Yes, they most likely will fit. Now please invent a time machine and yourself back to the 1960's so you can have them install a USB port, preferably USB 2.0, on the computers for the Pioneer project. See, all the problems are solved!
"From a provider's point of view, I would think that restricting you to the methods on which you could play it would be a necessity."
Then do not expect me to spend my money with the company. It is a simple "voting with your dollars" scenerio. If they get enough people to make it a viable enterprise, fine, but I will not be using it if it doesn't meet MY exepectations.
God, I totally forgot how to spell. That will teach me to type while eating lunch and running server diagnostics in another window. Not enough synapses for all of that at once.
Why would AMD expect the Intel compiler to produce optimized code? because of theis from Intels websight.
"Accelerate Windows* Applications
Develop high-performance software for desktops, servers, handheld devices and mobile phones that is optimized for Intel® architecture using Intel® Compilers for Windows*."
Note is says Intel architecture, which AMD processors are compliant with, not Intel processors. Therefore, I would reasonably expect that claim to be substantiated in the resulting code.
OK. But when I rent a movie they don't tell me I can only watch this on a "megapictures" brand player between the hours of 3 p.m. and 7:45 p.m. and only one other person may be in the room and...
I go, I get the movie, I watch it when and how I like, then I return it. I can even incure a late fee, if I want, but the movie still plays the day after it was due. They haven't pissed me off, so I go back and spend more money with them.
The only thing I wish, like you, was that there was a greater selection of players available, but that is not the rental companies issue. They are not the ones that refuse to license their tech to OSS developers. Nor are they the ones that refuse to license their media for multiple platforms. If enough people DON'T buy thing from the likes of Microsoft, Sony, and Paramount, they would soon offer their selections in the formats the people want. Sony now sells MP3 players. Even ones that don't use their memory sticks. Why? Because they were being marginalized when no one wanted their products and services. ATAC was limiting, now ATAC is going Bye Bye.
Ah, you have such a snide sig, but don't follow your own advice.
First I never said anything about "allowed" time. I said I would want to watch the movies when and where I choose. If they limited the number of downloaded movies to a certain number at any time, but I can watch them on any of my computers or televisions as I want as often as I want, I don't see an issue. Even if I keep them downloaded for 36 months I keep paying my fee and they don't use up much bandwith. Gods, they would love that.
Secondly, The portable players can work the same way. I can have say 3 movies downloaded to the player at any time. They do not need to be the same as the movies I have on my computers/Tivos either.
When I cancel my service, the Netflix software would stop working after a cooldown period since it isn't getting authorized from server side. For the portable player make it say 90 days before it has to be resynced with one of your systems that has the client software on it.
I have no problem with DRM at the conceptual level. The government gives people and companies limited(supposedly) monopolies to promote the creation of artistic works. It's when they feel that that gives them the right to dictate where and when I enjoy, or not, their products that I get my hackles up. When I can purchase media and enjoy it whenever I want wherever i want, you'll get my money. If you tell me that I paid you for the privilage of being frustrated "no money fo' you."
Apple's iTunes demonstrated many people are willing to live with some DRM and hardware/vendor lock-in.
People don't mind this as long as the DRM allows the consumer to do what they want with the media. As long as I can listen to my music when and where I want it's no problem. When the DRM is used to limit where and when I use what I purchased, that's when people get upset.
It will be interesting if netflix learned this. If I pay a fee and can only watch the movies when, where, and on what netflix decides, they won't get my money. We'll see.
About 10 years or so ago, a woman was killed when a meteor crashed through the roof of her home and struck her on the head. So, who is to blame for this incident? The woman? The home builder? Maybe the worlds space agencies. It's always the governments fault.
Did you read the article? There was nothing techno-utopian in it that I saw. Basically, how I understood it, he was saying that parts of existing arts can be used as the basis for new artistic creations, which can, and many will, overshadow the original.
p.s. Ayn Rand's novels are so far beyond suck that they blow. At least I've finished more of Gibsons stories than I've introduced to the wall. "Book, wall. Wall, book. "
Using davye's idea I believe I have a soloution for the GP who is worried that creativity is destroyed because remixes use words and musical phrases that others have used.
Ok. Here's a new letter. We'll call it Pluh. It'll be a bilabio-lingual fricative consonant. For convienience, we'll use the ampersand (&) to represent it in text.
Now go out there and create new words! God it sucked not being able to create anything new since people had used all of the words, and we all know nothing new or interesting can be created by using something that has been used before.
Huh? Where in the constitution does it say that? Just did a quick peruse of all the articles that mention the supreme court, and the inferior courts also, and nothing says they have to behave in the manner you describe.
Obviously you missed a few of your history classes.
"Free Market" is meant to describe that the market is free for all players to compete and the better ones should prevail. It was not meant to describe "You are free to do as you damn well please!" The government tries to stay out of things unless the flaunting of the free market is unbelievibly blatant. That is why they have things like antitrust laws.
Until you reminded me, I had totally forgotten that they were enacted for the benefit of Bethleham Steel, GM, and such. Silly me.
Well, yes and no. GM can't charge a dealer that owns both GM and Chrysler dealerships 300% more for a GM vehicle than someone that only owns only a GM dealership. If I cannot afford to sell a car because my wholesale price is greater than another dealers retail price, I cannot compete. If it costs me the same to buy my stock and I get money back for moving more volume, then I can compete. Whoever is better at selling cars gets the cash, not whomever kisses GMs butt best.
Same thing applies here. "You get whatever chips are left over after the wholesalers I like are taken care of, and at a significantly higher price because you work with my competitor", is BS.
Free market is supposed to mean everyone is free to compete in the market, not you are free to do whatever you like in, or to, the market. That's why things like the Sherman, Clayton, and Robinson-Patman acts were passed. The last is the most germaine to the pricing issues.
I don't get this. Years ago the government put an end to tiered pricing in the auto industry. Why do they allow it in other industries? It's not as if the computer chip industry or the software industries are tint and insignificant compared to the auto industry.
For those who don't know what I'm babbling about, years ago the federal government in the U.S.A. made some laws that auto makers had to sell cars to all the dealerships for the same price. Before this, the auto companies had penalized dealers that sold other brands, and dealers in rural areas that moved smaller quantities of merchandise. What this meant was that any wholesaler(dealer) that wanted to buy a Chevy paid the same amount as anyone else regardless of whether they kissed the manufacturers butt or not.
the P2P developers problem was that while
they did come up with legal uses the perception of them was that they did that
only for their court case
so, let's get this
straight:
Yes, lets.
in the united states, it's legal to
sell armour-piercing ammuniction
-- bullets whose sole purpose of design is to go through bullet proof vests;
obviously a device designed to kill or maim human beings. the
manufacturers to do not even make the pretense of proposing other uses for said
ammunition. this activity is all fine and legal.
Yes. That statement
is correct. I can purchase ammunition
that is made with the sole purpose of defeating body armor. Since body armor is also legal, it is
possible, but not probable, that someone may wear body armor while committing a
crime that would warrant the use of deadly force to stop. The ability of citizens to purchase this
ammunition allows them to protect themselves.
If you use the above mentioned ammunition to kill a law enforcement
officer while committing a crime, you will most likely get a death sentence.
by comparision, a device that may or may not be designed for,
but is certainly capable of, infringing copyright is deemed illegal. the manufacturers at least attempt the pretense of proposing
legal uses for the technology and make a somewhat-better-than-marginal case for
its legit use. this is not fine or legal.
This statement is not correct. What the supreme court
has said is that if you create something that CAN be used in the commission of
a crime, and then ENCOURAGE its users to commit crimes with it, you may be held
liable.
question for the supreme
court: do you really believe the the copyright of the
bay city rollers first
album is more deserving of legal protection than a human life?
I can't answer for them, but for me, both victims of violent
crimes and copyrights both need to be protected.
That said, copyright law is in serious need of revision. Apparently the government has lost sight of
the "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" part.
No. The clause was put in there because goods, services, and properties had been siezed or procured in the name of the crown with no compensation. Realizing that the government they were forming would need to sieze properties on rare occasions, it was codified that the government could not simply steal the property under a legal pretext. Things like forcing blacksmiths to shoe horses for the local malitia with no compensation, and sometimes under duress, were things that the fledgling government felt shouldn't be done.
Nowadays the government states that simply increasing the tax base of a municipality is "in the interests of the community." I seem to have forgotten when governments became profit making entities. Silly me.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, they most likely will fit. Now please invent a time machine and yourself back to the 1960's so you can have them install a USB port, preferably USB 2.0, on the computers for the Pioneer project. See, all the problems are solved!
"From a provider's point of view, I would think that restricting you to the methods on which you could play it would be a necessity."
Then do not expect me to spend my money with the company. It is a simple "voting with your dollars" scenerio. If they get enough people to make it a viable enterprise, fine, but I will not be using it if it doesn't meet MY exepectations.
God, I totally forgot how to spell. That will teach me to type while eating lunch and running server diagnostics in another window. Not enough synapses for all of that at once.
Why would AMD expect the Intel compiler to produce optimized code? because of theis from Intels websight.
"Accelerate Windows* Applications
Develop high-performance software for desktops, servers, handheld devices and mobile phones that is optimized for Intel® architecture using Intel® Compilers for Windows*."
Note is says Intel architecture, which AMD processors are compliant with, not Intel processors. Therefore, I would reasonably expect that claim to be substantiated in the resulting code.
Or maybe not. Depends if you were wanting to buy or sell.
OK. But when I rent a movie they don't tell me I can only watch this on a "megapictures" brand player between the hours of 3 p.m. and 7:45 p.m. and only one other person may be in the room and ...
I go, I get the movie, I watch it when and how I like, then I return it. I can even incure a late fee, if I want, but the movie still plays the day after it was due. They haven't pissed me off, so I go back and spend more money with them.
The only thing I wish, like you, was that there was a greater selection of players available, but that is not the rental companies issue. They are not the ones that refuse to license their tech to OSS developers. Nor are they the ones that refuse to license their media for multiple platforms. If enough people DON'T buy thing from the likes of Microsoft, Sony, and Paramount, they would soon offer their selections in the formats the people want. Sony now sells MP3 players. Even ones that don't use their memory sticks. Why? Because they were being marginalized when no one wanted their products and services. ATAC was limiting, now ATAC is going Bye Bye.
Oww. My neck! Bring in the royal "swimsuit model turned masseuse!"
Ah, you have such a snide sig, but don't follow your own advice.
First I never said anything about "allowed" time. I said I would want to watch the movies when and where I choose. If they limited the number of downloaded movies to a certain number at any time, but I can watch them on any of my computers or televisions as I want as often as I want, I don't see an issue. Even if I keep them downloaded for 36 months I keep paying my fee and they don't use up much bandwith. Gods, they would love that.
Secondly, The portable players can work the same way. I can have say 3 movies downloaded to the player at any time. They do not need to be the same as the movies I have on my computers/Tivos either.
When I cancel my service, the Netflix software would stop working after a cooldown period since it isn't getting authorized from server side. For the portable player make it say 90 days before it has to be resynced with one of your systems that has the client software on it.
World domination!
I have no problem with DRM at the conceptual level. The government gives people and companies limited(supposedly) monopolies to promote the creation of artistic works. It's when they feel that that gives them the right to dictate where and when I enjoy, or not, their products that I get my hackles up. When I can purchase media and enjoy it whenever I want wherever i want, you'll get my money. If you tell me that I paid you for the privilage of being frustrated "no money fo' you."
Apple's iTunes demonstrated many people are willing to live with some DRM and hardware/vendor lock-in.
People don't mind this as long as the DRM allows the consumer to do what they want with the media. As long as I can listen to my music when and where I want it's no problem. When the DRM is used to limit where and when I use what I purchased, that's when people get upset.
It will be interesting if netflix learned this. If I pay a fee and can only watch the movies when, where, and on what netflix decides, they won't get my money. We'll see.
No. By the definition in the dictionary, it was an accident.
Right you are. My bad. :)
Dole Office Clerk: Did you bulshit this week?
Comicus: Noooo.
Dole Office Clerk: Did you try to bulshit this week.
Comicus: Yeeessss.
About 10 years or so ago, a woman was killed when a meteor crashed through the roof of her home and struck her on the head. So, who is to blame for this incident? The woman? The home builder? Maybe the worlds space agencies. It's always the governments fault.
Did you read the article? There was nothing techno-utopian in it that I saw. Basically, how I understood it, he was saying that parts of existing arts can be used as the basis for new artistic creations, which can, and many will, overshadow the original.
p.s. Ayn Rand's novels are so far beyond suck that they blow. At least I've finished more of Gibsons stories than I've introduced to the wall. "Book, wall. Wall, book. "
Using davye's idea I believe I have a soloution for the GP who is worried that creativity is destroyed because remixes use words and musical phrases that others have used.
Ok. Here's a new letter. We'll call it Pluh. It'll be a bilabio-lingual fricative consonant. For convienience, we'll use the ampersand (&) to represent it in text.
Now go out there and create new words! God it sucked not being able to create anything new since people had used all of the words, and we all know nothing new or interesting can be created by using something that has been used before.
Huh? Where in the constitution does it say that? Just did a quick peruse of all the articles that mention the supreme court, and the inferior courts also, and nothing says they have to behave in the manner you describe.
From long before the internet... Wyoming, where men are men, women are scarce, and the sheep are nervous.
Obviously you missed a few of your history classes.
"Free Market" is meant to describe that the market is free for all players to compete and the better ones should prevail. It was not meant to describe "You are free to do as you damn well please!" The government tries to stay out of things unless the flaunting of the free market is unbelievibly blatant. That is why they have things like antitrust laws.
Until you reminded me, I had totally forgotten that they were enacted for the benefit of Bethleham Steel, GM, and such. Silly me.
Well, yes and no. GM can't charge a dealer that owns both GM and Chrysler dealerships 300% more for a GM vehicle than someone that only owns only a GM dealership. If I cannot afford to sell a car because my wholesale price is greater than another dealers retail price, I cannot compete. If it costs me the same to buy my stock and I get money back for moving more volume, then I can compete. Whoever is better at selling cars gets the cash, not whomever kisses GMs butt best.
Same thing applies here. "You get whatever chips are left over after the wholesalers I like are taken care of, and at a significantly higher price because you work with my competitor", is BS.
Free market is supposed to mean everyone is free to compete in the market, not you are free to do whatever you like in, or to, the market. That's why things like the Sherman, Clayton, and Robinson-Patman acts were passed. The last is the most germaine to the pricing issues.
I don't get this. Years ago the government put an end to tiered pricing in the auto industry. Why do they allow it in other industries? It's not as if the computer chip industry or the software industries are tint and insignificant compared to the auto industry.
For those who don't know what I'm babbling about, years ago the federal government in the U.S.A. made some laws that auto makers had to sell cars to all the dealerships for the same price. Before this, the auto companies had penalized dealers that sold other brands, and dealers in rural areas that moved smaller quantities of merchandise. What this meant was that any wholesaler(dealer) that wanted to buy a Chevy paid the same amount as anyone else regardless of whether they kissed the manufacturers butt or not.
the P2P developers problem was that while they did come up with legal uses the perception of them was that they did that only for their court case
so , let's get this straight:
Yes, lets.
in the united states , it's legal to sell armour-piercing ammuniction -- bullets whose sole purpose of design is to go through bullet proof vests; obviously a device designed to kill or maim human beings. the manufacturers to do not even make the pretense of proposing other uses for said ammunition. this activity is all fine and legal.
Yes. That statement is correct. I can purchase ammunition that is made with the sole purpose of defeating body armor. Since body armor is also legal, it is possible, but not probable, that someone may wear body armor while committing a crime that would warrant the use of deadly force to stop. The ability of citizens to purchase this ammunition allows them to protect themselves. If you use the above mentioned ammunition to kill a law enforcement officer while committing a crime, you will most likely get a death sentence.
by comparision, a device that may or may not be designed for, but is certainly capable of, infringing copyright is deemed illegal. the manufacturers at least attempt the pretense of proposing legal uses for the technology and make a somewhat-better-than-marginal case for its legit use. this is not fine or legal.
This statement is not correct. What the supreme court has said is that if you create something that CAN be used in the commission of a crime, and then ENCOURAGE its users to commit crimes with it, you may be held liable.
question for the supreme court: do you really believe the the copyright of the bay city rollers first album is more deserving of legal protection than a human life?
I can't answer for them, but for me, both victims of violent crimes and copyrights both need to be protected.
That said, copyright law is in serious need of revision. Apparently the government has lost sight of the "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" part.
No. Businesses are the pushers. The government is the crackhead with the machine gun and the combination to all his neighbors safes.
No. The clause was put in there because goods, services, and properties had been siezed or procured in the name of the crown with no compensation. Realizing that the government they were forming would need to sieze properties on rare occasions, it was codified that the government could not simply steal the property under a legal pretext. Things like forcing blacksmiths to shoe horses for the local malitia with no compensation, and sometimes under duress, were things that the fledgling government felt shouldn't be done.
Nowadays the government states that simply increasing the tax base of a municipality is "in the interests of the community." I seem to have forgotten when governments became profit making entities. Silly me.