A 17" LCD is a lot bigger than a 17" CRT. With LCDs, the inches refer to the size of the screen, all of which is viewable. With CRTs, the inches refer to the size of the screen--some of which is covered by the casing and made unusable by the fact that the tube curves at the very edges. Combine that with the fact that LCDs are sharper, so that 1600x1200 is actually readable on a 17" screen, and brighter, and don't flicker--basically, look for a CRT that matches the quality of a 17" LCD and you're looking for a 19" CRT designed for very demanding users.
None of this changes the fact that people who simply want a cheap monitor and not a good one will buy a CRT, but then, the differences between Macs and Wintels don't cause people to shell out the cash for a Mac, either.
Now I'll be modded down by Wintel advocates for indicating that Macs are better, and by Mac zealots for indicating that Macs are more expensive. While I do believe that Macs are better, let me qualify both implications by saying that they're perceived that way on both counts, and if you accept at least hypothetically that common wisdom is correct, the analogy stands.
That's obviously a picture of me, taken without my permission. I therefore claim the copyright to it. However, I will generously give you a portion of the proceeds (yet to be determined, and to be determined at my sole discretion) if it wins.
No, the last year and a half worth of issues of Popular Science magazine said that. And they didn't really say today was the day, they just said to do it, and to not renew my subscription besides.
That's not protection against reverse-engineering, it's protection against a particular method of reverse-engineering that breaks copyright as part of the process. It may be true that to reverse-engineer a piece of software, you need to copy the software several times and mess around with it, but for a chip I don't see how that's necessary (or even feasible).
As far as the legitimacy of the court case you cite, I also have to make a copy of the program in my "random-access memory" in order to execute it. Are they saying that I violate their copyright by using the software that I paid for? Oh well...assuming you didn't fabricate the case, it's not your fault that the premises of its decision were fabricated by lawyers, so this paragraph doesn't really support my argument of what is legal, it's just about what should be legal.
Here's the deal: You can choose option X or option Y. If you choose option Y, and anyone else chooses option X, you lose $100. If you choose option X, and anyone else chooses option Y, the money lost by the Y-ers is divvied up among the X-ers. If everyone chooses option Y, everyone makes $1000. If everyone chooses option X, everyone goes out of business.
We played a little game like this one day in some class I was in back in high school, except of course with abstract "points" instead of money. The class was divided into several teams of four people each. Each round, the teams would discuss together what they should choose, then each team would discuss amongst its members what to choose, and then each team would write down its decision and they would be revealed. At my insistence, my team chose X every single round. At the end of the game, every team had scored below zero, but FWIW, my team won.
So, if the analogy holds, Lexmark will go out of business along with the others, but they'll lose the least money in the end.
As an exercise for the reader, please propose suggested packaging disclosures for popular PC products such as Windows XP and Office...
List all known bugs in the version in the box. Any bugs later found to have been known at the time of shipping the product will result in fines to the manufacturer, a portion of which will be distributed among affected users.
List all known bugs in previous versions, along with the date of discovery and the date the patch was issued. If the list is too long to fit on the packaging, give the number of bugs found per previous version and the average time between bug discovery and patch.
Disclose the End User License Agreement to which the user will agree by installing the software. No cop-out for this one; it must fit on the box in size-12 font or larger. No "For complete information, mail request to..." allowed either.
Copyright doesn't protect against reverse-engineering. It's really not meant to protect any kind of engineering in the first place. Why can't would-be competitors just make workalike cartridges without stealing the code? Or is it patented as well?
Can't they write anything more extensive than this?
Of course not; it's Popular Science. They write in-depth about some new fighter plane or bomber or tank or aircraft carrier with almost every single issue. When they find something actually interesting like this, they write a little blurb, 150 words or less, and stick it somewhere no one will find it unless, like me, they read magazines cover to cover. That's why I'm not going to renew my subscription. (A note for those who will inevitably wonder why I have a subscription: It wasn't always like that.)
Popular War Machines, maybe, or Popular Aggression--they don't deserve the title Popular Science any more.
Well, let's see. The more you tend to the right side of the political spectrum, the more you're pro-business, while the more you tend to the left the more you're pro-individual.
The Republican party is to the right of the Democratic party, so in a relative sense, you're correct. However, anyone who is substantially left of center will consider both parties to be a bit conservative. The Republicans are about an inch to the right of the "center", with the Democrats an inch to the left, while the "center" itself has been shifting further and further to the right in recent years.
Call me a radical, but Democrats on the whole seem extremely conservative, considering.
...that the hardware "doesn't make it more secure" is well-made. The extra chips for the Trusted Computing platform just contain extra instructions to execute--something that can be done exactly as well in software. The only difference with doing it in hardware is that it can't be updated, so that if a flaw is found, you're stuck with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but the response in question was to the original poster's .sig, not his comment. So, it was off-topic either way.
Now, if he had somehow related it to what the actual comment was, it would have been on topic.
Damn! Somebody mod that bastard +1 Informative for spoiling my fun.
Still a good joke, though.
Annoy, yes, but you don't necessarily want to kill them.
Sort of today, sort of president, sort of United States, sort of George Bush, or sort of news?
Please to be specifying. I think any one of them could fit.
A 17" LCD is a lot bigger than a 17" CRT. With LCDs, the inches refer to the size of the screen, all of which is viewable. With CRTs, the inches refer to the size of the screen--some of which is covered by the casing and made unusable by the fact that the tube curves at the very edges. Combine that with the fact that LCDs are sharper, so that 1600x1200 is actually readable on a 17" screen, and brighter, and don't flicker--basically, look for a CRT that matches the quality of a 17" LCD and you're looking for a 19" CRT designed for very demanding users.
None of this changes the fact that people who simply want a cheap monitor and not a good one will buy a CRT, but then, the differences between Macs and Wintels don't cause people to shell out the cash for a Mac, either.
Now I'll be modded down by Wintel advocates for indicating that Macs are better, and by Mac zealots for indicating that Macs are more expensive. While I do believe that Macs are better, let me qualify both implications by saying that they're perceived that way on both counts, and if you accept at least hypothetically that common wisdom is correct, the analogy stands.
That's obviously a picture of me, taken without my permission. I therefore claim the copyright to it. However, I will generously give you a portion of the proceeds (yet to be determined, and to be determined at my sole discretion) if it wins.
I'll proxy. Email: thurtell at umich dot edu.
That would be an awesome one. It's incredibly crude, and disgusting, but it captures the spirit of slashdot forums. (Emphasis added.)
I would have said "therefore".
Cause only an American would be smart enough to figure that one out?
Sorry, your cheap America-bashing left you wide open for some cheap American foreigner-bashing.
The patent already as for me thinks of that it is in machine translation and high.
Who's high? The translation engine? That's what it sounds like--or shrooming.
The smell progress of the Ahh being sweet!
Yeah, "Ahh!!" is right. That, or "Argh!" or other frustrated mumblings.
That was pretty good until it got to his .sig.
In what language is baby == drinks?
No, the last year and a half worth of issues of Popular Science magazine said that. And they didn't really say today was the day, they just said to do it, and to not renew my subscription besides.
That's not protection against reverse-engineering, it's protection against a particular method of reverse-engineering that breaks copyright as part of the process. It may be true that to reverse-engineer a piece of software, you need to copy the software several times and mess around with it, but for a chip I don't see how that's necessary (or even feasible).
As far as the legitimacy of the court case you cite, I also have to make a copy of the program in my "random-access memory" in order to execute it. Are they saying that I violate their copyright by using the software that I paid for? Oh well...assuming you didn't fabricate the case, it's not your fault that the premises of its decision were fabricated by lawyers, so this paragraph doesn't really support my argument of what is legal, it's just about what should be legal.
It sounds like something out of game theory.
Here's the deal: You can choose option X or option Y. If you choose option Y, and anyone else chooses option X, you lose $100. If you choose option X, and anyone else chooses option Y, the money lost by the Y-ers is divvied up among the X-ers. If everyone chooses option Y, everyone makes $1000. If everyone chooses option X, everyone goes out of business.
We played a little game like this one day in some class I was in back in high school, except of course with abstract "points" instead of money. The class was divided into several teams of four people each. Each round, the teams would discuss together what they should choose, then each team would discuss amongst its members what to choose, and then each team would write down its decision and they would be revealed. At my insistence, my team chose X every single round. At the end of the game, every team had scored below zero, but FWIW, my team won.
So, if the analogy holds, Lexmark will go out of business along with the others, but they'll lose the least money in the end.
Any more ideas?
Copyright doesn't protect against reverse-engineering. It's really not meant to protect any kind of engineering in the first place. Why can't would-be competitors just make workalike cartridges without stealing the code? Or is it patented as well?
Can't they write anything more extensive than this?
Of course not; it's Popular Science. They write in-depth about some new fighter plane or bomber or tank or aircraft carrier with almost every single issue. When they find something actually interesting like this, they write a little blurb, 150 words or less, and stick it somewhere no one will find it unless, like me, they read magazines cover to cover. That's why I'm not going to renew my subscription. (A note for those who will inevitably wonder why I have a subscription: It wasn't always like that.)
Popular War Machines, maybe, or Popular Aggression--they don't deserve the title Popular Science any more.
Well, let's see. The more you tend to the right side of the political spectrum, the more you're pro-business, while the more you tend to the left the more you're pro-individual.
The Republican party is to the right of the Democratic party, so in a relative sense, you're correct. However, anyone who is substantially left of center will consider both parties to be a bit conservative. The Republicans are about an inch to the right of the "center", with the Democrats an inch to the left, while the "center" itself has been shifting further and further to the right in recent years.
Call me a radical, but Democrats on the whole seem extremely conservative, considering.
I like the comparison of the /. effect to being thrown from 3 stories up onto concrete. Very appropriate.
IBM makes the PPC 970. You always have the option of getting a Mac if you don't want to put up with MS's games.
...that the hardware "doesn't make it more secure" is well-made. The extra chips for the Trusted Computing platform just contain extra instructions to execute--something that can be done exactly as well in software. The only difference with doing it in hardware is that it can't be updated, so that if a flaw is found, you're stuck with it.
+1 Informative and -1 Troll so far.
Does nobody besides me think these altered "reprints" are +1 Funny?
Did you post that to prove that not all "Offtopic" mods are unfair?
Next, someone will mod you up +1 Informative.
And someone will metamod that moderator as +1 Funny.
Plus, his fellow coders are a petty, snide-commenting bunch
/*Yeah, sure, this code will work. *snicker*/
Forgive me, but when I read that, I thought this: