No, you are incorrect. It is only illegal if you do for the purpose of violating copyrights on the protected content. Since Real negotiated the rights to sell their own protected content, and since their modification did not circumvent Apple's own protections, there was no violation. The only function of the Real software was interoperability, which is NOT prohibited by the DMCA.
Good point about the tactile feedback. I think the ultimate iteration of this device would incorporate some kind of magnetic or piezoelectric layer in a pixel grid, so that arbitrary pixels can be made to pulse. Pulse rapidly to create vibrations. This would enable tactile keyboard response, button clicking response, "dragging" response - all kinds of interesting tactile feedback.
Apple has made absolutely no move against those who have cracked the FairPlay DRM
IIRC, RealNetworks didn't crack the DRM, but reverse-engineered it, so that you could play DRM'ed RealMedia files on an iPod. Which Apple threw a hissy fit about, threatened legal action, and broke with the next firmware update. That seems pretty damn anti-competitive to me.
There is one I really like for xbox called "Super Mario War." It uses sounds and sprites from all the different mario games, but is essentially a four-player battle mode (similar to the challenge mode in SMB3, but with different point-scoring goals). Four-player is great, and I love enabling the UT sounds (boing boing boing M-M-M-M-MONSTER KILL!!!) It's a blast.
It is not by accident that I used the present tense, and excluding the Nazis, who explicitly did not kill "in the name of God," your examples are hundreds of years old. My argument is that the Christianity, with the rest of the world has changed in the past few centuries, but that an abnormally large number of Muslim extremists have not also changed. As you consider the state of the world right now and going forward, I believe my statement is accurate.
I do not argue that Christians are pure and have not committed horrors in the past. But that is not relevant to my parent's statement.
You're right, my mistake. I confused the 91 figure with the "per 100,000" figure, though, to be fair, that's still well above the combined U.S. rates. More to the point, it is a logical fallacy that we must ignore all others' problems until we have solved all of our own, and frankly your America-bashing is not relevant to this topic, grautuitous, and a troll.
In addition to the previous points I raised, I did some more checking, and the 2004 intentional homicide rate for the United States is actually 5.5, not 7.
How did I know somebody would turn this story into an opportunity for hate-America propoganda?
You do the math.
Very well. With a 2005 suicide rate of 91(!) per 100,000 (and the U.S's falling to just over 10, according the WHO), that means that the Japanese suicide rate alone is still over five times the U.S suicide and homicide rates combined. Surely that must be cause for some concern. (Whether one country is "better" than another is not relevant to this topic, just an irrelevant troll you brought up.)
While agree that there are many, many moderate and nonviolent Muslims, I just can't see how anyone could think this statement:
Islam is not sigificantly better or worse than "Christianity" (and about as diverse).
could possibly be true. I'm sorry, but facts speak for themselves, and the facts are that there are no statistically significant numbers of Christian suicide bombers, Christian embassy burnings, Christian honor killings, or Christian riots. For whatever reason, some Muslims are more violent than their Christian counterparts.
What's your complaint with NTFS, other than that it is closed-source? Are there any reliable comparisons of NTFS with traditional open-source alternatives?
By Craig Barrett
CEO and President,
Intel
February 10, 2006
Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of computing in this country. The Pentium 3 was the CPU to own. Then the other guy came out with a 64-bit x86 CPU. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the Itanium. That's 64 bit and a new instruction set. For performance. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened--the bastards went to two cores. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling 64 bits and a new instruction set. Floating point performance or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to four cores.
Sure, we could go to two cores next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, one worked out pretty well, and two is the next number after one. So let's play it safe. Let's make a faster bus and call it the Pentium4SuperExtreme. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why!
You think it's crazy? It is crazy. But I don't give a shit. From now on, we're the ones who have the edge in the multi-core game. Are they what's inside? Fuck, no. Intel is what's inside.
What part of this don't you understand? If one core is good, and two cores is better, obviously four cores would make us the best fucking CPU that ever existed. Comprende? We didn't claw our way to the top of the processor game by clinging to the 64-bit industry standard. We got here by taking chances. Well, four cores is the biggest chance of all.
Here's the report from Engineering. Someone put it in the bathroom: I want to wipe my ass with it. They don't tell me what to invent--I tell them. And I'm telling them to stick two more cores in there. I don't care how. Make the wafers so thin they're invisible. Put some on the bottom of the die. I don't care if they have to cram the fourth in perpendicular to the other three, just do it!
You're taking the "point" part of "floating point" too literally, grandma. Cut the strings and soar. Let's hit it. Let's roll. This is our chance to make CPU history. Let's dream big. All you have to do is say that four cores can happen, and it will happen. If you aren't on board, then fuck you. And if you're on the board, then fuck you and your father. Hey, if I'm the only one who'll take risks, I'm sure as hell happy to hog all the glory when the four-core CPU becomes the computing tool for the U.S. of "this is how we compute now" A.
People said we couldn't go to 64-bit. It'll cost a fortune to manufacture, they said. Well, we did it. Now some egghead in a lab is screaming "Four's crazy?" Well, perhaps he'd be more comfortable in the labs at AMD, working on fucking Turions. HyperTransport, my white ass!
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should just ride in Motorola's wake and make embedded IC's. Ha! Not on your fucking life! The day I shadow a penny-ante outfit like Motorola is the day I leave the CPU game for good, and that won't happen until the day I die!
The market? Listen, we make the market. All we have to do is put her out there with a little jingle. It's as easy as, "Hey, gaming with anything less than four blades is like playing at VGA resolution." Or "You'll be so l33t, I couldn't snipe you with an aimbot." Try "Your b0x is going to be so friggin' fast, someone's gonna walk up and put a goddamn spoiler on it."
I know what you're thinking now: What'll people say? Mew mew mew. Oh, no, what will people say?! Grow the fuck up. When you're on top, people talk. That's the price you pay for being on top. Which Intel is, always has been, and forever shall be, Amen, four cores, sweet Jesus in heaven.
Stop. I just had a stroke of genius. Are you ready? Open your mouth, baby birds, cause Mama's about to drop you one sweet, fat nightcrawler. Here she comes: Put another Level 2 cache on that fucker, too. That's right. Four cores, two caches, and make th
thank you for your thoughtful reply. I do have a couple of responses, though.
But the burden of proof for such a counter-argument is on he who puts it forth: why wouldn't the inventor have invented it anyway?
In fact, the safety pin was invented by a man who was trying many different devices in an attept to build a repeating rifle mechanism. His motivation was purely economic, in that there was great demand for effective repeating rifles. He hit upon this idea and refined it into the safety pin. There are many other examples to support my proposition. Charles Goodyear spent huge amounts of time before discovering vulcanized rubber, with the expectation that it would be a well-repaid investment. Thomas Edison spent fortunes and years of his life trying to perfect different inventions, and he was certainly no altruist. The truth is that even what seem like simple or obvious devices can take an immense amount of effort to get "just right." Hindsight is always 20-20. It's impossible now to look at the safety pin and not think it the most obvious device. But that's only because that is the device you have ever known, and in fact, most people cannot without great difficulty conceive of a safety pin being any other way than it is.
How many inventors of our most seminal technologies claim to be motivated primarily by economic incentives?
I would say a great deal, Edison being one of the most famously so. The cliche, "build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door" doesn't refer to people dropping by for a chat and a cup of tea. Even most serendipitous inventions usually occur because of the exploratory effort being put into finding some lucrative invention.
If this inventor had not invented the safety pin, why would no one else have invented it independently?
Of course, this is impossile to answer, but even discounting the value of having it sooner rather than later, if, as you propose, the only conceivable advantage to working on such a device would be having it first to market, the incentive to spend more than a trivial amount of time on the idea is relative worthless. Especially in modern manufacturing, the market winner will be whoever is able to manufacture safety pins the cheapest - a skill totally unrelated to the amount of effort that is put into the design (actually, there is perhaps an inverse relationship, as more complicated products offer more advantage to manufacturing at huge scales). Why would anyone bother to secure financing, start a company, form a production line, buy machinery, etc., when if the product flops, you hold the bag, and if the product is a success, a Chinese manufacturer produces the same thing in huge quantities and at half the price? Why would anyone bother?
Are you sure your argument doesn't apply only to software patents? For example, suppose I invent the safety pin. Normally, I patent it, and for a while, only I can produce (or bless the production of) safety pins. Under your argument, I get no patent, and instead use trade secrets. How do trade secrets help me? Anyone spending 30 seconds looking at a safety pin probably knows everything there is to know about it. But if not for the ability to patent it, I wouldn't have spent months figuring out the best way to design a safety pin.
The whole point of patents, as spelled out in the constitution, is to contribute works to the public domain for others to build off of.
Uhhhhh...are you reading a different constitution than I am?
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;,
Because I don't read that as saying what you say it says.
This is why the Federation, by the time of Picard, has devolved into a totalitarian military dictatorship. The only apparent choices, when confronted with the discovery of technology as dangerous as matter transportation and mass-energy conversion, it seemed the only logical choice. Replicators, warp drives, and transporters could easily give every single person a comfortable lifestyle, but were so incredibly dangerous that they could never be allowed to fall into untrusted hands. So, Starfleet (and later, the Federation) established itself as the only entity allowed to possess such dangerous technology, strictly and ruthlessly enforced, but in return, provided every person on the planet with all their material needs. This, of course, resulted in the elimination of free markets, because the only thing that could not be easily replicated was land. For a brief time, it was worried that, having nothing of value with which to negotiate the buying and selling of land, violence would break out between those that owned land and those which did not, and now could not because even human labor was now of minimal value. As a solution, Starfleet confiscated all privately owned land. Thereafter, land was apportioned to individuals on the basis of their contributions to Starfleet. This is one reason why, despite being a very hazardous occupation, it was so hard to get into the academy - becoming a member of starfleet was one of the only ways to gain significant amounts of landed property, though of course scientists and other professionals who rendered their services to Starfleet as civilians, while they could not be paid with any material goods (material goods having lost all value), were paid with land as well. The major exception was for human colonists. In order to promote human expansion, increase the amount of available Earth land available for Starfleet apportionment, and to encourage the dislocation of dissidents, colonists were granted the right to appropriate land on other planets according to whatever method of apportionment the colonists wished to choose - subject, of course, to the needs of the Federation. The net result of this policy was that most people remaining on earth were Starfleet supporters, and dissidents were strongly encouraged to leave Earth and colonize other parts of the quadrant. While a few colonists, desperate to escape the clutches of Starfleet, left federation space altogether, most could not afford to do so, having been stripped of the right to own weapons by the Federation and thus being almost totally defenseless and needing the protection of Starfleet. But Starfleet protection was not by any means inexpensive. In return for protection, Starfleet demanded complete obedience. Colonists were forbidden from owning energy weapons, warp vessels, or unauthorized replicators. Starfleet was even skeptical about allowing fusion reactors, but ultimately realized the necessity of it. As a result, however, Federation observation posts and starbases were never far away.
Eventually, some few came to understand all that had been lost in the great and glorious transition to an interstellar race, but they did not openly discuss it.
Well, there's the equally closed Microsoft WMA DRM if you want to get your music into the WalMart Music Store, or the MSN Music Store, or the National Baseball Music Store. You pays your money ad you takes your choice.
There actually is a legitimate difference here - Microsoft freely licenses the use of WMA at really reasonable costs to pretty much all takers, allowing many competing device makers and competing music stores, but that are all compatible with each other. Apple has refused to license FairPlay to anyone else, and has even actively worked to prevent the ipod from being able to play any other DRM files. Microsoft is actually being competition friendly in this case, and Apple is not. Sorry to ruin your day.
What does Vista have that XP doesn't (or, won't be back-ported.. like Avalon and Indigo) that would be a legitimate, technical reason for Halo 2 not to run on XP?
Slashdot Mirror
No, you are incorrect. It is only illegal if you do for the purpose of violating copyrights on the protected content. Since Real negotiated the rights to sell their own protected content, and since their modification did not circumvent Apple's own protections, there was no violation. The only function of the Real software was interoperability, which is NOT prohibited by the DMCA.
Good point about the tactile feedback. I think the ultimate iteration of this device would incorporate some kind of magnetic or piezoelectric layer in a pixel grid, so that arbitrary pixels can be made to pulse. Pulse rapidly to create vibrations. This would enable tactile keyboard response, button clicking response, "dragging" response - all kinds of interesting tactile feedback.
Huh? That's precisely what Apple is fighting to prevent. That's what the plaintiff wants.
IIRC, RealNetworks didn't crack the DRM, but reverse-engineered it, so that you could play DRM'ed RealMedia files on an iPod. Which Apple threw a hissy fit about, threatened legal action, and broke with the next firmware update. That seems pretty damn anti-competitive to me.
There is one I really like for xbox called "Super Mario War." It uses sounds and sprites from all the different mario games, but is essentially a four-player battle mode (similar to the challenge mode in SMB3, but with different point-scoring goals). Four-player is great, and I love enabling the UT sounds (boing boing boing M-M-M-M-MONSTER KILL!!!) It's a blast.
You might want to check that assumption: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4552010.st m
I do not argue that Christians are pure and have not committed horrors in the past. But that is not relevant to my parent's statement.
You're right, my mistake. I confused the 91 figure with the "per 100,000" figure, though, to be fair, that's still well above the combined U.S. rates. More to the point, it is a logical fallacy that we must ignore all others' problems until we have solved all of our own, and frankly your America-bashing is not relevant to this topic, grautuitous, and a troll.
I don't believe this is accurate. I understand the Romans would off themselves practically at the drop of a hat.
In addition to the previous points I raised, I did some more checking, and the 2004 intentional homicide rate for the United States is actually 5.5, not 7.
You do the math.
Very well. With a 2005 suicide rate of 91(!) per 100,000 (and the U.S's falling to just over 10, according the WHO), that means that the Japanese suicide rate alone is still over five times the U.S suicide and homicide rates combined. Surely that must be cause for some concern. (Whether one country is "better" than another is not relevant to this topic, just an irrelevant troll you brought up.)
Islam is not sigificantly better or worse than "Christianity" (and about as diverse).
could possibly be true. I'm sorry, but facts speak for themselves, and the facts are that there are no statistically significant numbers of Christian suicide bombers, Christian embassy burnings, Christian honor killings, or Christian riots. For whatever reason, some Muslims are more violent than their Christian counterparts.
What's your complaint with NTFS, other than that it is closed-source? Are there any reliable comparisons of NTFS with traditional open-source alternatives?
D'oh!
I mean...uh...he's talking about blade servers, obviously.
For those not familiar with the original: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33930
By Craig Barrett
CEO and President,
Intel
February 10, 2006
Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of computing in this country. The Pentium 3 was the CPU to own. Then the other guy came out with a 64-bit x86 CPU. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the Itanium. That's 64 bit and a new instruction set. For performance. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened--the bastards went to two cores. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling 64 bits and a new instruction set. Floating point performance or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to four cores.
Sure, we could go to two cores next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, one worked out pretty well, and two is the next number after one. So let's play it safe. Let's make a faster bus and call it the Pentium4SuperExtreme. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why!
You think it's crazy? It is crazy. But I don't give a shit. From now on, we're the ones who have the edge in the multi-core game. Are they what's inside? Fuck, no. Intel is what's inside.
What part of this don't you understand? If one core is good, and two cores is better, obviously four cores would make us the best fucking CPU that ever existed. Comprende? We didn't claw our way to the top of the processor game by clinging to the 64-bit industry standard. We got here by taking chances. Well, four cores is the biggest chance of all.
Here's the report from Engineering. Someone put it in the bathroom: I want to wipe my ass with it. They don't tell me what to invent--I tell them. And I'm telling them to stick two more cores in there. I don't care how. Make the wafers so thin they're invisible. Put some on the bottom of the die. I don't care if they have to cram the fourth in perpendicular to the other three, just do it!
You're taking the "point" part of "floating point" too literally, grandma. Cut the strings and soar. Let's hit it. Let's roll. This is our chance to make CPU history. Let's dream big. All you have to do is say that four cores can happen, and it will happen. If you aren't on board, then fuck you. And if you're on the board, then fuck you and your father. Hey, if I'm the only one who'll take risks, I'm sure as hell happy to hog all the glory when the four-core CPU becomes the computing tool for the U.S. of "this is how we compute now" A.
People said we couldn't go to 64-bit. It'll cost a fortune to manufacture, they said. Well, we did it. Now some egghead in a lab is screaming "Four's crazy?" Well, perhaps he'd be more comfortable in the labs at AMD, working on fucking Turions. HyperTransport, my white ass!
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should just ride in Motorola's wake and make embedded IC's. Ha! Not on your fucking life! The day I shadow a penny-ante outfit like Motorola is the day I leave the CPU game for good, and that won't happen until the day I die!
The market? Listen, we make the market. All we have to do is put her out there with a little jingle. It's as easy as, "Hey, gaming with anything less than four blades is like playing at VGA resolution." Or "You'll be so l33t, I couldn't snipe you with an aimbot." Try "Your b0x is going to be so friggin' fast, someone's gonna walk up and put a goddamn spoiler on it."
I know what you're thinking now: What'll people say? Mew mew mew. Oh, no, what will people say?! Grow the fuck up. When you're on top, people talk. That's the price you pay for being on top. Which Intel is, always has been, and forever shall be, Amen, four cores, sweet Jesus in heaven.
Stop. I just had a stroke of genius. Are you ready? Open your mouth, baby birds, cause Mama's about to drop you one sweet, fat nightcrawler. Here she comes: Put another Level 2 cache on that fucker, too. That's right. Four cores, two caches, and make th
Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?
But the burden of proof for such a counter-argument is on he who puts it forth: why wouldn't the inventor have invented it anyway?
In fact, the safety pin was invented by a man who was trying many different devices in an attept to build a repeating rifle mechanism. His motivation was purely economic, in that there was great demand for effective repeating rifles. He hit upon this idea and refined it into the safety pin. There are many other examples to support my proposition. Charles Goodyear spent huge amounts of time before discovering vulcanized rubber, with the expectation that it would be a well-repaid investment. Thomas Edison spent fortunes and years of his life trying to perfect different inventions, and he was certainly no altruist. The truth is that even what seem like simple or obvious devices can take an immense amount of effort to get "just right." Hindsight is always 20-20. It's impossible now to look at the safety pin and not think it the most obvious device. But that's only because that is the device you have ever known, and in fact, most people cannot without great difficulty conceive of a safety pin being any other way than it is.
How many inventors of our most seminal technologies claim to be motivated primarily by economic incentives?
I would say a great deal, Edison being one of the most famously so. The cliche, "build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door" doesn't refer to people dropping by for a chat and a cup of tea. Even most serendipitous inventions usually occur because of the exploratory effort being put into finding some lucrative invention.
If this inventor had not invented the safety pin, why would no one else have invented it independently?
Of course, this is impossile to answer, but even discounting the value of having it sooner rather than later, if, as you propose, the only conceivable advantage to working on such a device would be having it first to market, the incentive to spend more than a trivial amount of time on the idea is relative worthless. Especially in modern manufacturing, the market winner will be whoever is able to manufacture safety pins the cheapest - a skill totally unrelated to the amount of effort that is put into the design (actually, there is perhaps an inverse relationship, as more complicated products offer more advantage to manufacturing at huge scales). Why would anyone bother to secure financing, start a company, form a production line, buy machinery, etc., when if the product flops, you hold the bag, and if the product is a success, a Chinese manufacturer produces the same thing in huge quantities and at half the price? Why would anyone bother?
And your tone is what those with a sense of humor call "being a total dick." Relax - you'll live longer.
...
I have never seen CE used in anything that had real-time requirements
*** STOP: 0x00000019 (0x00000000, 0x00001079, 0x000000FE, 0xFFFFFF80)
ERROR_DOES_NOT_COMPUTE*** Address 800079D3 has base at 80007000 - LOGIC.SYS
Are you sure your argument doesn't apply only to software patents? For example, suppose I invent the safety pin. Normally, I patent it, and for a while, only I can produce (or bless the production of) safety pins. Under your argument, I get no patent, and instead use trade secrets. How do trade secrets help me? Anyone spending 30 seconds looking at a safety pin probably knows everything there is to know about it. But if not for the ability to patent it, I wouldn't have spent months figuring out the best way to design a safety pin.
Uhhhhh...are you reading a different constitution than I am?
Because I don't read that as saying what you say it says.Eventually, some few came to understand all that had been lost in the great and glorious transition to an interstellar race, but they did not openly discuss it.
There actually is a legitimate difference here - Microsoft freely licenses the use of WMA at really reasonable costs to pretty much all takers, allowing many competing device makers and competing music stores, but that are all compatible with each other. Apple has refused to license FairPlay to anyone else, and has even actively worked to prevent the ipod from being able to play any other DRM files. Microsoft is actually being competition friendly in this case, and Apple is not. Sorry to ruin your day.
It might interest you to know that the U.S. District Court of Norther California does not agree.
DirectX 10?