to global warming, you don't have all the information.
A more credible solution is to use some asteroids to pull the Earth into a slightly wider orbit. How much cool do you want?
You're kidding, right? Lives is the biggest PITA for editing video that I've ever seen. A single DV tape is about 18GB of space. I don't know if Lives can load up the whole thing or not, but after a couple of hours of waiting on my AMDX2/ATI X1600 box I gave up. Pick a few 2-3 minute clips and you can throw something together suitable for youtube - anything more ambitious and you might as well forget it. Cinelerra is a better option, but it has almost as many broken features as lives. Don't even get me started on the hoops you have to go through for DVDAuthor to burn an actual DVD. And although I *used* to be able to burn DVDs just fine on my linux box - nice, reliable DVDs that would play anywhere, my new install (Gentoo AMD64) only burns DVDs that can be played on PCs and a few standalone players - and not at all on either my component Pioneer DVDRecorder or my Panasonic DVD player. What's with that, anyway? I do a lot of videos, and in the past I've spent a lot of time booting back and forth between Windows and Linux because neither did everything I wanted very good, but at this point Ulead Video Studio (version 8) does about 95% of it. Not counting the little bit of duplicated functionality, Lives does 0%.
Um... no. It's not Linux IP they are after - it's Novell's. And believe it or not, even though Microsoft have tried for years, they still don't have the kind of large installation enterprise tools that Novell has. Namely eDirectory and Zenworks. And that's what they are planning to steal, along with whatever contributions Novell can make to virtualization technologies.
Remember, Novell is not allowed to sue Microsoft either - so when MS comes out with "Microsoft Server 2009", which includes these really nice tools like Active_eDirectory and SMzenS (but surely better names), there will be nothing Novell can do about it. Now - why were you using those Novell tools again? Identity Managment like eDir? MS has it! Enterprise desktop management like Zenworks? MS has it!
Novell better hope they can get by selling SLES alone, because they won't have anything else.
Ok, IANAL (but I play one on /.). I read the decision that you have sited, and it cannot be applied to a case involving the GPL, for several reasons. First, the contract between Graham and James was strictly an oral contract for distribution rights, many terms of which had to be inferred by the district court. From the decision:
The GPL states explicitly that all rights granted by it are recinded if the terms are violated. So it's pretty simple to demonstrate that the agreement is void.
Further, the decision is based on whether the defendant could conclude that they maintained rights under the license, even though they had violated some terms. Check this out:
The court makes the distinction here - and the GPL makes it explicit. The court is re-stating the affirmation that is used in the GPL itself, paraphrased as "violate the conditions of this license, and you have no rights to the code".
Sorry, but there is NO WAY that that decision can be used to argue that you are not liable for copyright infringement just because the code is being distributed under a license. Your interpretation of the case is just too simplistic.
Site? Parties?
I call bullshit. Here is the exact clause from the license:
No "AND" - just "you may not".
How is parent flaimbait? ... No, I won't slow down, and don't call me "cowboy".
So - you *wanted* this - you *cried* for it! "Bush didn't act fast enough! He should have done more!" Ok, if you think so, we'll give him that authority. Remember the looting in the streets? The local police deserted, and the ones left couldn't maintain order. The governor refused to call in the troops. Next time, the president can do it.
Be careful what you ask for - you just might get it!
Maybe not, but very close. Just about the only thing that maybe should *not* be protected as free speech is the purposeful and direct inciting of violence or panic (the old "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre").
Here's a simple test: if you support freedom of speech, then you *have* to defend speakers that have something to say that is offensive and repugnant to you. It's easy to defend someone saying something you agree with, or even that you disagree with but seems reasonable. And if that's the only kind of speech that you think is OK, then, well, you're against the idea of free speech. And many people are.
Germany does not really allow free speech. Yea, they complain about the government and don't punish dissent, but many types of speech are strickly verbotin. We currently have a German exchange student staying with us. He has a very good sense of humor - really loves Robot Chicken. But when he saw the 'lil Hitler episode he was completely taken aback. He was really uptight and upset about it. The worst part of it was that he refused to even discuss why it offended him so much, and what he found offensive, or anything else about the whole thing. The entire topic was just completely off-limits. I think it's much preferable to have everything out in the open.
Stupid ideas are their own enemy.
Umm... I think they were talking about the ethical issues of doing the clinical trials on humans, not the actual precedure once it's been proven. If somebody comes into the trauma room with gunshot wounds, do you do everything to save him, or do you try this risky new procedure that's never been tried on a human before, hoping to buy more time for the surgery? Ethical delimma. Cross your fingers and hope the guy doesn't come out with the cognitive abilities of a domesticated farm animal.
Bzzzt. Please return to the back of the line.
You've gotta be a troll to make such an asinine remark, but I'll bite anyway. Let's see... what's the difference between making a copy of a song that has already been performed, edited, mixed, produced and mass-marketed years ago and a new concert performance? Hmmm... cost? And... it's a NEW performance. Lots of people have to actually *work* to put on that performance, and they all deserve to get paid. Yea, if I'm interested, I'll pay for a new ticket. In fact, there are bands that *gave their music away* for years and I bought a *LOT* of their concert tickets.
Try this one on. You have a bookshelf full of books - you pull one down to read one evening and surprise! Opening the book reveals a protection device that has erased all the pages except the one that says "I'm sorry, but you have already read this book, and it has self-destructed. Please return to the bookstore or call our toll-free number to order another copy if you would like to read it again. Thank you!"
You must be a record company executive, because you seem to think you're allowed to make a living forever from something sombody else did back in the sixties. We don't want to support your lifestyle anymore.
Yes, very insightful. You've come very close to the real issue, here. See, when CDs came out (never mind the promises about the prices coming down - they never did), everybody started re-buying albums that they already had to get the CD version. (How many copies has "Dark Side of the Moon" sold again?) So many people paid for the same music twice.
The next format was the DVD-Audio, but that never really caught on. So the next market was the iPod and on-line music. Well, guess what? I can just rip my CD's to populate my iPod. "NOOOOO! We can't allow that!" Too late now, the genie is out of the bottle. But that doesn't stop the greed.
I think option #2 has a greater likelyhood of success.
We still need to get some fairly accurate model for Earth climate, but even if it is not entirely accurate, the fix is just to monitor the process, and tweak our orbit-tugging comet(s) if things turn out to be a little "off". This feedback goes back into the model, too.
But it is a pretty radical idea. It's not an original idea, though.