"The strongest proponents for a permanent ban want to make sure that all access technologies -- from phone lines to DSL to cable modems -- get equal freedom from taxation."
Given the amount of taxes and fees I pay to the govt. for phone service, and given that phone and data service will be indistinguishable from a network perspective sometime soon, I doubt the govt. going to give up this cash cow without a fight.
The majority of important work in a book is the actual writing by the author. Other costs such as printing are incidental, and are becoming even less of a factor with digital reproduction. Therefore, it is even more important now then ever to protect copyright. An author needs compensation to pursue his trade. Copyright didn't originate with feudalism, but as an attack on feudalism. It was the merchants and craftmans that formed the middle class which helped destroy feudalism, a system in which land was owned arbitrariyl by aristocrats, who forced peasants to till the land and took most of the profits, distributing a small amount to the peasants to keep them alive. So familiar. Socialism is not much different than feudalism. A small minority (the rulling class or govt.) comtrols all the wealth, and doles out enough for the proletariat to keep them alive. Albolishing copyright is socialism, a concept where the public automatically owns the work of an author. Supporting such a concept is supporting theft, and hinders creativity and productivity by forcing the talented people to support themseves by means other than by using their real talent.
"So what does the 20+ years' lineage of the SPARC architecture represent, if not Sun's ability to successfully design, implement, market and deploy processors? Hello? McFly?"
If they're so successful, why does a $2000 Opteron system outperform a $10000 Sun system? SPARC has fallen behind on the performance curve, and yet they still charge a fortune for their machines. They are surviving only because people still need legacy apps, but as more stuff is ported to Linux, they're losing that market too. They have no choice but to compete in the x86 market since they have no better solution currently, either in performance or cost.
The reason people use polysilicon for the gate now is so they can create the gate before they they do source and drain implants. This way the device is self-aligned, since the gate is part of the source-drain mask, producing a device with right amount of gate and source/drain overlap. When they created the source/drain regions using diffusion, it required high temperature, which melts metal. Now, with ion implanting, they probably can avoid high temperature steps after the metal gate creation to avoid melting the metal.
Yes, the type of metal is important due to the workfunction of the metal. This determines the potential interactions between the semiconductor and the metal, which affects things like device threshold voltage.
" If the system allows copying to a limit of 3 machines, like the Apple iTunes DRM, that wouldn't be unreasonable.
Yup, and 640k should be enough for anybody."
I'd hate to see your score on a logic test. a. I threw out 3 because that's the number apple uses, not the number the FCC would necessarily use. b. Because they set a number at day x doesn't mean the number can't change at some later date y. c. Your quote is taken out of context, so your intended meaning isn't even accurate, and is much more like my intended meaning.
"But since the FCC has gone the wrong way, we need to vote with our wallets. No broadcast flag enabled equipment for me. As long as most consumers go the same way, DTV is DEAD, and then we can get the spectrum back for much better uses."
You can't vote with your wallet. The FCC is the govt., not a corporation. They're mandating all tvs have digital tuners in the next few years, so at that point, your only choice is not to buy a tv at all, unless you want to break the law and buy a tuner that doesn't follow the broadcast flag rules.
that he can't see a way for RedHat to make any real money supporting Linux as a desktop operating system. This is much different than what he actually said, which I believe is for the most part untrue.
"MPAA advances the use of a redistribution control system which would limit the redistribution of digital broadcast television content, but not restrict consumers from copying programming for their personal use."
I don't see what's unreasonable about this. If the system allows copying to a limit of 3 machines, like the Apple iTunes DRM, that wouldn't be unreasonable. That seems like the direction in which things are headed.
" I really do feel bad for the RIAA members (not the RIAA itself). They are stuck having to eventually face the fact that they are 80% of the way to extinction. Can anyone realy imagine a future 50 years down the road where anyone is interested in buying a piece of plastic with music on it?"
Saying a record label relies on cds to survive is like saying banks rely on paper money to survive. Banks make money by loaning it and collecting interest. Record labels make money by investing in bands that they think people will want to listen to. As long as there a fair copyright laws, record labels will be able to make money.
from the article:"David Goldsmith, director of research for @stake, a security company that found four of the vulnerabilities, confirmed that Apple said it wasn't going to patch the flaws in earlier versions of the software.
"In my initial conversations with them, they said they weren't going to fix 10.2, but I wouldn't be surprised if they change that," he said. "
The last line above is the most important. If Apple users defend Apple, they're stuck upgrading, and paying the $129. If they complain about it, however, the @stake guy thinks Apple will change its mind. So rather than defending Apple, you should start complaining to Apple, if you want patches to older OSs.
"Maybe if everyone had these, it would lead to smarter intersections."
Acrually if everyone had one of these, each person would press it at every intersection. The result is similar to a 4-way stop sign, since the light would change for every car.
I'm not against all forms of regulation, but I believe that attacking MS is an abuse of power since the govt. did nothing to help MS reach its position. Most regulated monopolies in the US were created by the govt. in the first place, because they didn't like the idea of having multiple companies stringing redundant wires for power, phone, etc. That's a shame because with redundant, competitive systems, the consumer would probably be better off. This can be seen in the low cost of long distance, where there are multiple networks (Sprint, Verizon, AT@T, etc.). However, all the power problems are due to a regulated single grid system that nobody is motivated to improve because of lack of profit. I think there's real competiton in the OS market, and Linux will win on its merit anyway. It's unfair to impede MS, however, to achieve this end. Breaking up standard oil was an abuse of power, and regulating MS is just as bad.
copyright and patent enforcement protect a free market in the same way laws against theft protect a free market. There's a difference between free market and anarchy. The govt had nothing to do with making MS a "monopoly".
The difference between the Bell break-up a(not AT@T) nd MS antitrust is that the govt. created the Bell monopoly by only allowing them to run phone lines to residences, so they screwed that up to begin with. The so-called MS monopoly evolved because people decided compatibility was the single most important feature in an OS. Given that Linux is a viable alternative, calling MS a monopoly isn't even an accurate description.
MS never used forced against anyone. They got to where they are because people value compatibility more than anything else when they buy an OS. That what the free market decided. The govt. had no influence in the matter whatsoever, and they have no business interfering. Antitrust legislation is an attack on freedom, and someday, when random companies are suing Linux distributors for bundling applications after MS is long gone, maybe you'll understand that your freedom is also being attacked. Anyway, I'm not going to stoop to your level of name calling. The facts speak for themselves, but you've completely misinterpreted them.
Would you like it if the govt. started dictating terms for Linux and rewriting the GPL? What if the govt. said you can't bundle Mozilla with your distribution? Think about these things before you beat up on MS. They're doomed anyway. Win the fair way. A win against MS using govt. thugs rather than free market is a hollow win that will come back to haunt you some day.
With any paper counting counting system, the error is greater than an all electronic system. What you need is all electronic counting, with paper backup in which a statistically significant sample is taken to verify the electronic count hasn't been tampered with.
Re:Damnit
on
Watching You
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
" When is everyone going to figure out that everything in 1984 isn't coming true?"
People haven't figured out the root cause of 1984 is tyranny, not technology. A free society or or even a mostly free society doesn't have 1984-type problems, because this type of government is interested in protecting the freedom of individuals, not some other agenda. 1984 is progressing far better in N. Korea than in the US despite better technology in the US.
Yes, and they should be subject to the same govt. laws. Saying the FSF has the right to defend copyright, but the RIAA does not, is hypocritical. The motive is irrelevant (That's why we protect the free speech of Nazis, even though we disagree with what they say.)
"It's not hypocritical to promote the freedom of the masses to share and share-alike while also "limiting" a corporations' (composed of a tiny # of individuals) "right" to exploit this goodwill for exclusive gain."
Maybe hypocritical isn't the correct term, but you're putting conditions on freedom. That is a dangerous thing. Once you allow a govt. to put conditions on freedom, what's stopping them from putting conditions on your freedom someday for whatever reason they feel is sufficient. I'm not anti-GPL. I just think people who attack the RIAA and defend the FSF for enforcing copyright are hypocrites. You can't condition a right based on your opinion of who benefits from the right. It's unfair and subject to abuse by the mojority aginast the minority in a democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
"The strongest proponents for a permanent ban want to make sure that all access technologies -- from phone lines to DSL to cable modems -- get equal freedom from taxation."
Given the amount of taxes and fees I pay to the govt. for phone service, and given that phone and data service will be indistinguishable from a network perspective sometime soon, I doubt the govt. going to give up this cash cow without a fight.
"Can I give mine to Linus?"
Not unless he renounce the GPL, which requires copyright. This is what the article wants to abolish.
The majority of important work in a book is the actual writing by the author. Other costs such as printing are incidental, and are becoming even less of a factor with digital reproduction. Therefore, it is even more important now then ever to protect copyright. An author needs compensation to pursue his trade. Copyright didn't originate with feudalism, but as an attack on feudalism. It was the merchants and craftmans that formed the middle class which helped destroy feudalism, a system in which land was owned arbitrariyl by aristocrats, who forced peasants to till the land and took most of the profits, distributing a small amount to the peasants to keep them alive. So familiar. Socialism is not much different than feudalism. A small minority (the rulling class or govt.) comtrols all the wealth, and doles out enough for the proletariat to keep them alive. Albolishing copyright is socialism, a concept where the public automatically owns the work of an author. Supporting such a concept is supporting theft, and hinders creativity and productivity by forcing the talented people to support themseves by means other than by using their real talent.
"So what does the 20+ years' lineage of the SPARC architecture represent, if not Sun's ability to successfully design, implement, market and deploy processors? Hello? McFly?"
If they're so successful, why does a $2000 Opteron system outperform a $10000 Sun system? SPARC has fallen behind on the performance curve, and yet they still charge a fortune for their machines. They are surviving only because people still need legacy apps, but as more stuff is ported to Linux, they're losing that market too. They have no choice but to compete in the x86 market since they have no better solution currently, either in performance or cost.
The reason people use polysilicon for the gate now is so they can create the gate before they they do source and drain implants. This way the device is self-aligned, since the gate is part of the source-drain mask, producing a device with right amount of gate and source/drain overlap. When they created the source/drain regions using diffusion, it required high temperature, which melts metal. Now, with ion implanting, they probably can avoid high temperature steps after the metal gate creation to avoid melting the metal.
Yes, the type of metal is important due to the workfunction of the metal. This determines the potential interactions between the semiconductor and the metal, which affects things like device threshold voltage.
"The BBC story refers to CD single sales, so Mr.McNeill maybe not be quite as right as he thinks, sadly."
Who cares which is outselling the other, as long as the consumer has the option to buy either.
" If the system allows copying to a limit of 3 machines, like the Apple iTunes DRM, that wouldn't be unreasonable. Yup, and 640k should be enough for anybody."
I'd hate to see your score on a logic test. a. I threw out 3 because that's the number apple uses, not the number the FCC would necessarily use. b. Because they set a number at day x doesn't mean the number can't change at some later date y. c. Your quote is taken out of context, so your intended meaning isn't even accurate, and is much more like my intended meaning.
"But since the FCC has gone the wrong way, we need to vote with our wallets. No broadcast flag enabled equipment for me. As long as most consumers go the same way, DTV is DEAD, and then we can get the spectrum back for much better uses."
You can't vote with your wallet. The FCC is the govt., not a corporation. They're mandating all tvs have digital tuners in the next few years, so at that point, your only choice is not to buy a tv at all, unless you want to break the law and buy a tuner that doesn't follow the broadcast flag rules.
that he can't see a way for RedHat to make any real money supporting Linux as a desktop operating system. This is much different than what he actually said, which I believe is for the most part untrue.
"MPAA advances the use of a redistribution control system which would limit the redistribution of digital broadcast television content, but not restrict consumers from copying programming for their personal use."
I don't see what's unreasonable about this. If the system allows copying to a limit of 3 machines, like the Apple iTunes DRM, that wouldn't be unreasonable. That seems like the direction in which things are headed.
" I really do feel bad for the RIAA members (not the RIAA itself). They are stuck having to eventually face the fact that they are 80% of the way to extinction. Can anyone realy imagine a future 50 years down the road where anyone is interested in buying a piece of plastic with music on it?"
Saying a record label relies on cds to survive is like saying banks rely on paper money to survive. Banks make money by loaning it and collecting interest. Record labels make money by investing in bands that they think people will want to listen to. As long as there a fair copyright laws, record labels will be able to make money.
from the article:"David Goldsmith, director of research for @stake, a security company that found four of the vulnerabilities, confirmed that Apple said it wasn't going to patch the flaws in earlier versions of the software. "In my initial conversations with them, they said they weren't going to fix 10.2, but I wouldn't be surprised if they change that," he said. "
The last line above is the most important. If Apple users defend Apple, they're stuck upgrading, and paying the $129. If they complain about it, however, the @stake guy thinks Apple will change its mind. So rather than defending Apple, you should start complaining to Apple, if you want patches to older OSs.
"Maybe if everyone had these, it would lead to smarter intersections."
Acrually if everyone had one of these, each person would press it at every intersection. The result is similar to a 4-way stop sign, since the light would change for every car.
I'm not against all forms of regulation, but I believe that attacking MS is an abuse of power since the govt. did nothing to help MS reach its position. Most regulated monopolies in the US were created by the govt. in the first place, because they didn't like the idea of having multiple companies stringing redundant wires for power, phone, etc. That's a shame because with redundant, competitive systems, the consumer would probably be better off. This can be seen in the low cost of long distance, where there are multiple networks (Sprint, Verizon, AT@T, etc.). However, all the power problems are due to a regulated single grid system that nobody is motivated to improve because of lack of profit. I think there's real competiton in the OS market, and Linux will win on its merit anyway. It's unfair to impede MS, however, to achieve this end. Breaking up standard oil was an abuse of power, and regulating MS is just as bad.
copyright and patent enforcement protect a free market in the same way laws against theft protect a free market. There's a difference between free market and anarchy. The govt had nothing to do with making MS a "monopoly".
The difference between the Bell break-up a(not AT@T) nd MS antitrust is that the govt. created the Bell monopoly by only allowing them to run phone lines to residences, so they screwed that up to begin with. The so-called MS monopoly evolved because people decided compatibility was the single most important feature in an OS. Given that Linux is a viable alternative, calling MS a monopoly isn't even an accurate description.
MS never used forced against anyone. They got to where they are because people value compatibility more than anything else when they buy an OS. That what the free market decided. The govt. had no influence in the matter whatsoever, and they have no business interfering. Antitrust legislation is an attack on freedom, and someday, when random companies are suing Linux distributors for bundling applications after MS is long gone, maybe you'll understand that your freedom is also being attacked. Anyway, I'm not going to stoop to your level of name calling. The facts speak for themselves, but you've completely misinterpreted them.
Monopoly laws are an attack on freedom. Supporting them may hinder Linux in the future, since Linux will eventually surpass MS.
Comparing MS to the mob is ridiculous. MS never pointed a gun at anyone. Monopoly laws are an attack on freedom
Would you like it if the govt. started dictating terms for Linux and rewriting the GPL? What if the govt. said you can't bundle Mozilla with your distribution? Think about these things before you beat up on MS. They're doomed anyway. Win the fair way. A win against MS using govt. thugs rather than free market is a hollow win that will come back to haunt you some day.
With any paper counting counting system, the error is greater than an all electronic system. What you need is all electronic counting, with paper backup in which a statistically significant sample is taken to verify the electronic count hasn't been tampered with.
" When is everyone going to figure out that everything in 1984 isn't coming true?"
People haven't figured out the root cause of 1984 is tyranny, not technology. A free society or or even a mostly free society doesn't have 1984-type problems, because this type of government is interested in protecting the freedom of individuals, not some other agenda. 1984 is progressing far better in N. Korea than in the US despite better technology in the US.
Yes, and they should be subject to the same govt. laws. Saying the FSF has the right to defend copyright, but the RIAA does not, is hypocritical. The motive is irrelevant (That's why we protect the free speech of Nazis, even though we disagree with what they say.)
"It's not hypocritical to promote the freedom of the masses to share and share-alike while also "limiting" a corporations' (composed of a tiny # of individuals) "right" to exploit this goodwill for exclusive gain."
Maybe hypocritical isn't the correct term, but you're putting conditions on freedom. That is a dangerous thing. Once you allow a govt. to put conditions on freedom, what's stopping them from putting conditions on your freedom someday for whatever reason they feel is sufficient. I'm not anti-GPL. I just think people who attack the RIAA and defend the FSF for enforcing copyright are hypocrites. You can't condition a right based on your opinion of who benefits from the right. It's unfair and subject to abuse by the mojority aginast the minority in a democracy.