I totally agree. I was reading a blog and he was (and probably still is) complaining about how the press never follows up on stories. I finally got tired of the complaining and suggested that HE do some JOURNALISM himself. I.e., call the people involved and INTERVIEW them, file a Freedom of Information request and GET the information he wants, and then WRITE the story.
The more I think about this, the more I think that sticking a PPU on the GPU is the way to go.
Think of the advantages of running two GPUs in SLI. You would not only double your graphics processing, but you would also double your physics processing at the same time.
Sure there are laws against slandering, but there is nothing wrong about expressing opinions. A sales person is well within his rights to express his opinion that GM trucks are built better than Ford's. Legally it's called "puffing."
But I just don't get it. The article says that vendors criticize Linux's "stability," "security," and the "ability of some companies to offer service and support." It sounds to me like those vendors are merely competing.
If you go into any GM dealership the salesman will tell you that Ford's aren't as reliable and that their service departments sucks. That's business.
Doesn't a PCI-E slot have enough bandwidth to include a PPU on the GPU?! If a PPU is a good idea, then it would seem that nVidia or ATI could simply slap a chip on their own cards and sell them for more money.
BTW, never in my life did I ever think I'd say the phrase, "PPU on the GPU"!
So nVidia and ATI will have one more product to sell to gamers. If someone is willing to pay $600 for a GPU, you know damn well they'll pay a few hundred for a PPU.
It's now all about the frame-rates. Remember the old days when it was about the game play?
I'm just saying this isn't news. You don't see articles on slashdot when states start licensing daycares?! So why is this article here? It's simply not news.
First there ARE ordinances to stop people from setting up garages sales as full time businesses. Most cites, townships, etc, have ordinances which limit how often you can have garage sales. If you want an exemption from the ordinance you have to set up a legitimate business our of your home and get a license.
Applying your analogy to Ebay, once again, if you turn selling stuff on Ebay into a full time business, which MANY people do, Ohio has a right to license those people.
Ohio is not going to go after ever Tom, Dick, and Harry how uses Ebay. Only those who set up business on Ebay.
Seriously, despite the certain risk of being modded down, Ohio has EVERY right to do this. If you open up a business in Ohio, it has a right to license you. That applies even if you set up your business in your house.
However, I certainly hope they clear up that vague definition before it's enacted!
"Personally I think the market should sort stuff out in these cases."
Luckily for you, you have a solution. Build a time machine and travel back to America in the 1800s when there were NO consumer laws. Back then you could sell gasoline as a curative and it was PERFECTLY legal.
But of course you couldn't sue the seller, because he wasn't the one who put the gas in the bottle. And of course you couldn't sue the bottler, because there was no privity of contract between you and the bottler. Basically, consumers were screwed.
But if that's the world you want to live in, I suggest you get cracking on that time machine!
You do realize that one, that unlike catalogs, websites can be updated. And two, the restaurateur was given chances to update and correct his site but he refused.
I do not understand your analogy. The restaurant puts incorrect pricing information on its website. But when you show up, the prices are higher. How is that analogous to a lack of a warning sticker?
Do you really think that retailers have a right to lie about their prices?!
What are you talking about? I agree with you! People in Siberia were perfectly free to speak their minds! Just like the unemployed are in our country.
Heck, you ever wonder why homeless people are always talking to themselves?! That's not mindless ranting. No... it's freedom of expression in action dude!
The reason I excluded China is it'll ignore any patent laws which favors outside corporations. Look at the music and software trade in China for clues.
The person's computer has one copy of each file, I'm presuming. By taking a copy of one, you're making a copy. You could always argue, "I didn't make a copy." But how did you end up with a copy of the song on your computer.
You're confusing the first copy from the CD to transferring a copy to your hard drive. In both instances you're making a copy which is not authorized. (You can make copies of your CDs for non-commerical uses and for sharing with friends and family, but no court has held that sharing with millions of people online is legal under the Home Recording Act.)
Interesting. VERY interesting. 17 u.s.c. s 602(a) "is part of the legislative scheme for dealing with pirated and "gray market" goods." Disenos Artisticos E Industriales, S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. 97 F.3d 377 C.A.9 (Cal.),1996
To put it in the context of music, this law was to stop bootlegs from being imported. It was also intended to stop nearly any imports which the music industry wants out. For example, you might be able to buy legitimate CDs much cheaper in Turkey than in the US. But the music industry does not want people importing those CDs and selling them here, undercutting their prices.
Subsection (2) is to keep innocent consumers from being drug in to court. In other words, you go down to your local music store and buy a CD. Even if it turns out to be an import which is here without permission, you cannot be sued or prosecuted.
It sure does seem that (2) could be a loophole. Unfortunately I can find no case interpreting it. But I strongly suggest that if you do download music from the internet, ALWAYS make sure you're downloading from outside the US, just to be safe!
Sure you can. I have no doubt about it. WinFS is NOT a file system and I never said it was.
But can you LEGALLY access the files from a different machine without violating Microsoft's patent/s covering WinFS? The answer to that is clearly "no".
Oh, I agree. This ruling will decimate most of Europe's tech industry as they legally won't be able to compete. But it will certainly make the biggest booster, Microsoft, a heck of richer.
Once Europe accepts software patents, Linux is history.
I guess I was wrong to say that the EU's action was about corporate interests. Really, the EU's action was about IGNORING the concerns of its citizens. From the quote, it appears that the EU doesn't want to be bothered by any sort of dissent from noisy citizens now or in the future. "Just shut up and sit down."
We had a discussion about that a while back. Under US Copyright law it's illegal to make a copy of a copyrighted work, without authorization, and without any fair use right.
Since downloading a song makes an unauthorized copy, that too is illegal. (Ignoring any fair use rights a court could create.)
There are two, as far as I can tell, very good reasons for the RIAA only currently to only go after sharers and not mere downloaders.
First, if you go after sharers you're killing to birds with one stone. In other words, when you stop a sharer, you're stopping people from sharing from him. Thus you're actually stopping MORE than just that one person.
Second, from a public relation point of view, it makes since to go after sharers. You'll notice that in nearly all press releases from the RIAA are sure to point out they are only going after big-time sharers. In the public mind that makes sense because they are the one's making the songs available.
Even so, if Allofmp3.com ever because really popular in the US, and if the RIAA is unable to shut it down, you can be sure that the RIAA will eventually go after users.
Slashdot Mirror
I totally agree. I was reading a blog and he was (and probably still is) complaining about how the press never follows up on stories. I finally got tired of the complaining and suggested that HE do some JOURNALISM himself. I.e., call the people involved and INTERVIEW them, file a Freedom of Information request and GET the information he wants, and then WRITE the story.
Of course he never responded back to me.
The more I think about this, the more I think that sticking a PPU on the GPU is the way to go.
Think of the advantages of running two GPUs in SLI. You would not only double your graphics processing, but you would also double your physics processing at the same time.
Sure there are laws against slandering, but there is nothing wrong about expressing opinions. A sales person is well within his rights to express his opinion that GM trucks are built better than Ford's. Legally it's called "puffing."
But I just don't get it. The article says that vendors criticize Linux's "stability," "security," and the "ability of some companies to offer service and support." It sounds to me like those vendors are merely competing.
If you go into any GM dealership the salesman will tell you that Ford's aren't as reliable and that their service departments sucks. That's business.
Doesn't a PCI-E slot have enough bandwidth to include a PPU on the GPU?! If a PPU is a good idea, then it would seem that nVidia or ATI could simply slap a chip on their own cards and sell them for more money.
BTW, never in my life did I ever think I'd say the phrase, "PPU on the GPU"!
It's fortunate that AGEIA didn't release this product on April 1st. I never would have believed it for one second.
So nVidia and ATI will have one more product to sell to gamers. If someone is willing to pay $600 for a GPU, you know damn well they'll pay a few hundred for a PPU.
It's now all about the frame-rates. Remember the old days when it was about the game play?
And under your system, ALL those restaurants could lie to their customers.
Oh the irony, I get modded off topic for accusing Slashdot editors of posting a story that is off topic!
I'm just saying this isn't news. You don't see articles on slashdot when states start licensing daycares?! So why is this article here? It's simply not news.
First there ARE ordinances to stop people from setting up garages sales as full time businesses. Most cites, townships, etc, have ordinances which limit how often you can have garage sales. If you want an exemption from the ordinance you have to set up a legitimate business our of your home and get a license.
Applying your analogy to Ebay, once again, if you turn selling stuff on Ebay into a full time business, which MANY people do, Ohio has a right to license those people.
Ohio is not going to go after ever Tom, Dick, and Harry how uses Ebay. Only those who set up business on Ebay.
No ambiguity there.
Seriously, despite the certain risk of being modded down, Ohio has EVERY right to do this. If you open up a business in Ohio, it has a right to license you. That applies even if you set up your business in your house.
However, I certainly hope they clear up that vague definition before it's enacted!
Why wouldn't the militants outsource the insurrection to those very same software companies?! Don't armed militants have to save money too?
"Personally I think the market should sort stuff out in these cases."
Luckily for you, you have a solution. Build a time machine and travel back to America in the 1800s when there were NO consumer laws. Back then you could sell gasoline as a curative and it was PERFECTLY legal.
But of course you couldn't sue the seller, because he wasn't the one who put the gas in the bottle. And of course you couldn't sue the bottler, because there was no privity of contract between you and the bottler. Basically, consumers were screwed.
But if that's the world you want to live in, I suggest you get cracking on that time machine!
You do realize that one, that unlike catalogs, websites can be updated. And two, the restaurateur was given chances to update and correct his site but he refused.
I do not understand your analogy. The restaurant puts incorrect pricing information on its website. But when you show up, the prices are higher. How is that analogous to a lack of a warning sticker?
Do you really think that retailers have a right to lie about their prices?!
What are you talking about? I agree with you! People in Siberia were perfectly free to speak their minds! Just like the unemployed are in our country.
Heck, you ever wonder why homeless people are always talking to themselves?! That's not mindless ranting. No... it's freedom of expression in action dude!
I agree. Lawyers go with Wordperfect like a moth to the flame. I would have been more shocked if they started using MS Office.
The reason I excluded China is it'll ignore any patent laws which favors outside corporations. Look at the music and software trade in China for clues.
The person's computer has one copy of each file, I'm presuming. By taking a copy of one, you're making a copy. You could always argue, "I didn't make a copy." But how did you end up with a copy of the song on your computer.
You're confusing the first copy from the CD to transferring a copy to your hard drive. In both instances you're making a copy which is not authorized. (You can make copies of your CDs for non-commerical uses and for sharing with friends and family, but no court has held that sharing with millions of people online is legal under the Home Recording Act.)
Interesting. VERY interesting. 17 u.s.c. s 602(a) "is part of the legislative scheme for dealing with pirated and "gray market" goods." Disenos Artisticos E Industriales, S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. 97 F.3d 377 C.A.9 (Cal.),1996
To put it in the context of music, this law was to stop bootlegs from being imported. It was also intended to stop nearly any imports which the music industry wants out. For example, you might be able to buy legitimate CDs much cheaper in Turkey than in the US. But the music industry does not want people importing those CDs and selling them here, undercutting their prices.
Subsection (2) is to keep innocent consumers from being drug in to court. In other words, you go down to your local music store and buy a CD. Even if it turns out to be an import which is here without permission, you cannot be sued or prosecuted.
It sure does seem that (2) could be a loophole. Unfortunately I can find no case interpreting it. But I strongly suggest that if you do download music from the internet, ALWAYS make sure you're downloading from outside the US, just to be safe!
Sure you can. I have no doubt about it. WinFS is NOT a file system and I never said it was.
But can you LEGALLY access the files from a different machine without violating Microsoft's patent/s covering WinFS? The answer to that is clearly "no".
Oh, I agree. This ruling will decimate most of Europe's tech industry as they legally won't be able to compete. But it will certainly make the biggest booster, Microsoft, a heck of richer.
Once Europe accepts software patents, Linux is history.
I guess I was wrong to say that the EU's action was about corporate interests. Really, the EU's action was about IGNORING the concerns of its citizens. From the quote, it appears that the EU doesn't want to be bothered by any sort of dissent from noisy citizens now or in the future. "Just shut up and sit down."
We had a discussion about that a while back. Under US Copyright law it's illegal to make a copy of a copyrighted work, without authorization, and without any fair use right.
Since downloading a song makes an unauthorized copy, that too is illegal. (Ignoring any fair use rights a court could create.)
There are two, as far as I can tell, very good reasons for the RIAA only currently to only go after sharers and not mere downloaders.
First, if you go after sharers you're killing to birds with one stone. In other words, when you stop a sharer, you're stopping people from sharing from him. Thus you're actually stopping MORE than just that one person.
Second, from a public relation point of view, it makes since to go after sharers. You'll notice that in nearly all press releases from the RIAA are sure to point out they are only going after big-time sharers. In the public mind that makes sense because they are the one's making the songs available.
Even so, if Allofmp3.com ever because really popular in the US, and if the RIAA is unable to shut it down, you can be sure that the RIAA will eventually go after users.
And besides they don't sell ANY Puffy Amiyumi!!! In other words, they suck!