You don't have to live in the bounds that are set forth in front of you. Saying that a battle must be conceded to fight another one lets your enemy (the government is the enemy in this case) gain ground on you. These battles are not over quickly, and freedoms should not be sacraficed to protect other freedoms.
Copyright is a misnomer. Everyone has the right to copy their property if they have the ability. It is YOUR property if it is on your computer or on a plastic disc you own. The person who created that has been granted a privledge to prevent you from copying that and distributing it to others. This privledge is enforced through the government. The point of what is known as copyright is to create progress in science and the arts. It should stop there. That is all the constitution grants. If you want more, amend the constitution.
I will not allow someone to tell me what I can do with my own property in my own home. If there is no financial gain on my part, no one is harmed. Even if there is, no one is directly harmed. It's the government's job to aid commerce and stay out of people's lives. There are proposals written by the EFF and others out there to create a system that fits both those goals to the best of the government's abilities.
This isn't an exhaustive write-up, but I glanced over some things I wanted to say. I just didn't like the fact that you wanted to accept the current copyright situation as the way the world was and that there was no way it could be changed without the end times coming forth. (Yes, I know, you didn't say that)
I'd say I am an average Slashdotter, and I think you are missing the point. I would like strong copyright laws protecting commercial gains and financial incentives and possible civil actions to protect non-commercial copying and distribution. I don't think that someone who violates the GPL should go to jail for 6 years.
If I download a song I never plan on buying because I want to listen to it 10 times or add it to my playlist, it is no different than listening to the radio. It's just on my terms instead of someone else's. You can say I should pay my 150,000 dollars in civil damages or go to jail for a few years, but I think you're wrong. Congress agrees with you, but I could care less about them.
Because of everything, like every non-hypocritical Slashdotter, I have stopped listening to RIAA controlled music besides the few cds that I bought before that I couldn't part with, and gave away or sold all the others. Grateful Dead concerts should be enough to tide me over anyhow.
I'm willing to compensate someone for their work in the way they want, as long as they don't attack me over it. That's the way a lot of other Slashdotters I know are. They realize that copyright law doesn't need to be militant among the people to work. It's fine though. If things get too bad normal people will notice and things will change for the better. Until that point, it will be frogs boiling.
It's good that Bush doesn't support fetal stem cell research. I've never heard of anyone wanting to do that.
I have a very libertarian philosophy. I don't want money in the government going towards things that should be in private industry. However, since it is going to happen, it needs to go towards the most important programs. Saving and protecting lives is the most important thing for the government. Refusing to pursue stem cell research and causing problems in that field is doing the exact opposite. If the government wants to fund nuclear weapons research and not medical research, that tells me something is wrong with the people in charge of this country.
From the way Badnarik has answered other questions close to this one, I believe he'd support legal action from all those affected. The water company is not damaged by it directly as an entity, and had no control over the damage that was caused by its product. I believe that the answer (and hopefully something similar from Badnarik) would be the people who were negatively effected could directly take a legal case against the root cause of that even before serious negative effects began to occur.
Also, I (personally, I don't know the LIbertarian view on this) believe that at a certain point if a family is ruined and all dying because of the actions of this company, the people who caused that to occur need to be in a situation where they fear for their life or livelihood. Whether that be from those who are effected or from the government through court cases brought by the people, I think that check would be quite effective. The corporate entity itself should not absorb the blow for the people responsible.
I'd compare this more closely to a city alerting select subscribers about a string of burglaries or escaped convicts in the area. Other people have to wait to know that information, since they aren't paying up.
Sure, they can't do anything personally to stop it, but they sure as hell can lock their doors and keep a look out. If someone has their business based on a computer and has that broken into it will cause them damage. This policy enables the people who will do the damage to get general information and possibly use that to find an exploit before the common user. It's a scare tactic that can't even be comapred to another industry that only Microsoft is doing.
If you sold a product that was broken and there were ways for it to be destroyed no matter what you did without assistance from the company making it, no other industry would find it acceptable to alert "subscribers" before hand.
Just a warning to you subscribers, our remote locking mechanism has a flaw that could cause your car to explode if the right signal is sent to it. We'll fix it later, but thought you paying subscribers would like a heads up!
I meant affect. Thanks for the correction. The post wasn't written to the best of my abilities, since I felt it was somewhat important to myself to get it so it could gather more mod-points at the cost of it being properly thought out or proofread. I probably wouldn't have caught that anyhow though, since hammering that difference home wasn't on my ex-girlfriend's "i don't know where the shift key is but i'm going to complain to you about grammar" agenda for some odd reason.
Having watched your constitution class and having kept up with your blog, I'm aware of where you stand on most issues. However, I don't believe you've taken a stand on copyrights and how you see them effecting technology and society. Do you view copyrights as an inherent right given to the person who created the work, or do you see it as a privilege given to those people by the government as a proxy for the people? Many people would say copyright has turned into a weapon for large corporations, established insitutions and people. The constitution grants a limited time protection for copyrights as you know, however the current terms being much greater than the author's life are hardly limited in the scope of insuring future creations by the author.
My question is, then, do you view the current copyright situation as constitutional and correct? If not, then what do you propose to change to weight the situation back towards the common person?
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
What makes you think that getting a gun legally is easier than getting one illegally (against the United States law, not to say anything about what is right or wrong) for a lot of people?
Having read the constitution, the second amendment very obviously refers to the ability of the people to revolt. Taking into consideration the events of the time, it's even more obvious. It specifically refers to the people having that right, as to have the ability to defend themselves against any government. You can argue that all you like, but it's only open for interpretation for those that can't accept fact when it goes against their belief.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
You assume that the military firing on civilians and the military disobeying their commanders and killing senators are on the same level. I don't believe the American people should be forced to convince a proxy to fight their battles for them. They can do it themselves, and their constitution gives them the right to. If the government wants to take that right away, they can amend the constitution.
Of course, the second part of amending that part of the constitution is death, so I think they might want to leave it alone. For their sake.
Just the way I look at things. Until the second amendment is gone, it's what the people want.
If the speed you are going endangers others and a majority would say that it is true, you are driving recklessly and that is something the law should deal with. If you are in a residential, you should go at the speed that is needed for that. I usually drive below the speed limit there, since that makes sense. Someone going much over 35 in an area like that is being reckless, and I think most would agree.
To say that we need to limit highway driving speeds and also driving speeds on roads where there is nearly no chance of anything running out in front of you is what I was getting at, however did not state it very accurately.
Getting pulled over for going 50 on a country road at 2 in the morning when the speed limit is 35 is pointless in my opinion.
I meant the statement about losing something when a copy is made in a physical sense, but I'll address it in the sense that you took it. That post wasn't very well thought out, but that's what I get for being reactionary.
I believe that a business model should change with the technology. Law should not preserve an older business model. If law is doing that, the law is going in the wrong direction. Towards controlling the public.
Well, the person who originally created the work loses the opportunity to attempt to earn money from their labours.
What labors should be protected as needing an oppurtunity to earn money? That's a rather confusing statement, as you can still earn money even if something is freely available. There are many cases throughout history of that happening. Even now, even though it is not legal, you can obtain things for free. What has made people purchase cds and movies knowing that?
Musicians can tour and sell merchandise, and I guess at least some programmers can offer support services or do purely bespoke work
For musicians, performing music instead of selling copies of those performances is not a bad business model however it requires more effort on that individual's part. However, what other line of work lets you create something with a minimal of 20 hours of work after mastering the trade and then making possible millions? I think that business model should go the way technology and the people dictate, not the way the people who made that business model want it.
It's economics with the people who create software. Open source will damage that market. There will always be money in software creation though. I don't think there is a need for money to be made though when it comes to the creation of basic programs or something someone else will make for free. Having software freely copied won't be an issue, since there are other means of making it so that those copies will not function correctly that are in place. I have no problems with DRM when it comes to what is in place currently. I don't have to deal with it since I use none of it. That's another debate altogether though.
but what of authors? If books can be freely copied, what can authors do to earn (enough) money?
The authors who earn money on their books usually already have made a book that sold well. To break into the industry you need a book that sells well. With the ability to copy books at will, it hardly hurts anyone. Look at libraries for example. Have they destroyed the market for books?
My main point here though, is that an established author could make a deal with a book company to have that publisher be the official copy of the book. There are instances in history that I don't feel like taking the time to name, but if you are interested I would suggest looking at things with Tolkien and the publishing of his novels. There are other instances throughout history, but I'm getting tired of typing. Heh.
Selling the rights to sell the official next copy of the authors book before anyone else can even print it is worth a lot to a publisher. They pretty much already
I took my post to a bit of an extreme. I agree with the need for the creator of content to be able to put restrictions on its reproduction, however I completely disagree with the current system in place. If people wish to get rid of that system, it should be gotten rid of. Copyright as it stands is taken by the people as a right, when it is not. Having the word right in the word to refer to that part of law is confusing at best.
A post is a troll when it isn't based on logic and makes statements saying that things are uncontestable. I never said "copyright needs to be gotten rid of and that is 100% known and the way it is" as was done in the comment I responded to.
I agree I was a bit harsh, but it's upsetting to me that so many people see things as not being able to be changed or worked around.
I'd suggest to read it, so you can get an idea of what people are scared of and upset about. They are not wiretapping, but they can monitor you, and then write their own letter to get your information to bring into a civil courtroom to force you to defend yourself.
Oh, the systems like mp3.com and what Napster was doing promoting indy artists to be downloaded through p2p? Or, maybe iTunes with the indy music you can get or p2p with the same? The issue is, the RIAA will fight back unless the system is closed off like iTunes which causes people to have to pay for the music initially. If you can't sample something you've never heard of, you're less likely to buy it.
There have been business models, but the problem is that in order to get any exposure, you have to take channels that people are already listening on. Radio, TV, or major sites. Things were made major that were promoting music, but they did things that the RIAA was able to take them to court for with music, which made them lose out.
Anyhow, I think I made my point. In order to make the system work, you have to do things that will draw in people initially. It's not as easy as you would think, and the required initial capital with the media lock down that the RIAA has created is insane. Stopping the legislation that is coming down the tubes and finding a way to make people aware is needed. The stickers aren't the best way, but they're at least an approach to doing so.
Most people don't consider stealing cable as wrong, or speeding as wrong, or rolling stops, or any number of "nuisance" laws which could be ignored and most people wouldn't be harmed.
Stealing cable is actually stealing because of the fact that the signal strength degrades which costs the company money that is putting it out.
Speeding is not wrong if you are not being reckless. Who gets hurt if you go 50 in a 35 with no one else around you? If people pull out in front of you suddenly, that's their fault.
If you go through a stop sign without stopping and it is reckless and you would not be able to see if there were another car, that is a problem. If, however, you just slow down instead of stopping but were able to be secure in the fact that no one is coming, who cares?
However, in all those instances, including P2P piracy, there's a harm to someone indeed. Even if you're not physically taking something away, or you weren't going to buy the thing anyways, you still are taking away the right of the distributor to choose how its work can be disseminated through public channels.
There is no right to choose how something you create is sold. If you are going to allow this, you should allow me to make a brand of condoms, and make it illegal to sell it to black people. Or, if I make a cd, I should be allowed to say how I want it sold. If you are taking nothing away from me and I do not own the physical item, you can do whatever you want with it unless the American people grant a privilege otherwise.
Rolling stops cause problems if you don't really check for that cop car speeding toward the intersection, or the speed law if a dog darts across the road, or stealing cable when your bootleg cable scrambler causes problems on the lines.
Rolling stops are no different in that case from someone going through a stop that is somewhat blind. I for one will not bend over for government to take advantage of me. The job of government is to work around the sovereign people to make it seem that they are not there. Not to force people to work around them.
You could hit the dog anyhow, your speed does not matter. If you are going slowly, you will hit the dog if you brake and it keeps going. If you are going over the speed limit you will go past the dog before you even see it. You can't say that putting a speed limit and having fines for it when you are not endangering anyone that isn't doing something else that is against your laws is effective.
Some laws are necessary, and just because most people don't want them around, is not a reason for them to be abolished. Copyright infringement is a necessary law, and for once/. should be applauding the fact that the DoJ is going after some of the biggest traders around, instead of bitching that corporations are owning the Government.
Yes, some laws are needed. No, if people hate them and they don't protect anyone compared to their harm, they should be removed.
Copy"right" is someone's inherent right to copy something they have created. It is your property, you can do what you like with it. Telling someone else they can't copy something is granted by the people to others so that they will hopefully create more and provide it to the people. What is commonly known as copyright is not a right, it is a priviledge. If the American people want to be rid of it, they can and should be rid of it. To say otherwise will take a lot of explaining on your part.
This wasn't much of a troll since there was no point to any of it, but hey, it was a nice try I guess. To sum everything up, your points were not valid and your summation had no backing. This idea of copyright should be gone and dead. It is not a right. It can be taken away. It's an imaginary thing. You do not own that property anymore. No one loses anything when someone makes a copy. This is just like the war on drugs.
This is actually a republic, not a democracy. There is a difference.
To begin with, if you are going back to the roots of this country saying what it is and is not, there was never meant to be a party system. That came about later.
Anyhow, tax payers are the ones that are financing this whole thing. Since a large portion of the taxpayers hate the Republicans and I'd take a bet that a larger portion hates the idea of paying for their campaigning and conventions, I see no problem with crippling it in protest. Although, I would have liked to see the same happen to the Democrats.
Instead of posting anonymously defending a company with billions of dollars who refuses to write the drivers, why don't you divert your energies to signing up for a Slashdot account.
While you're at it, maybe you should think about how retarded that statement you just made was, and rethink it. An acceptable retort would be "Linux sucks, I personally hate it, and Intel is doing the right thing by ignoring it. If you feel differently, write it yourself!" which is what your statement came off as to begin with.
Hey, that sounds like a good idea. Now you get a cracking on writing the MTA that everyone is going to use, since this won't work with any open source MTA that is in place.
Oh, and also keep in mind that you can't use this with Linux, and in order to send it to someone you need a license to do that, so I KNOW that OpenBSD won't be using it. I'm not sure on a lot of other things, but I can see that this will be a Microsoft only technology. No open source will use this at all. If that is how you like it, I don't know why you're even reading Slashdot... You're out of place if you have a twisted world view to think that closed source and closed standards are the way the world is going.
These statements are quite trollish with no backing in fact. You do not assign copyright to the FSF unless you are looking to give up the copyright and have them defend any legal infringement on your software. The GPL and having the FSF fight your legal battles are two completely different things.
The GPL is a license, and you can license your code under the GPL, BSD, and then some license you made up if you want to, and people can use it on all of them. It's your copyright, the GPL is just the license you choose, and the people who originated it do NOT gain control of your code.
No one else can use the FSF's work without the FSF's permission, just like any other proprietary software.
And, you can use the FSF's work without their permission in accordance with the terms of the GPL. I don't understand that statement in the least. Are you saying that somehow the GPL was written in trickery and none of it is actually valid? That's really all I can derive from that, and I would certainly like you to back up that statement that the GPL is invalid.
Open Source goes beyond the GPL. Can you explain how open source is not a movement? You make this statement without any backing of logic, and SOMEHOW get modded up. Open source is a movement, the GPL is a license, the FSF is an organization that promotes free software and the GPL...
It would seem you do have something against the GPL, spreading all of these lies... I suggest you check out the GNU website to understand more thoroughly what you are talking about. I've read the licenses and the missions statements. I also have read the actions of the organizations outside of their press releases. I suggest you do the same.
but I can give my thumbs up towards Liferea on Linux. Straw is also good if for some reason Liferea isn't to your liking.
I found a nice Windows reader called rssbandit that I setup for a few people while doing Windows installs recently. They seemed to like it.
I have no experience with OS/X, so I can't put a vote towards anything there. The Linux apps are gtk based and the Windows app is a dotNet programmed app.
In the scheme of things, 600 dollars really isn't that much... If you're aiming for this kind of performance, the 600 dollar low end version is probalby the best you'll be able to find. I, on the other hand, am quite happy with my 30 dollars performance. As you said, poor college student and all.
This is aimed at gamers with a decent chunk of change or some parents that have that. There are a lot of 16 year olds out there that can get mommy or daddy to buy things, and this is also aimed at professionals that could use the extra power and can definitely afford it. The market for college students isn't really something that high end electronics can aim at. We're much more worried about eating and filling our gas tanks than getting the newest toys.
That's why you stick together two of the 300$ cards of the 400$ cards instead that require less power and allow for better air flow. The GT and 6800 plain are smaller and only require one molex. It doesn't address the issue with the connector that was already mentioned, but from looking at the piece it would seem that the data flow requires a rather large pipeline, and may not work over a plain wire. I could be completely wrong with that though.
With the cards, you could use the GT version as mentioned in the article. It only takes up 1 slot and uses only one molex. That leaves plenty of room for other cards. If you don't have other cards though, it would certainly be quite sexy to make the setup with Ultra come to fruition!
As for cooling, the heatsinks should do the job if you have a case with proper intake and outtake. There is also the option of underclocking the GPUs if for some reason you don't, so they generate a lot less heat and rely on the factor of having two of them in parallel. Lots of fun tweaking you can do! Obviously, this isn't really for entry level gaming, but for someone who knows what they're doing.
You mean it would take 2 slots? No one is forcing you to use the Ultra version of the cards, you could go with the GT version which takes up a single slot and a single Molex.
You can of course use the four slot version, but that would be only for very specific instances obviously, but the fact that you can get that much power is rather impressive in my opinion.
I wonder if it works with the Linux drivers? *drools*
This was around long before Alienware thought it up. I have an old 133 sitting next to me that uses the original implementation of this with Voodoo cards. The Alienware implementation is motherboard specific, while this just requires the graphics cards to be connected together. There is actually quite a huge difference in the implementation, and this version of SLI is currently an nvidia only implementation.
That's all I am seeing here. You don't need to use the Ultra in your configuration of this. The article even states you can use a single slot GT, which would be greater than a single Ultra and cost you 200 dollars more for a great performance boost. Or you could even use basic 6800 cards which are under 300 dollars.
This is going to be great when it matures, and is one of the huge advantages to PCI-Express when that becomes the standard on future motherboards over AGP. Yes, I know Intel is making motherboards with this, but who the hell wants to pay all that money for such a small jump?
Since people seem to be lost on the nvidia cards, here goes a run down of what they are releasing and the price area:
The 6800 and GT are single slot cards with a signle Molex connector. Those can be used in the SLI configuration as well. Get the facts straight before you post flamebait and troll.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to live in the bounds that are set forth in front of you. Saying that a battle must be conceded to fight another one lets your enemy (the government is the enemy in this case) gain ground on you. These battles are not over quickly, and freedoms should not be sacraficed to protect other freedoms.
Copyright is a misnomer. Everyone has the right to copy their property if they have the ability. It is YOUR property if it is on your computer or on a plastic disc you own. The person who created that has been granted a privledge to prevent you from copying that and distributing it to others. This privledge is enforced through the government. The point of what is known as copyright is to create progress in science and the arts. It should stop there. That is all the constitution grants. If you want more, amend the constitution.
I will not allow someone to tell me what I can do with my own property in my own home. If there is no financial gain on my part, no one is harmed. Even if there is, no one is directly harmed. It's the government's job to aid commerce and stay out of people's lives. There are proposals written by the EFF and others out there to create a system that fits both those goals to the best of the government's abilities.
This isn't an exhaustive write-up, but I glanced over some things I wanted to say. I just didn't like the fact that you wanted to accept the current copyright situation as the way the world was and that there was no way it could be changed without the end times coming forth. (Yes, I know, you didn't say that)
I'd say I am an average Slashdotter, and I think you are missing the point. I would like strong copyright laws protecting commercial gains and financial incentives and possible civil actions to protect non-commercial copying and distribution. I don't think that someone who violates the GPL should go to jail for 6 years.
If I download a song I never plan on buying because I want to listen to it 10 times or add it to my playlist, it is no different than listening to the radio. It's just on my terms instead of someone else's. You can say I should pay my 150,000 dollars in civil damages or go to jail for a few years, but I think you're wrong. Congress agrees with you, but I could care less about them.
Because of everything, like every non-hypocritical Slashdotter, I have stopped listening to RIAA controlled music besides the few cds that I bought before that I couldn't part with, and gave away or sold all the others. Grateful Dead concerts should be enough to tide me over anyhow.
I'm willing to compensate someone for their work in the way they want, as long as they don't attack me over it. That's the way a lot of other Slashdotters I know are. They realize that copyright law doesn't need to be militant among the people to work. It's fine though. If things get too bad normal people will notice and things will change for the better. Until that point, it will be frogs boiling.
/me end rant
It's good that Bush doesn't support fetal stem cell research. I've never heard of anyone wanting to do that.
I have a very libertarian philosophy. I don't want money in the government going towards things that should be in private industry. However, since it is going to happen, it needs to go towards the most important programs. Saving and protecting lives is the most important thing for the government. Refusing to pursue stem cell research and causing problems in that field is doing the exact opposite. If the government wants to fund nuclear weapons research and not medical research, that tells me something is wrong with the people in charge of this country.
From the way Badnarik has answered other questions close to this one, I believe he'd support legal action from all those affected. The water company is not damaged by it directly as an entity, and had no control over the damage that was caused by its product. I believe that the answer (and hopefully something similar from Badnarik) would be the people who were negatively effected could directly take a legal case against the root cause of that even before serious negative effects began to occur.
Also, I (personally, I don't know the LIbertarian view on this) believe that at a certain point if a family is ruined and all dying because of the actions of this company, the people who caused that to occur need to be in a situation where they fear for their life or livelihood. Whether that be from those who are effected or from the government through court cases brought by the people, I think that check would be quite effective. The corporate entity itself should not absorb the blow for the people responsible.
I'd compare this more closely to a city alerting select subscribers about a string of burglaries or escaped convicts in the area. Other people have to wait to know that information, since they aren't paying up.
Sure, they can't do anything personally to stop it, but they sure as hell can lock their doors and keep a look out. If someone has their business based on a computer and has that broken into it will cause them damage. This policy enables the people who will do the damage to get general information and possibly use that to find an exploit before the common user. It's a scare tactic that can't even be comapred to another industry that only Microsoft is doing.
If you sold a product that was broken and there were ways for it to be destroyed no matter what you did without assistance from the company making it, no other industry would find it acceptable to alert "subscribers" before hand.
Just a warning to you subscribers, our remote locking mechanism has a flaw that could cause your car to explode if the right signal is sent to it. We'll fix it later, but thought you paying subscribers would like a heads up!
I meant affect. Thanks for the correction. The post wasn't written to the best of my abilities, since I felt it was somewhat important to myself to get it so it could gather more mod-points at the cost of it being properly thought out or proofread. I probably wouldn't have caught that anyhow though, since hammering that difference home wasn't on my ex-girlfriend's "i don't know where the shift key is but i'm going to complain to you about grammar" agenda for some odd reason.
Having watched your constitution class and having kept up with your blog, I'm aware of where you stand on most issues. However, I don't believe you've taken a stand on copyrights and how you see them effecting technology and society. Do you view copyrights as an inherent right given to the person who created the work, or do you see it as a privilege given to those people by the government as a proxy for the people? Many people would say copyright has turned into a weapon for large corporations, established insitutions and people. The constitution grants a limited time protection for copyrights as you know, however the current terms being much greater than the author's life are hardly limited in the scope of insuring future creations by the author.
My question is, then, do you view the current copyright situation as constitutional and correct? If not, then what do you propose to change to weight the situation back towards the common person?
What makes you think that getting a gun legally is easier than getting one illegally (against the United States law, not to say anything about what is right or wrong) for a lot of people?
Having read the constitution, the second amendment very obviously refers to the ability of the people to revolt. Taking into consideration the events of the time, it's even more obvious. It specifically refers to the people having that right, as to have the ability to defend themselves against any government. You can argue that all you like, but it's only open for interpretation for those that can't accept fact when it goes against their belief.
You assume that the military firing on civilians and the military disobeying their commanders and killing senators are on the same level. I don't believe the American people should be forced to convince a proxy to fight their battles for them. They can do it themselves, and their constitution gives them the right to. If the government wants to take that right away, they can amend the constitution.
Of course, the second part of amending that part of the constitution is death, so I think they might want to leave it alone. For their sake.
Just the way I look at things. Until the second amendment is gone, it's what the people want.
To say that we need to limit highway driving speeds and also driving speeds on roads where there is nearly no chance of anything running out in front of you is what I was getting at, however did not state it very accurately.
Getting pulled over for going 50 on a country road at 2 in the morning when the speed limit is 35 is pointless in my opinion.
I meant the statement about losing something when a copy is made in a physical sense, but I'll address it in the sense that you took it. That post wasn't very well thought out, but that's what I get for being reactionary.
I believe that a business model should change with the technology. Law should not preserve an older business model. If law is doing that, the law is going in the wrong direction. Towards controlling the public.
What labors should be protected as needing an oppurtunity to earn money? That's a rather confusing statement, as you can still earn money even if something is freely available. There are many cases throughout history of that happening. Even now, even though it is not legal, you can obtain things for free. What has made people purchase cds and movies knowing that?
For musicians, performing music instead of selling copies of those performances is not a bad business model however it requires more effort on that individual's part. However, what other line of work lets you create something with a minimal of 20 hours of work after mastering the trade and then making possible millions? I think that business model should go the way technology and the people dictate, not the way the people who made that business model want it.
It's economics with the people who create software. Open source will damage that market. There will always be money in software creation though. I don't think there is a need for money to be made though when it comes to the creation of basic programs or something someone else will make for free. Having software freely copied won't be an issue, since there are other means of making it so that those copies will not function correctly that are in place. I have no problems with DRM when it comes to what is in place currently. I don't have to deal with it since I use none of it. That's another debate altogether though.
The authors who earn money on their books usually already have made a book that sold well. To break into the industry you need a book that sells well. With the ability to copy books at will, it hardly hurts anyone. Look at libraries for example. Have they destroyed the market for books?
My main point here though, is that an established author could make a deal with a book company to have that publisher be the official copy of the book. There are instances in history that I don't feel like taking the time to name, but if you are interested I would suggest looking at things with Tolkien and the publishing of his novels. There are other instances throughout history, but I'm getting tired of typing. Heh.
Selling the rights to sell the official next copy of the authors book before anyone else can even print it is worth a lot to a publisher. They pretty much already
I took my post to a bit of an extreme. I agree with the need for the creator of content to be able to put restrictions on its reproduction, however I completely disagree with the current system in place. If people wish to get rid of that system, it should be gotten rid of. Copyright as it stands is taken by the people as a right, when it is not. Having the word right in the word to refer to that part of law is confusing at best.
A post is a troll when it isn't based on logic and makes statements saying that things are uncontestable. I never said "copyright needs to be gotten rid of and that is 100% known and the way it is" as was done in the comment I responded to.
I agree I was a bit harsh, but it's upsetting to me that so many people see things as not being able to be changed or worked around.
You're wrong though, which is what is distressing.
Explanation of civil subpoenas and a site about the DMCA
I'd suggest to read it, so you can get an idea of what people are scared of and upset about. They are not wiretapping, but they can monitor you, and then write their own letter to get your information to bring into a civil courtroom to force you to defend yourself.
Oh, the systems like mp3.com and what Napster was doing promoting indy artists to be downloaded through p2p? Or, maybe iTunes with the indy music you can get or p2p with the same? The issue is, the RIAA will fight back unless the system is closed off like iTunes which causes people to have to pay for the music initially. If you can't sample something you've never heard of, you're less likely to buy it.
There have been business models, but the problem is that in order to get any exposure, you have to take channels that people are already listening on. Radio, TV, or major sites. Things were made major that were promoting music, but they did things that the RIAA was able to take them to court for with music, which made them lose out.
Anyhow, I think I made my point. In order to make the system work, you have to do things that will draw in people initially. It's not as easy as you would think, and the required initial capital with the media lock down that the RIAA has created is insane. Stopping the legislation that is coming down the tubes and finding a way to make people aware is needed. The stickers aren't the best way, but they're at least an approach to doing so.
Stealing cable is actually stealing because of the fact that the signal strength degrades which costs the company money that is putting it out.
Speeding is not wrong if you are not being reckless. Who gets hurt if you go 50 in a 35 with no one else around you? If people pull out in front of you suddenly, that's their fault.
If you go through a stop sign without stopping and it is reckless and you would not be able to see if there were another car, that is a problem. If, however, you just slow down instead of stopping but were able to be secure in the fact that no one is coming, who cares?
There is no right to choose how something you create is sold. If you are going to allow this, you should allow me to make a brand of condoms, and make it illegal to sell it to black people. Or, if I make a cd, I should be allowed to say how I want it sold. If you are taking nothing away from me and I do not own the physical item, you can do whatever you want with it unless the American people grant a privilege otherwise.
Rolling stops are no different in that case from someone going through a stop that is somewhat blind. I for one will not bend over for government to take advantage of me. The job of government is to work around the sovereign people to make it seem that they are not there. Not to force people to work around them.
You could hit the dog anyhow, your speed does not matter. If you are going slowly, you will hit the dog if you brake and it keeps going. If you are going over the speed limit you will go past the dog before you even see it. You can't say that putting a speed limit and having fines for it when you are not endangering anyone that isn't doing something else that is against your laws is effective.
Yes, some laws are needed. No, if people hate them and they don't protect anyone compared to their harm, they should be removed.
Copy"right" is someone's inherent right to copy something they have created. It is your property, you can do what you like with it. Telling someone else they can't copy something is granted by the people to others so that they will hopefully create more and provide it to the people. What is commonly known as copyright is not a right, it is a priviledge. If the American people want to be rid of it, they can and should be rid of it. To say otherwise will take a lot of explaining on your part.
This wasn't much of a troll since there was no point to any of it, but hey, it was a nice try I guess. To sum everything up, your points were not valid and your summation had no backing. This idea of copyright should be gone and dead. It is not a right. It can be taken away. It's an imaginary thing. You do not own that property anymore. No one loses anything when someone makes a copy. This is just like the war on drugs.
This is actually a republic, not a democracy. There is a difference.
To begin with, if you are going back to the roots of this country saying what it is and is not, there was never meant to be a party system. That came about later.
Anyhow, tax payers are the ones that are financing this whole thing. Since a large portion of the taxpayers hate the Republicans and I'd take a bet that a larger portion hates the idea of paying for their campaigning and conventions, I see no problem with crippling it in protest. Although, I would have liked to see the same happen to the Democrats.
Instead of posting anonymously defending a company with billions of dollars who refuses to write the drivers, why don't you divert your energies to signing up for a Slashdot account.
While you're at it, maybe you should think about how retarded that statement you just made was, and rethink it. An acceptable retort would be "Linux sucks, I personally hate it, and Intel is doing the right thing by ignoring it. If you feel differently, write it yourself!" which is what your statement came off as to begin with.
Hey, that sounds like a good idea. Now you get a cracking on writing the MTA that everyone is going to use, since this won't work with any open source MTA that is in place.
Oh, and also keep in mind that you can't use this with Linux, and in order to send it to someone you need a license to do that, so I KNOW that OpenBSD won't be using it. I'm not sure on a lot of other things, but I can see that this will be a Microsoft only technology. No open source will use this at all. If that is how you like it, I don't know why you're even reading Slashdot... You're out of place if you have a twisted world view to think that closed source and closed standards are the way the world is going.
Sorry for the flame, I hate ignorace.
The GPL is a license, and you can license your code under the GPL, BSD, and then some license you made up if you want to, and people can use it on all of them. It's your copyright, the GPL is just the license you choose, and the people who originated it do NOT gain control of your code.
And, you can use the FSF's work without their permission in accordance with the terms of the GPL. I don't understand that statement in the least. Are you saying that somehow the GPL was written in trickery and none of it is actually valid? That's really all I can derive from that, and I would certainly like you to back up that statement that the GPL is invalid.
Open Source goes beyond the GPL. Can you explain how open source is not a movement? You make this statement without any backing of logic, and SOMEHOW get modded up. Open source is a movement, the GPL is a license, the FSF is an organization that promotes free software and the GPL...
It would seem you do have something against the GPL, spreading all of these lies... I suggest you check out the GNU website to understand more thoroughly what you are talking about. I've read the licenses and the missions statements. I also have read the actions of the organizations outside of their press releases. I suggest you do the same.
but I can give my thumbs up towards Liferea on Linux. Straw is also good if for some reason Liferea isn't to your liking.
I found a nice Windows reader called rssbandit that I setup for a few people while doing Windows installs recently. They seemed to like it.
I have no experience with OS/X, so I can't put a vote towards anything there. The Linux apps are gtk based and the Windows app is a dotNet programmed app.
In the scheme of things, 600 dollars really isn't that much... If you're aiming for this kind of performance, the 600 dollar low end version is probalby the best you'll be able to find. I, on the other hand, am quite happy with my 30 dollars performance. As you said, poor college student and all.
This is aimed at gamers with a decent chunk of change or some parents that have that. There are a lot of 16 year olds out there that can get mommy or daddy to buy things, and this is also aimed at professionals that could use the extra power and can definitely afford it. The market for college students isn't really something that high end electronics can aim at. We're much more worried about eating and filling our gas tanks than getting the newest toys.
That's why you stick together two of the 300$ cards of the 400$ cards instead that require less power and allow for better air flow. The GT and 6800 plain are smaller and only require one molex. It doesn't address the issue with the connector that was already mentioned, but from looking at the piece it would seem that the data flow requires a rather large pipeline, and may not work over a plain wire. I could be completely wrong with that though.
With the cards, you could use the GT version as mentioned in the article. It only takes up 1 slot and uses only one molex. That leaves plenty of room for other cards. If you don't have other cards though, it would certainly be quite sexy to make the setup with Ultra come to fruition!
As for cooling, the heatsinks should do the job if you have a case with proper intake and outtake. There is also the option of underclocking the GPUs if for some reason you don't, so they generate a lot less heat and rely on the factor of having two of them in parallel. Lots of fun tweaking you can do! Obviously, this isn't really for entry level gaming, but for someone who knows what they're doing.
You mean it would take 2 slots? No one is forcing you to use the Ultra version of the cards, you could go with the GT version which takes up a single slot and a single Molex.
You can of course use the four slot version, but that would be only for very specific instances obviously, but the fact that you can get that much power is rather impressive in my opinion.
I wonder if it works with the Linux drivers? *drools*
This was around long before Alienware thought it up. I have an old 133 sitting next to me that uses the original implementation of this with Voodoo cards. The Alienware implementation is motherboard specific, while this just requires the graphics cards to be connected together. There is actually quite a huge difference in the implementation, and this version of SLI is currently an nvidia only implementation.
That's all I am seeing here. You don't need to use the Ultra in your configuration of this. The article even states you can use a single slot GT, which would be greater than a single Ultra and cost you 200 dollars more for a great performance boost. Or you could even use basic 6800 cards which are under 300 dollars.
This is going to be great when it matures, and is one of the huge advantages to PCI-Express when that becomes the standard on future motherboards over AGP. Yes, I know Intel is making motherboards with this, but who the hell wants to pay all that money for such a small jump?
Since people seem to be lost on the nvidia cards, here goes a run down of what they are releasing and the price area:
300$ - nvidia 6800
400$ - nvidia 6800gt
500$ - nvidia 6800 Ultra
600$+ - nvidia 6850/6800 Ultra Extreme
The 6800 and GT are single slot cards with a signle Molex connector. Those can be used in the SLI configuration as well. Get the facts straight before you post flamebait and troll.