That type of person rarely does well in a job where compromise is the order of the day.
As far as I'm concerned, putting the entire legislative branch of the government at an impasse would be an improvement over the current situation. At least then, they wouldn't be able to make anything worse!
Yeah, but you didn't create the IP yet you want to control it by default.
This statement perfectly illustrates the problem we have here: the two sides of the debate are arguing from incompatible assumptions. Right there, you just implicitly assumed that this concept of "IP" exists and was valid. However, people like me disagree on that very point! Therefore, everything you say based on that is useless.
The fundamental question we have to answer here is "does authorship of a work create a property right?" John Locke says yes. Thomas Jefferson says no. But Jefferson wrote the Constitution, so he wins. QED.
The rights of artists to their works came way before the rights of others to trample them.
No, they don't. What part of "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" (which is, very clearly and distinctly, not like "to give an entitlement to artists") do you not understand?
The sole legitimate purpose of copyright is to maximize the number of works entering the Public Domain. Nothing more, nothing less!
How many friends do you have that aren't in or above your social class?
This statement is illogical: for every friend that you have above your social class, they have a friend (i.e., you) below their social class. It exactly evens out.
That doesn't mean it can't be really, really difficult. Remember, current DRM schemes only work because ultimately, you have control over your computer (i.e., the attacker and the intended recipient of the encrypted message are the same). If you just throw out that idea, as Treacherous Computing does, then it really can be difficult to break, especially when the only places the keys are stored are in Microsoft's servers, or inside the TPM silicon itself.
and you would have a similar loss in quality if you compressed from a non-DRM original CD
No, you wouldn't! An original CD, made from the studio master, would still have the other 90% of the information that Yahoo threw away when it compressed the music the first time. A CD burned from the Yahoo DRM tracks would not. This 90% makes a huge fucking difference when compressing the CD again to a different format!
So? What good will your un-Trusted hardware do, when all ISPs (by law) refuse to allow it to connect to the Internet? I have no doubt whatsoever that that law will come, unless we fight vigorously against it. Not all problems have a technological solution!
I don't doubt they're being stupid (especially the "slam-on-the-brakes" part), but sometimes it's actually a good idea to floor the accelerator in a hybrid because it makes sure the electric assist is fully engaged. I think it might apply more to manual-transmission Insights rather than Priuses, though: they say the way to drive an Insight is to floor it in 1st and 2nd, then shift straight to 5th once you're up to speed.
I'd love to see a laptop power consumption test of XP vs Vista on an identically spec'd machine. (tickety tick, thrashity thrash)
On my Thinkpad X60, Vista reduced the run time by at least an hour, until I disabled the damn disk indexing crap (and it's still shorter -- I'll move back to XP when I decide to quit being lazy).
I use the web. And if you break my "back" button, I will hate you forever (and more importantly, I will use your competitor's service instead of yours).
Shit guys, Nintendo is losing potential money over Twenty Year Old games.
If it were anybody but Nintendo I'd agree with you, but Nintendo tends to re-release stuff over and over.
Playing emulated abandonware obtained through less-than-official channels is fine IMHO, but the ethics of playing games that are still available commercially are less clear-cut.
If I have to hit more than one button per character that's going to slow me down a lot
No it won't. You hit all the buttons for the character simultaneously, not sequentially. Experts (such as the one I'm about to mention below) can type at least on a Twiddler2 as they can on a QWERTY.
what about using vi (or any other pro editor)?
Thad Starner, a pioneer of wearable computing (and on the left in the picture), practically lives in EMACS and uses a Twiddler2 to do so.
Look how little it does here in the US, then imagine how much worse it could get if Congress (both houses) were appointed by the various State governments and not elected
That's how it was supposed to work here in the U.S. too, at least for the Senate, until the 17th Amendment. I think that Amendment was actually a mistake, because it undermines Federalism by making the state legislatures less important.
I would think there is almost a 1:1 relationship there. Most systems have one of each. A "small fraction" of installations have a few CPUs per GPU, but most machines are still plain old single-processor desktops.
Nope. Most systems (don't forget to include laptops!) have one CPU but zero discrete GPUs.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a silly question: it was then, and would be today, just like any other government document: in the Public Domain.
And how the fuck do you expect us to convince exactly the set of people that those reforms hurt to agree to them, short of violence?
And Countrywide and Fannie Mae are the ones who allowed those loans without doing due diligence. Therefore, they shouldn't be bailed out either!
Obviously it's defective, so you should just simply return it.
As far as I'm concerned, putting the entire legislative branch of the government at an impasse would be an improvement over the current situation. At least then, they wouldn't be able to make anything worse!
This statement perfectly illustrates the problem we have here: the two sides of the debate are arguing from incompatible assumptions. Right there, you just implicitly assumed that this concept of "IP" exists and was valid. However, people like me disagree on that very point! Therefore, everything you say based on that is useless.
The fundamental question we have to answer here is "does authorship of a work create a property right?" John Locke says yes. Thomas Jefferson says no. But Jefferson wrote the Constitution, so he wins. QED.
No, they don't. What part of "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" (which is, very clearly and distinctly, not like "to give an entitlement to artists") do you not understand?
The sole legitimate purpose of copyright is to maximize the number of works entering the Public Domain. Nothing more, nothing less!
This statement is illogical: for every friend that you have above your social class, they have a friend (i.e., you) below their social class. It exactly evens out.
That doesn't mean it can't be really, really difficult. Remember, current DRM schemes only work because ultimately, you have control over your computer (i.e., the attacker and the intended recipient of the encrypted message are the same). If you just throw out that idea, as Treacherous Computing does, then it really can be difficult to break, especially when the only places the keys are stored are in Microsoft's servers, or inside the TPM silicon itself.
How does that theory account for females with autism?
No, you wouldn't! An original CD, made from the studio master, would still have the other 90% of the information that Yahoo threw away when it compressed the music the first time. A CD burned from the Yahoo DRM tracks would not. This 90% makes a huge fucking difference when compressing the CD again to a different format!
So? What good will your un-Trusted hardware do, when all ISPs (by law) refuse to allow it to connect to the Internet? I have no doubt whatsoever that that law will come, unless we fight vigorously against it. Not all problems have a technological solution!
I don't doubt they're being stupid (especially the "slam-on-the-brakes" part), but sometimes it's actually a good idea to floor the accelerator in a hybrid because it makes sure the electric assist is fully engaged. I think it might apply more to manual-transmission Insights rather than Priuses, though: they say the way to drive an Insight is to floor it in 1st and 2nd, then shift straight to 5th once you're up to speed.
That's because it was ugly when it was first released; the sexy, trendy one is the second-generation model.
On my Thinkpad X60, Vista reduced the run time by at least an hour, until I disabled the damn disk indexing crap (and it's still shorter -- I'll move back to XP when I decide to quit being lazy).
No.
I use the web. And if you break my "back" button, I will hate you forever (and more importantly, I will use your competitor's service instead of yours).
Right: if the parents are incompetent, well, that's what DFCS is for.
If it were anybody but Nintendo I'd agree with you, but Nintendo tends to re-release stuff over and over.
Playing emulated abandonware obtained through less-than-official channels is fine IMHO, but the ethics of playing games that are still available commercially are less clear-cut.
No it won't. You hit all the buttons for the character simultaneously, not sequentially. Experts (such as the one I'm about to mention below) can type at least on a Twiddler2 as they can on a QWERTY.
Thad Starner, a pioneer of wearable computing (and on the left in the picture), practically lives in EMACS and uses a Twiddler2 to do so.
That's how it was supposed to work here in the U.S. too, at least for the Senate, until the 17th Amendment. I think that Amendment was actually a mistake, because it undermines Federalism by making the state legislatures less important.
Oligopolies and cartels can legitimately be complained about too, you know!
Nope. Most systems (don't forget to include laptops!) have one CPU but zero discrete GPUs.
Nevertheless, that's still better than an Nvidia or ATI card that is not accelerated at all due to lack of drivers!
Exactly, and the cellphone market dwarfs the PC market -- and the gulf is only going to get larger in the long run.
I don't want to see AMD fail either, but remember: we'll always have ARM.