At least that is a coherent discussion, which I haven't seen elsewhere. But when idiots talk about DRM, they lose contact with reality. Content producers want true end to end DRM for obvious reasons. This just gives them a way to realize that. It can't encumber anything that presently exists. It just allows some new DRM'ed protocol to be developed; one that only works on recent Intel processors.
So what? If you don't like closed content, just don't use it!
Do you know some other way to do it? All graphics cards incorporate "hard-wired DirectX". If you are going to have graphics accelerators, they have to accelerate graphics. You can't meaningfully accelerate blits to frame buffers any faster than they already are. You have to accelerate higher level graphics abstractions. That's all DirectX is - an abstraction of higher level graphics operations. Any software, such as OpenGL, can (and does) tap into the more well chosen of those abstractions.
A large part of what you state is, for want of an elegant and non-insulting term to come to mind, bullshit.
1) Slander is oral defamation. Libel is written defamation.
2) Both apply only to persons. It is impossible to slander a nation or its government. It may be possible to slander corporations, due to connivance between governments and corporations whereby corporations are legislated to have many of the qualities and rights of a person. This is known as the "corporate shield," and is a powerful protection of the officers of a corporation from being sued or held to account, save for blatantly fraudulent dealings.
[There; I suppose you think that is libel against corrupt governments]
3) It is very difficult to get a conviction of either slander or libel where the defamed party is a public figure. Public figures are fair game. Even if Google as a corporation is to be considered a person for these purposes, it is a very public one. As far as the nation of South Korea or its government, give me a break.
4) What you hasten to label slander is actually a well honored tradition called "debate." Honest, if somewhat spirited, debate. It's not even close to being vindictive. My own post is a little more vindictive, but only against yours which is itself vindictive.
5) People commit suicide for all kinds of reasons, and almost always from a complex tapestry of events. I would urge being exceedingly careful about trying to legislate what one may and may not say orally or in writing, including electronic writing, about someone. One person shouting "you big fat dope" one time or a handful of times should not be actionable. Dozens or more people collaborating in repeatedly so yelling may arguably be regarded in certain circumstances as an actionable conspiracy. Be that as it may, there already exist sufficient laws regarding conspiracy, slander, and libel. We don't need any new, targeted, and overly expansive and restrictive laws. I would advise the South Koreans that they didn't need their internet anti-anonymity law, either, but that decision has already been made by their government, until such time as it is repealed (yeah, right - as if rights restrictions are ever repealed anywhere).
Be in good health, but be ye not quite so hasty to condemn debate.
1) A law does not imply causality. 2) Moore's Law does not state that processing power doubles every 2 years. It states that the number of transistors that can be placed reasonably economically on an integrated circuit doubles every 2 years. It's not the same thing.
We already had one really bad backfire in 2008 and there is no evidence it is going to put the Democrats out of commission, although it hurt them pretty bad in 2010.
Yes, and the terms left wing and right wing have become of little value. In fact, their use only obscures the real issues, which are much more complex than a simple one-axis descriptor can hope to deal with.
In your haste to call other people morons, you have revealed your own ignorance.
1) It was NSDAP, not "nasdap."
2) The NSDAP 25 Point Program was formulated by Anton Drexler and Adolf Hitler in 1920 and remained the policy of the Party.
Point 7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. Point 11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery. Point 12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits. Point 13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts). Point 14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries. Point 15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare. Point 16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses... Point 17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land. Point 20. The State is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. Point 21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor...
Those points draw on some key Socialist ideals. Now, the National Socialist German Workers' Party was no more the pure embodiment of socialism than was the Communist Party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But both were undeniably strongly influenced by socialist ideas, and went well beyond simple lip service in name only. To suggest otherwise in the case of one is to get bogged down in pre-conceived false political categorizations.
Wrong. It's not a record for UAV's only; it's a record for unrefuelled flight in a powered vehicle, no matter whether manned or not, and no matter whether heavier than air or lighter than air.
Thank you for your continued interest in what I think is an important line of debate to all, no matter which side they are on.
1) The court ruled that the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress. For some unfathomable reason, internet carriage has failed to be classified as telecommunications. Some "i" has not been dotted somewhere; some "t" not crossed. I don't know why. The FCC could just classify internet carriage as telecommunications. Then that could be litigated. Good luck to Comcast trying to claim that communications over a distance is not telecommunications.
Also; I readily admit I don't know why the litigation stopped at this appeals court; why the appeals court was allowed to be the last word. We have this thing called the "Supreme Court." It must be good for something:-)
2) I would phrase it that a free market, not "true capitalism," needs no government support at all. I doubt anyone can define "true capitalism," but "free market" is self explanatory. That is why I was careful to say that "capitalism as we know it" cannot exist without the connivance of the government.
People who repeatedly bleat "you fail" without any citations to prove their points only weaken their position. I agree with those of your points which make sense, which is about half of them. But telling people who want decent service at a fair price to "find a new [ISP]" or "build your own ISP" is just insulting.
No matter how many times you repeat that the FCC and government bodies don't have the right to regulate this particular capitalist money machine, they clearly do. The FCC could just as easily have come up with a directive which better serves the public. Many pundits thought they would. Maybe Congress will still force them to at some point. If the government can tell me as a restaurant or tavern owner whom I must serve and what conditions I must meet in my dining room and what practices (smoking) I must disallow my patrons, it most certainly can bitch slap AT&T and Comcast into shape. Capitalism as we know it can ONLY exist courtesy of governmental support. Yes, some form of free market can exist absent governmental oversight and regulation, but it wouldn't include the corporations in their present form, their principles by and large protected from legal measures against their actions by the government-provided corporate shield legal system.
Regulation vs freedom is a delicate balance, but one which is grossly, blatantly tipped in the favor of big business and against the public in the US.
I suppose you have the facts to back up your sweeping statement? Because I haven't seen them. I don't know whether a single coal station is more efficient and less polluting than hundreds of thousands of automobile internal combustion engines, or not. The efficiency of the latter has risen in stunning fashion over the years, most particularly in diesel engines and certain new gasoline engine technologies which are very similar to diesel. For the former to replace the latter, you have to account for electric power transformation and transmission losses, losses in charging and discharging vehicle batteries, and losses in vehicle electric motors and associated systems. Unless you have comprehensive data covering end to end efficiencies of both systems, you can't make a valid comparison.
For emissions, current automotive technology is so close to zero level that the difference is void of significance. With today's engine management systems, the idea of engines running in such poor tune that unburned fuel is flying out of the exhaust is so anachronistic as to be a bit humorous to contemplate. I don't regard CO2 as a pollutant, but I am completely willing to allow that it be taken as a consideration. Measuring CO2 release is basically the same as analyzing end-to-end efficiency, anyway.
For efficiency, it may be as you proclaim, but it may not. Appropriate and reliable analysis has to be presented.
I'm not saying the assertion is false; just that it is not acceptable as a mantra.
OK, the thugs in charge of the US want to create an estranged and disenfranchised domestic enemy for some strategic purpose. They will get it. I just hope it surprises them, exceeds their plans, takes them by the throat, strangles them all and kicks the gang of thugs into the sewer where they belong.
On the money. Exactly right. And I think we can see that both political parties have turned against the founding principles of the US. One of them brought us this police state in the form of the nazi-in-clown-suit TSA and DHS, and the other has continued and magnified the policy. We still in possession of our wits DO see the enemy... and he is... you know it.
Oh, do you really think they haven't? Think the economic disasters of the bad lettuce, the bad peanuts, all the other recent disasters, were just unusual accidents?
Slashdot Mirror
A rational person who doesn't like closed content will not use closed content. This has nothing whatsoever to do with using the CPU.
Trouble with comprehension? If he doesn't like the closed content, don't use the closed content. What does that have to do with using the CPU?
Almost all boycotts are quixotic.
At least that is a coherent discussion, which I haven't seen elsewhere. But when idiots talk about DRM, they lose contact with reality. Content producers want true end to end DRM for obvious reasons. This just gives them a way to realize that. It can't encumber anything that presently exists. It just allows some new DRM'ed protocol to be developed; one that only works on recent Intel processors.
So what? If you don't like closed content, just don't use it!
Do you know some other way to do it? All graphics cards incorporate "hard-wired DirectX". If you are going to have graphics accelerators, they have to accelerate graphics. You can't meaningfully accelerate blits to frame buffers any faster than they already are. You have to accelerate higher level graphics abstractions. That's all DirectX is - an abstraction of higher level graphics operations. Any software, such as OpenGL, can (and does) tap into the more well chosen of those abstractions.
What the heck are you babbling about? Do you have the slightest idea?
Parent is insightful and should be mod'ed up. Parent's respondent seems a bit off the wall.
A large part of what you state is, for want of an elegant and non-insulting term to come to mind, bullshit.
1) Slander is oral defamation. Libel is written defamation.
2) Both apply only to persons. It is impossible to slander a nation or its government. It may be possible to slander corporations, due to connivance between governments and corporations whereby corporations are legislated to have many of the qualities and rights of a person. This is known as the "corporate shield," and is a powerful protection of the officers of a corporation from being sued or held to account, save for blatantly fraudulent dealings.
[There; I suppose you think that is libel against corrupt governments]
3) It is very difficult to get a conviction of either slander or libel where the defamed party is a public figure. Public figures are fair game. Even if Google as a corporation is to be considered a person for these purposes, it is a very public one. As far as the nation of South Korea or its government, give me a break.
4) What you hasten to label slander is actually a well honored tradition called "debate." Honest, if somewhat spirited, debate. It's not even close to being vindictive. My own post is a little more vindictive, but only against yours which is itself vindictive.
5) People commit suicide for all kinds of reasons, and almost always from a complex tapestry of events. I would urge being exceedingly careful about trying to legislate what one may and may not say orally or in writing, including electronic writing, about someone. One person shouting "you big fat dope" one time or a handful of times should not be actionable. Dozens or more people collaborating in repeatedly so yelling may arguably be regarded in certain circumstances as an actionable conspiracy. Be that as it may, there already exist sufficient laws regarding conspiracy, slander, and libel. We don't need any new, targeted, and overly expansive and restrictive laws. I would advise the South Koreans that they didn't need their internet anti-anonymity law, either, but that decision has already been made by their government, until such time as it is repealed (yeah, right - as if rights restrictions are ever repealed anywhere).
Be in good health, but be ye not quite so hasty to condemn debate.
1) A law does not imply causality.
2) Moore's Law does not state that processing power doubles every 2 years. It states that the number of transistors that can be placed reasonably economically on an integrated circuit doubles every 2 years. It's not the same thing.
+1000. Bingo. They are politicians, not statesman. The system is rotten to the core.
We already had one really bad backfire in 2008 and there is no evidence it is going to put the Democrats out of commission, although it hurt them pretty bad in 2010.
Because the strategy of some Republicans boosting Obama so they wouldn't have to face Clinton in 2010 worked out SO WELL for them - NOT!
Way to miss the point. No one is talking about good and evil, success or failure, or anything of the like; just politico-historical accuracy.
FACT: the NSDAP embraced significant socialist ideals in its official policy. Denying this just makes you appear ignorant.
Yes, and the terms left wing and right wing have become of little value. In fact, their use only obscures the real issues, which are much more complex than a simple one-axis descriptor can hope to deal with.
In your haste to call other people morons, you have revealed your own ignorance.
1) It was NSDAP, not "nasdap."
2) The NSDAP 25 Point Program was formulated by Anton Drexler and Adolf Hitler in 1920 and remained the policy of the Party.
Point 7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. ... ...
Point 11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
Point 12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
Point 13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
Point 14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
Point 15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
Point 16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses
Point 17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
Point 20. The State is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions.
Point 21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor
Those points draw on some key Socialist ideals. Now, the National Socialist German Workers' Party was no more the pure embodiment of socialism than was the Communist Party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But both were undeniably strongly influenced by socialist ideas, and went well beyond simple lip service in name only. To suggest otherwise in the case of one is to get bogged down in pre-conceived false political categorizations.
Wrong. It's not a record for UAV's only; it's a record for unrefuelled flight in a powered vehicle, no matter whether manned or not, and no matter whether heavier than air or lighter than air.
Much more significant than that. It's a record for unrefuelled flight, regardless of what the source of power is.
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Thank you for your continued interest in what I think is an important line of debate to all, no matter which side they are on.
1) The court ruled that the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress. For some unfathomable reason, internet carriage has failed to be classified as telecommunications. Some "i" has not been dotted somewhere; some "t" not crossed. I don't know why. The FCC could just classify internet carriage as telecommunications. Then that could be litigated. Good luck to Comcast trying to claim that communications over a distance is not telecommunications.
Also; I readily admit I don't know why the litigation stopped at this appeals court; why the appeals court was allowed to be the last word. We have this thing called the "Supreme Court." It must be good for something :-)
2) I would phrase it that a free market, not "true capitalism," needs no government support at all. I doubt anyone can define "true capitalism," but "free market" is self explanatory. That is why I was careful to say that "capitalism as we know it" cannot exist without the connivance of the government.
People who repeatedly bleat "you fail" without any citations to prove their points only weaken their position. I agree with those of your points which make sense, which is about half of them. But telling people who want decent service at a fair price to "find a new [ISP]" or "build your own ISP" is just insulting.
No matter how many times you repeat that the FCC and government bodies don't have the right to regulate this particular capitalist money machine, they clearly do. The FCC could just as easily have come up with a directive which better serves the public. Many pundits thought they would. Maybe Congress will still force them to at some point. If the government can tell me as a restaurant or tavern owner whom I must serve and what conditions I must meet in my dining room and what practices (smoking) I must disallow my patrons, it most certainly can bitch slap AT&T and Comcast into shape. Capitalism as we know it can ONLY exist courtesy of governmental support. Yes, some form of free market can exist absent governmental oversight and regulation, but it wouldn't include the corporations in their present form, their principles by and large protected from legal measures against their actions by the government-provided corporate shield legal system.
Regulation vs freedom is a delicate balance, but one which is grossly, blatantly tipped in the favor of big business and against the public in the US.
wreck havoc
... that would be wreak havoc.
I suppose you have the facts to back up your sweeping statement? Because I haven't seen them. I don't know whether a single coal station is more efficient and less polluting than hundreds of thousands of automobile internal combustion engines, or not. The efficiency of the latter has risen in stunning fashion over the years, most particularly in diesel engines and certain new gasoline engine technologies which are very similar to diesel. For the former to replace the latter, you have to account for electric power transformation and transmission losses, losses in charging and discharging vehicle batteries, and losses in vehicle electric motors and associated systems. Unless you have comprehensive data covering end to end efficiencies of both systems, you can't make a valid comparison.
For emissions, current automotive technology is so close to zero level that the difference is void of significance. With today's engine management systems, the idea of engines running in such poor tune that unburned fuel is flying out of the exhaust is so anachronistic as to be a bit humorous to contemplate. I don't regard CO2 as a pollutant, but I am completely willing to allow that it be taken as a consideration. Measuring CO2 release is basically the same as analyzing end-to-end efficiency, anyway.
For efficiency, it may be as you proclaim, but it may not. Appropriate and reliable analysis has to be presented.
I'm not saying the assertion is false; just that it is not acceptable as a mantra.
OK, the thugs in charge of the US want to create an estranged and disenfranchised domestic enemy for some strategic purpose. They will get it. I just hope it surprises them, exceeds their plans, takes them by the throat, strangles them all and kicks the gang of thugs into the sewer where they belong.
On the money. Exactly right. And I think we can see that both political parties have turned against the founding principles of the US. One of them brought us this police state in the form of the nazi-in-clown-suit TSA and DHS, and the other has continued and magnified the policy. We still in possession of our wits DO see the enemy ... and he is ... you know it.
Oh, do you really think they haven't? Think the economic disasters of the bad lettuce, the bad peanuts, all the other recent disasters, were just unusual accidents?