The innocent people who died in Afghanistan are not victims of the US. The US has a right to defend itself when attacked. The Afghan govt is responsible for the loss of life in Afghanistan by harboring the terrorist organization that attacked the US. The were well paid by al queda for their support. The Taliban bears the responsibility for those lost lives. Omar's palace was paid for by their blood as well as al queda money. The US is no more to blame for loss of life in Afghanistan than the allies in WWII are responsble for the loss of innocent German lives. If you have a problem with the US govt. take it up with them. Killing 3000 civilians in NYC doesn't solve anything
What, so we shouldn't have done anything in Afghanistan? It an attitude like that that will result in another catastrophe like 9/11. You cannot have peace at any cost, especially when your enemies motives are irrational and not espoused by the majority of people in the religion for which they claim justifies their actions. Civilian deaths are inevitable in war. The Afghan govt. is responsible for their deaths for giving the terrorists shelter in Afghanistan. Omar paid for his palace with their blood as well as terrorist bribes. Insurance companies say its only a matter of time before someone detonates a nuclear device in New York and your attitude is that we shouldn't do anything. You need to face reality.
Iteresting theory, but I doubt the $0.25 an hour makes up for the cost of the internet bandwidth the phone company must pay for. At $0.25, you need to be online over 40 hours a month to break the $10 barrier, which is the cheapest an ISP charges in the US. Maybe, Egpyt's getting a great deal on internet bandwidth, but it's more likely other phone users are ultimately paying the internet expenses incurred by the phione company, especially if the number of internet users is small.
I agree with your first point, but it's not the consumers right to usurp the law because they don't like the exclusive contracts that record producers have with artists. Instead artists should strive for contracts with multiple producers, so that the producers can compete in price for identical media. This is unlikely though, given that it's hard enough for a band to get signed by even one label.
As to the second point, the cost to the producer is the same regardless of the law. The law guarantees, however, that only people who pay for the info gain access to it. So if Im buying Photoshop, which is used by millions of people, I only pay $500 a copy. However, if I use EDA CAD software, which is used by few, I pay $1000000 a year for the software. Piracy cuts into profits and is ultimately paid by the consumer. Also, you cant judge the DMCA's effectiveness by looking at media costs since, good or bad, it's designed to prevent theft in the future, as bandwidth increase and more peole have their computer plugged into their entertainment center. I don't know anyone who has this setup currently.
The music inducstry is all about content. the CD is just a cheap medium ($0.50) to distribute the content. When it was invented back in the 80s, no one envvsioned peer to peer file sharing, so they thought it was a safe way to distribute music with a one time high licensing fee ($15). Of course none of this is in writing, but that's the mentality. Now that peer to peer sharing is wide spread, they're worried about still getting their $16 from everyone rather than 1 in 1 million people. The service they provide is not obsolete. They sign the bands, pay for studio time, promote the bands, buy radio time, etc. These are expenses that must be incurred to produce the next Britney Spears. It doesn't just happen. It's manufactured. Then, once they make someone popular, they rake in the money. I could record some tracks and try to share them to become popular myself with todays technology. Even if I was good, though, no one would download my stuff because no one knows who I am. Just because you can copy data, doesn't make it morally acceptable, amymore than buying a book from Borders, photocopying it at work, and then returning it is morrally acceptable. It's still theft, even if the incremental cost is 0
If Linux doesn't support the Intel feature, then nothing has changed. If they use it to help prevent viruses, that a good thing, right? If you're using Windows and you don't like a particular new drm file format for movies, music, etc. boycott it. If Windows won't let you run your old cd ripping software, boycott Windows, and use Linux instead.
Apple will support palladium too. Otherwise they will be left behind when everyone else is downloading movies from blockbuster, and you find out they don't support mac because they're worried about movie piracy
Where's this bias? All both articles are saying is that MS implemented a patch to comply with a govt. ruling. None claim anything elese except possibly in the title of the BBC article.
So basically in Egypt, the majority of people, who do not have computers, pay for the internet through normal phone usage, assuming they have phones. This must be true if there is no difference in the phone rate whether you're making a local call or using the internet. Why should people not using the internet provide cheap access for the minority who do? Also, as more people get computers in Egypt, won't the cost of phone service go up as more bandwidth is tied up. Incidentally, we do this in the US. We all pay a surcharge on our phone bills so schools can get cheap T1 access.
If you look at a x86 microinstruction, it probably looks a lot like a powerpc instruction, and is executed in a similar manner. Now, Im not familiar with the IA32 instruction set, but I would imagine by the time it was designed it occurred to the architects that these microinstructions would make good instructions. So, if you have this set of instructions and a set of hardware similar to that of a PowerPC, You get similar performance at the same clock rate. Hard to get into performance specifics without running code traces through a processor and collecting statistics for CPI, number of instructions the compiler produced, cache hit percentages, how many pipes are being used on average, etc. BTW, you might as well throw out the textbook definition of CISC in regard to an x86 processor, because people simply do NOT design processors that way anymore.
Public Sector employees pay taxes on money they received from other taxpayers. Therefore, if everyone is a public sector employee, there will not be enough money to pay the salaries of the public sector employees unless the government keeps going deeper into debt or the employees pay 100% tax.
By nature, any consumer wants what he consumes for free. Also, a producer wants to charge an infinite amount for that being consumed. In a capitalist system, the two reach an agreement on a price. If you don't have a system to protect the producer from theft, he must charge more to the consumer to make up for lost items. A lock on a door is one such measure. However, a clever thief can pick a lock, so a system of laws against theft and suitable punishments is also necessary to help protect the producer, so he doesn't have the added expense due to theft. This protects the consumer as well, since he ultimately pays this expense. Similarly copyright and IP law protects comsumers because it helps keeps the price down. If only one person on the planet both a Metallica CD and shared it with everyone, the cost to produce the music on the CD would be divided by 1 instead of 1000000, and let me tell you, studio time is expensive. The person may have to pay $1000000 for the cd. This information consumer is hurt. Im not saying the DMCA in its current form is good legislation, but I am saying copyright holders need protection from theft, which benefits consumers.
Since the public sector doesn't produce anything, but instead provides services for the country, if everyone worked in the public sector, there would be no one left to pay these people's salaries. Although this is an extreme example, it does point out the cost incurred by taxpayers in supporting people who work in the public sector.
Believe me, they do piepline all this stuff. Out of order retirement of instructions is not uncommon, even in RISC processors these days. There is a performance hit do to the extra logic required for all the goofy IA-32 instructions they still need to support, but everything is still pipelined. Of course there is a performance hit due to the extra logic, which is why you'll get 10%-20% better performance out of a PowerPC chip with a similar microarchitecture clocked at the same frequency, since the PowerPC is a cleaner architecture.
If you believe modern x86 code runs as multiple microcode instructions, you are out of touch. Modern x86 code operates just like RISC code. You get one instruction completion per pipe per cycle, assuming the pipeline is full, just like RISC. There's no way they could compete on performance if they did it any other way. What would be the point of having multiple pipepines if each pipeline took many cycles to finish an instruction. When, you have millions of transistors to play with, the lines between CISC and RISC become very blurred. Just because a processor is a CISC processor, doesn't mean it operates the way they taught you in your intro class in college. It's just not that cut and dried. Basically the CPI of an x86 processor is probably about the same as a PowerPC. Therefore, it just be about as easy to write an efficient emulator on either platform.
Re:Americans throw away freedom for capitalism
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
So you're are saying that my company, whose value is based almost exclusively on its IP, is worth nothing because we don't own our data? So if someone hacks into are system and releases our data to the public, we should have no legal recourse? I keep hearing the phrase "Information wants to be free". But whoever came up with that quote realyy means "Consumers want information to be free. Producers want information to cost an infinte amount." If you force information to be free, you destroy incentive for creating new information. This will bring innovation to a standstill. There's no such thing as mass conciousness. Only a large number of individuals who are concious. The purpose of govt. should be to protect the rights of individuals. You do not have the right to another person's labor without negotiating some sort of agreement with that person. Information is tangible, especially when stored in books or as data.
When MS kills a company, efvery one cries out in outrage. Why does Apple's monopolistic practices not get such scrutiny. Instead you say "The clones were killed because the cloners were licensed so they would create products that augmented Apple's offerings, but they instead went for the jugular and directly competed with Apple's offerings. Apple killed them in self-defense." Pretty weak agrument for someone so self assured as to say "Please refrain from posting in the future if you don't have a fucking clue as to what you're talking about." You probably thought MacOS 9 was a good operationg system too, I'm sure. Sun suses the same BS arguement about tight hardware/software integration too. Linux will kill them eventually. If Apple doesn't change its practices to support x86, it will never have more than a 5% market share.
Re:Well, I guess that's how Fascism takes root....
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
You forgot to mention Gore trying to get overseas votes thrown out over a minor technicality.
What Bush is doing is nothing new. FDR, a demcrat, also used military tribunals during WWII.
Re:Americans throw away freedom for capitalism
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
How can I write something you own? That staement doesn't make sense. Do you mean plagiarize something I own, i.e. I own a copyrighted work and you write a copy of it word for word? Maybe that is censorship, but now you're relying on the negative connotation of the word censorship to carry your arguement. Hah, the negative connotation of plagiarism should cancel that out (assuming I can spell plagiarism correctly anyway)!
Apple will never release MacOS of x86 unless the powerpc architecture dies. This is because apple is more interested in making money than in providing a cheap mac solution for mac users. They do this by maintaining a monopoly on mac hardware, so they can charge as much money as they can get away with without forcing mac users to switch to pcs. That is why Steve Jobs killed the mac clone industry. He realized Apple could make more money as a monopoly.
"However, it is generally well-known and accepted fact that it is easier to write an emulator that runs on a RISC machine than a CISC one, and it is quite obvious to anyone who is familiar with the emulation scene that the PPC and x86 are good at different things, and one of the things that the PPC really shines at is emulation."
What? Quote your source. That makes no sense. Since both the x86 and PPC architectures are more powerful than the 68000 architecture. It should be equally easy to emulate x86 on either platform. x86 uses a risc core now, BTW. Just because they support older CISC technology, doesn't mean they don't use RISC techniques in their more modern design.
"This will become blatantly obvious if you consider that there are multiple, at least three, separately developed programs-- one of which is open source-- which emulate an x86 PC on a PPC Macintosh. There are, however, no extant PPC Macintosh emulators for the x86 PC."
There are no mac emulators for x86 because there is not sufficient demand for such a thing. Most mac software is also available for pc. However, most pc software is not available for mac, making it a much more profitable endeavor. If you understand Turing machine theory, then you'll realize there's no reason why either processor can't emulate eachother's instruction set.
I think a better analogy than Skakel is this. Java, small newcommer, got in a boxing ring with a 300 lb MS monster. When he started getting the crap beaten out of him, he went to the ref and asked for special privileges, saying, it's not fair that I have to fight this 300 lb giant, expecting the ref to throw the fight since he's the little guy. Unfortuneately for him, the govt., I mean the ref, takes too long to decide anything, otherwise he would have gotten a break. The ref tends to side against the monopoly, I mean bigger opponent, in these types of matches.
Slashdot Mirror
The innocent people who died in Afghanistan are not victims of the US. The US has a right to defend itself when attacked. The Afghan govt is responsible for the loss of life in Afghanistan by harboring the terrorist organization that attacked the US. The were well paid by al queda for their support. The Taliban bears the responsibility for those lost lives. Omar's palace was paid for by their blood as well as al queda money. The US is no more to blame for loss of life in Afghanistan than the allies in WWII are responsble for the loss of innocent German lives. If you have a problem with the US govt. take it up with them. Killing 3000 civilians in NYC doesn't solve anything
What, so we shouldn't have done anything in Afghanistan? It an attitude like that that will result in another catastrophe like 9/11. You cannot have peace at any cost, especially when your enemies motives are irrational and not espoused by the majority of people in the religion for which they claim justifies their actions. Civilian deaths are inevitable in war. The Afghan govt. is responsible for their deaths for giving the terrorists shelter in Afghanistan. Omar paid for his palace with their blood as well as terrorist bribes. Insurance companies say its only a matter of time before someone detonates a nuclear device in New York and your attitude is that we shouldn't do anything. You need to face reality.
Iteresting theory, but I doubt the $0.25 an hour makes up for the cost of the internet bandwidth the phone company must pay for. At $0.25, you need to be online over 40 hours a month to break the $10 barrier, which is the cheapest an ISP charges in the US. Maybe, Egpyt's getting a great deal on internet bandwidth, but it's more likely other phone users are ultimately paying the internet expenses incurred by the phione company, especially if the number of internet users is small.
I agree with your first point, but it's not the consumers right to usurp the law because they don't like the exclusive contracts that record producers have with artists. Instead artists should strive for contracts with multiple producers, so that the producers can compete in price for identical media. This is unlikely though, given that it's hard enough for a band to get signed by even one label. As to the second point, the cost to the producer is the same regardless of the law. The law guarantees, however, that only people who pay for the info gain access to it. So if Im buying Photoshop, which is used by millions of people, I only pay $500 a copy. However, if I use EDA CAD software, which is used by few, I pay $1000000 a year for the software. Piracy cuts into profits and is ultimately paid by the consumer. Also, you cant judge the DMCA's effectiveness by looking at media costs since, good or bad, it's designed to prevent theft in the future, as bandwidth increase and more peole have their computer plugged into their entertainment center. I don't know anyone who has this setup currently.
The music inducstry is all about content. the CD is just a cheap medium ($0.50) to distribute the content. When it was invented back in the 80s, no one envvsioned peer to peer file sharing, so they thought it was a safe way to distribute music with a one time high licensing fee ($15). Of course none of this is in writing, but that's the mentality. Now that peer to peer sharing is wide spread, they're worried about still getting their $16 from everyone rather than 1 in 1 million people. The service they provide is not obsolete. They sign the bands, pay for studio time, promote the bands, buy radio time, etc. These are expenses that must be incurred to produce the next Britney Spears. It doesn't just happen. It's manufactured. Then, once they make someone popular, they rake in the money. I could record some tracks and try to share them to become popular myself with todays technology. Even if I was good, though, no one would download my stuff because no one knows who I am. Just because you can copy data, doesn't make it morally acceptable, amymore than buying a book from Borders, photocopying it at work, and then returning it is morrally acceptable. It's still theft, even if the incremental cost is 0
I was just stating my assumption, i.e. that Egyptians have phones. You're reading way too much of your own bias into my post.
If Linux doesn't support the Intel feature, then nothing has changed. If they use it to help prevent viruses, that a good thing, right? If you're using Windows and you don't like a particular new drm file format for movies, music, etc. boycott it. If Windows won't let you run your old cd ripping software, boycott Windows, and use Linux instead.
Apple will support palladium too. Otherwise they will be left behind when everyone else is downloading movies from blockbuster, and you find out they don't support mac because they're worried about movie piracy
Where's this bias? All both articles are saying is that MS implemented a patch to comply with a govt. ruling. None claim anything elese except possibly in the title of the BBC article.
The BBC article didn't seem biased in either direction, except maybe in the title.
So basically in Egypt, the majority of people, who do not have computers, pay for the internet through normal phone usage, assuming they have phones. This must be true if there is no difference in the phone rate whether you're making a local call or using the internet. Why should people not using the internet provide cheap access for the minority who do? Also, as more people get computers in Egypt, won't the cost of phone service go up as more bandwidth is tied up. Incidentally, we do this in the US. We all pay a surcharge on our phone bills so schools can get cheap T1 access.
If you look at a x86 microinstruction, it probably looks a lot like a powerpc instruction, and is executed in a similar manner. Now, Im not familiar with the IA32 instruction set, but I would imagine by the time it was designed it occurred to the architects that these microinstructions would make good instructions. So, if you have this set of instructions and a set of hardware similar to that of a PowerPC, You get similar performance at the same clock rate. Hard to get into performance specifics without running code traces through a processor and collecting statistics for CPI, number of instructions the compiler produced, cache hit percentages, how many pipes are being used on average, etc. BTW, you might as well throw out the textbook definition of CISC in regard to an x86 processor, because people simply do NOT design processors that way anymore.
Public Sector employees pay taxes on money they received from other taxpayers. Therefore, if everyone is a public sector employee, there will not be enough money to pay the salaries of the public sector employees unless the government keeps going deeper into debt or the employees pay 100% tax.
By nature, any consumer wants what he consumes for free. Also, a producer wants to charge an infinite amount for that being consumed. In a capitalist system, the two reach an agreement on a price. If you don't have a system to protect the producer from theft, he must charge more to the consumer to make up for lost items. A lock on a door is one such measure. However, a clever thief can pick a lock, so a system of laws against theft and suitable punishments is also necessary to help protect the producer, so he doesn't have the added expense due to theft. This protects the consumer as well, since he ultimately pays this expense. Similarly copyright and IP law protects comsumers because it helps keeps the price down. If only one person on the planet both a Metallica CD and shared it with everyone, the cost to produce the music on the CD would be divided by 1 instead of 1000000, and let me tell you, studio time is expensive. The person may have to pay $1000000 for the cd. This information consumer is hurt. Im not saying the DMCA in its current form is good legislation, but I am saying copyright holders need protection from theft, which benefits consumers.
Since the public sector doesn't produce anything, but instead provides services for the country, if everyone worked in the public sector, there would be no one left to pay these people's salaries. Although this is an extreme example, it does point out the cost incurred by taxpayers in supporting people who work in the public sector.
Yet another example of poor moderation on slashdot. I get called a troll for posting a dissenting opinion.
Believe me, they do piepline all this stuff. Out of order retirement of instructions is not uncommon, even in RISC processors these days. There is a performance hit do to the extra logic required for all the goofy IA-32 instructions they still need to support, but everything is still pipelined. Of course there is a performance hit due to the extra logic, which is why you'll get 10%-20% better performance out of a PowerPC chip with a similar microarchitecture clocked at the same frequency, since the PowerPC is a cleaner architecture.
If you believe modern x86 code runs as multiple microcode instructions, you are out of touch. Modern x86 code operates just like RISC code. You get one instruction completion per pipe per cycle, assuming the pipeline is full, just like RISC. There's no way they could compete on performance if they did it any other way. What would be the point of having multiple pipepines if each pipeline took many cycles to finish an instruction. When, you have millions of transistors to play with, the lines between CISC and RISC become very blurred. Just because a processor is a CISC processor, doesn't mean it operates the way they taught you in your intro class in college. It's just not that cut and dried. Basically the CPI of an x86 processor is probably about the same as a PowerPC. Therefore, it just be about as easy to write an efficient emulator on either platform.
So you're are saying that my company, whose value is based almost exclusively on its IP, is worth nothing because we don't own our data? So if someone hacks into are system and releases our data to the public, we should have no legal recourse? I keep hearing the phrase "Information wants to be free". But whoever came up with that quote realyy means "Consumers want information to be free. Producers want information to cost an infinte amount." If you force information to be free, you destroy incentive for creating new information. This will bring innovation to a standstill. There's no such thing as mass conciousness. Only a large number of individuals who are concious. The purpose of govt. should be to protect the rights of individuals. You do not have the right to another person's labor without negotiating some sort of agreement with that person. Information is tangible, especially when stored in books or as data.
When MS kills a company, efvery one cries out in outrage. Why does Apple's monopolistic practices not get such scrutiny. Instead you say "The clones were killed because the cloners were licensed so they would create products that augmented Apple's offerings, but they instead went for the jugular and directly competed with Apple's offerings. Apple killed them in self-defense." Pretty weak agrument for someone so self assured as to say "Please refrain from posting in the future if you don't have a fucking clue as to what you're talking about." You probably thought MacOS 9 was a good operationg system too, I'm sure. Sun suses the same BS arguement about tight hardware/software integration too. Linux will kill them eventually. If Apple doesn't change its practices to support x86, it will never have more than a 5% market share.
You forgot to mention Gore trying to get overseas votes thrown out over a minor technicality. What Bush is doing is nothing new. FDR, a demcrat, also used military tribunals during WWII.
How can I write something you own? That staement doesn't make sense. Do you mean plagiarize something I own, i.e. I own a copyrighted work and you write a copy of it word for word? Maybe that is censorship, but now you're relying on the negative connotation of the word censorship to carry your arguement. Hah, the negative connotation of plagiarism should cancel that out (assuming I can spell plagiarism correctly anyway)!
Apple will never release MacOS of x86 unless the powerpc architecture dies. This is because apple is more interested in making money than in providing a cheap mac solution for mac users. They do this by maintaining a monopoly on mac hardware, so they can charge as much money as they can get away with without forcing mac users to switch to pcs. That is why Steve Jobs killed the mac clone industry. He realized Apple could make more money as a monopoly.
"However, it is generally well-known and accepted fact that it is easier to write an emulator that runs on a RISC machine than a CISC one, and it is quite obvious to anyone who is familiar with the emulation scene that the PPC and x86 are good at different things, and one of the things that the PPC really shines at is emulation." What? Quote your source. That makes no sense. Since both the x86 and PPC architectures are more powerful than the 68000 architecture. It should be equally easy to emulate x86 on either platform. x86 uses a risc core now, BTW. Just because they support older CISC technology, doesn't mean they don't use RISC techniques in their more modern design. "This will become blatantly obvious if you consider that there are multiple, at least three, separately developed programs-- one of which is open source-- which emulate an x86 PC on a PPC Macintosh. There are, however, no extant PPC Macintosh emulators for the x86 PC." There are no mac emulators for x86 because there is not sufficient demand for such a thing. Most mac software is also available for pc. However, most pc software is not available for mac, making it a much more profitable endeavor. If you understand Turing machine theory, then you'll realize there's no reason why either processor can't emulate eachother's instruction set.
I think a better analogy than Skakel is this. Java, small newcommer, got in a boxing ring with a 300 lb MS monster. When he started getting the crap beaten out of him, he went to the ref and asked for special privileges, saying, it's not fair that I have to fight this 300 lb giant, expecting the ref to throw the fight since he's the little guy. Unfortuneately for him, the govt., I mean the ref, takes too long to decide anything, otherwise he would have gotten a break. The ref tends to side against the monopoly, I mean bigger opponent, in these types of matches.