The problem with hyperthreading is that while it gives you 2 virtual cpus, there are cases where one cpu will stall the other, for example due to there being only one floating point unit in the ht cpu.
Hence, it depends a lot on your code how well hyperthreading will work, but generally doing little with floats will make it work better (there are a few more situations where stalls will occur)
> Quick googling seems to reveal that less than 10 people have ever caught AIDS from transfusion, yet many more people have either become ill from a vaccine or had a ineffective vaccine.
I am quite sure that there are more then 10 peopel in the world alive now who got infected with the HIV virus due to either blood or blood plasma.
How many of those got to the stage of developing AIDS is another matter.
An entirely different thing is that generally spoken, blood transfusions in for example the USA are very safe due to screening. A quick google results in a 1 in 40000 chance if it going wrong, which is a much lower chance then getting killed in a car accident for example.
With unscreened blood however the story changes entirely, it is the most direct, and depending on amount of blood, most intensive blood to blood contact possible, and provides by far the best infection vector for the AIDS virus. THat it is not the most common one is due to 2 factors: 1. alternative vectors exist and are far more common (unprotected sex) and 2. blood screening.
ANd that my friend was exactly the point of my previous post. Safe sex alone won't solve the issue, and at least in the western world, and in quite a part of the remainign world, things like blood screening play an important role in preventing the spreading of HIV and as a result AIDS.
> Yeah, state control/public funding worked great in socialist states.
They had an entirely different kind of state with a different kind of government, so comparing apples and oranges.
> There was just a stream of medical advances coming out of the Soviet Union.
Actually, in the areas of eye and nerve treatment, they have made quite some contributions.
> Private owership/control is the most efficient system. Capitalism doesn't just make people wealthy, it _vastly_ improves the quality of life for everyone in the system.
No, it is the system which worked better then the available alternatives, that doesn't make it the best system possible.
And with the USA havign approx 12% of its population livign on or below the poverty line, something that is unheard of and would be utterly unacceptable in western Europe with its slightly more 'socialist' type of governments, rather suggests that an almost pure form of capitalism does not probvide the best possible living conditions for everyone in the system.
Then, you are confusing a few things. Soviet RUssia and China may in name be communist countries (maybe this is news for you, but communism and socialism are not entirely the same thing) but the Soviet Union was a Leninist/Stalinist state, whiel CHina is mostly Maoist. Those are indeed in part based on the ideas of communism, but Nazism was also based on the principes of private ownership and capitalism, which doesn't make it anywhere similar to the utopia you seem to be thinking about when talking about private ownership and capitalism.
In the late 80s, I had to take a TB test as a result of possibly having been in contact with the dissease.
Yeah, I did get the little 'poke under the skin', but only after they had confirmed that I never had had that test before, and they told me afterwards that the test would no longer be reliable when repeated in the future, and that in relevant cases I should mention that to medical personal.
Maybe the test we got back then was different from what you got now? The explanation we got is that the test would trigger the immune system either way (nfected or not) but the direct effect of triggerign it woudl be different (that is how the test shows if you are infected or not)
You say that as a result of the internet the rules have changed.
I say they haven't (well, actually, they have, the USA got the nice DMCA, Europe got the EU copyright directive, but I doubt that either of them is the kind of change we are talking about).
The issue is that you look at how it should be, and I look at how things are right now.
We can have a lenghty discussion about how IP should work, the challange that the Internet poses for current IP laws, and many related things.
All nice, very interesting, and actually I think we may find we'd agree on quite a few things there.
It does nto change at all how the rules are today.
> notice i didn't call you a name, i merely described a behavior, and gave it a definition;-P
Please, learn to read, I said you behaved like a child, not that you are one.
> but you go ahead and dismiss me, after all, i'm just a child, i couldn't possibly represent a threat to anything you say;-)
I guess I would not be responding to your posts if I'd dismiss you.
> Why do you think people have to waive that rights when they hire a photographer.
That concerns model release, and possibly derived work. Only in case of derived work this has to do with copyright.
To just amke the point, if you hire a professional to setup the camera, and then press the button yourself, you own the copyright. Thuis setup is used a lot for exactly that reason.
> Since they are two sides of the same coin, the act we wish to prevent is basically downloading/sharing. Making one illegal, but not the other shifts the emphasis of responsibility for the 'combined act' onto one party. This may be more practical in terms of law enforcement (better to prosecute one sharer than many downloaders).
Now, whatever applies in your situation depends on the law of the country... but where I live (the Netherlands) and in for example Canada, there is a real difference between the downloading and sharing, and downloading is legal for a very simple reason, the consumer is paying for it.
In other words, it is legal for me as well to goto a library, rent a CD, and make a personal copy of it.
It is not legal for me to make copies of a CD to give them to other people however.
For the same reason i is legal for me to download a file for my personal use, but not to distribute it.
> Finder Keepers, Loser Weepers has quite a bit of law behind it, I suggest you learn about that.
While this is not true in many parts of the world, it seems true in the USA.
What that means for the CF card seems clear.
Does this apply to the copyright on the pictures? I'd say that that is not clear at all, but my understanding is that a copyright transfer can only take place explicitly.
> Actually... What if you're on vacation and you ask someone to take a picture of you with your camera? Assuming you don't pay them, and they don't run off with your camera, do they own the Copyright, or do you?
Somewhat interesting case. AT first glance, yes, they do own the copyright, but despite the fact that no payment is involved, this could still be considered work for hire, in which case you own the copyright.
> Sooo... what if I aim the camera and my buddy presses the button?
Strictly spoken the person pressign the button owns the copyright.
This is why it makes sense at times to let a professional setup the equipment and press the button yourslef, which in fact happens quite often for exactly this reason.
> What if I take a perfectly framed picture of a copyrighted picture? Do I then own the copyright?
You own the copyroight n a derived work, yes.
> What if the shutter button is pressed by two people simultaneously?
2 peopel own it, just like when you were playing music together for example.
> The reality is that the legal system provides something called Justice For A Price, and the price you'd pay for something like this would drastically outstrip any actual benefits, monetary or otherwise, you'd get from winning the case.
Right so far...
> Which, unfortunately, unless you get a jury of extremely rabid law students on crack, you could not do with "He did something WRONG! I have ambiguous proof at best, but he DID!" Crying wins sympathy only if you can indicate something happened to you, and in this case, you can't prove shit.
Except for the fact that the proof for it is not ambigious at all.
Almost all ID games are available for Linux, unlike those of many other publishers.
Seeing how ID is also sayign themselves that a Linux version is comming, it is quite reasonable to ask when it will come and to wait for it to be there before buying their games...
> Not only do you need a dictionary, you need to STFU and RTFA:
I don't need a dictionary, you need to learn somethign about this weird concept called typo.
> Bullshit. It is not the same code. It is a totally different source code that does a similar function in a different way. the original code is nowhere to be found in the Mambo code.
The question is still if the person who put it there had a right to put it there.
If some developer works for a company, and has a contract that allows his employer to have a claim on his work (where related to the business of the company) regardless of when he does that work, then the company has a claim, and such contracts are way more common then you might think.
There are various other possibilities why they can have a claim on the code still, it being trivial doesn't really matter much for that.
If there exists such a claim, they first of all have a claim against whomever ut it in there, and can possibly demand that the code be removed from the project. Do they actually have a claim? I would not know, I just hear 2 sides, one saying they have, the other saying they don't, and both make arguments that are already flawed at first glance, so I have no reason whatsoever to believe either side.
> I'm glad I use Geeklog and Postnuke for my websites.
So do I (well, I don't use Postnuke), oh, and ocms.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with hyperthreading is that while it gives you 2 virtual cpus, there are cases where one cpu will stall the other, for example due to there being only one floating point unit in the ht cpu.
Hence, it depends a lot on your code how well hyperthreading will work, but generally doing little with floats will make it work better (there are a few more situations where stalls will occur)
> by far the best infection vector for the AIDS virus.
:)
WHich of course should have said HIV virus...
Hmm, maybe that preview button is there for a reason afterall..
> Quick googling seems to reveal that less than 10 people have ever caught AIDS from transfusion, yet many more people have either become ill from a vaccine or had a ineffective vaccine.
I am quite sure that there are more then 10 peopel in the world alive now who got infected with the HIV virus due to either blood or blood plasma.
How many of those got to the stage of developing AIDS is another matter.
An entirely different thing is that generally spoken, blood transfusions in for example the USA are very safe due to screening. A quick google results in a 1 in 40000 chance if it going wrong, which is a much lower chance then getting killed in a car accident for example.
With unscreened blood however the story changes entirely, it is the most direct, and depending on amount of blood, most intensive blood to blood contact possible, and provides by far the best infection vector for the AIDS virus. THat it is not the most common one is due to 2 factors: 1. alternative vectors exist and are far more common (unprotected sex) and 2. blood screening.
ANd that my friend was exactly the point of my previous post. Safe sex alone won't solve the issue, and at least in the western world, and in quite a part of the remainign world, things like blood screening play an important role in preventing the spreading of HIV and as a result AIDS.
> You do realize that the phrase "properly using a condom" is nearly equivalent to "AIDS vaccine", right?
Of course, who doesn't..
Just tell me, how do you properly use a condom for a blood transfusion?
> Ummm ... who should control R&D? The state?
For example.
> Yeah, state control/public funding worked great in socialist states.
They had an entirely different kind of state with a different kind of government, so comparing apples and oranges.
> There was just a stream of medical advances coming out of the Soviet Union.
Actually, in the areas of eye and nerve treatment, they have made quite some contributions.
> Private owership/control is the most efficient system. Capitalism doesn't just make people wealthy, it _vastly_ improves the quality of life for everyone in the system.
No, it is the system which worked better then the available alternatives, that doesn't make it the best system possible.
And with the USA havign approx 12% of its population livign on or below the poverty line, something that is unheard of and would be utterly unacceptable in western Europe with its slightly more 'socialist' type of governments, rather suggests that an almost pure form of capitalism does not probvide the best possible living conditions for everyone in the system.
Then, you are confusing a few things. Soviet RUssia and China may in name be communist countries (maybe this is news for you, but communism and socialism are not entirely the same thing) but the Soviet Union was a Leninist/Stalinist state, whiel CHina is mostly Maoist. Those are indeed in part based on the ideas of communism, but Nazism was also based on the principes of private ownership and capitalism, which doesn't make it anywhere similar to the utopia you seem to be thinking about when talking about private ownership and capitalism.
Hmm, interesting.
In the late 80s, I had to take a TB test as a result of possibly having been in contact with the dissease.
Yeah, I did get the little 'poke under the skin', but only after they had confirmed that I never had had that test before, and they told me afterwards that the test would no longer be reliable when repeated in the future, and that in relevant cases I should mention that to medical personal.
Maybe the test we got back then was different from what you got now? The explanation we got is that the test would trigger the immune system either way (nfected or not) but the direct effect of triggerign it woudl be different (that is how the test shows if you are infected or not)
> the future does not belong to those who never break any rules
Nice and completely irrelevant, besides the fact that it implies that the rule didn't change yet.
THere is a difference between what is and what should be. You can work to get what should be, that is the only way to change it.
Yes, that can include breaking rules.
> i'm not talking about the same thing you are
;-P
;-)
> it really is like talking to a wal
You say that as a result of the internet the rules have changed.
I say they haven't (well, actually, they have, the USA got the nice DMCA, Europe got the EU copyright directive, but I doubt that either of them is the kind of change we are talking about).
The issue is that you look at how it should be, and I look at how things are right now.
We can have a lenghty discussion about how IP should work, the challange that the Internet poses for current IP laws, and many related things.
All nice, very interesting, and actually I think we may find we'd agree on quite a few things there.
It does nto change at all how the rules are today.
> notice i didn't call you a name, i merely described a behavior, and gave it a definition
Please, learn to read, I said you behaved like a child, not that you are one.
> but you go ahead and dismiss me, after all, i'm just a child, i couldn't possibly represent a threat to anything you say
I guess I would not be responding to your posts if I'd dismiss you.
> what we have here is the sort of conflict that arises when one party is unable to, or refuses to see a rather simple point
You are entirely missing the point:
You disagreeing with how something works, regardless of how good your argument is, doesn't mean it changes.
THe person refusing to hear or read in this case is you and not me.
Have you even considered addressing the point I raised?
> you refuse to concede or recognize the simple straightforward challenge the internet poses to ip law
You see, I didn'trefuse that, I actually mentioned quite the possibility that as a result of the Internet, IP law is outdated.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS CHANGED.
I suggesyt you go find this out in court, it seems the only way that might just get through to you.
Calling names is still not going to help you, and screaming like a small kid that doesn't get his way is well, making you look like one.
> are you so daft that you cannot see that the internet has some changes in mind for how intellectual property law functions?
Calling people daft or whatever when they do not agree with you is not going to make you more right, it is just makign you look childish.
No, the internet did not change how IP laws work. It is reason to change how IP laws work, but that doesn't mean they did change.
> but, like i said, some people who insist the problem is simple,
I never said it was simple, I said that the rules are clear (tho possibly incorrect)
> or that old rules apply and so there is no problem, don't understand the situation on a very fundamental level
You are just extremely bad at reading things that do not say exactly what you want to hear I think, so I will spell it out for you once more:
The rules are clear, tho possibly not correct.
> But how is using all of someone else's work without their permission fair?
You seem to be thinking only about one specific kind of fair use, quotation.
THere are more kinds of fair use, and (some of) those may include making a full copy.
> if they had naked picture of that person's wife or girlfriend. :)
;P
Hmm... like there aren't enough of those on the net already?
Maybe you should be looking at usenet or some file sharing network instead of slashdot if that is really the kind of stuff you are interested in
> Actually I believe kindergarten level ethics is along the lines of "Finders keepers, losers weepers"
Actually... that is how most enter kindergarten... you are supposed to learn something better there.
> Why do you think people have to waive that rights when they hire a photographer.
That concerns model release, and possibly derived work. Only in case of derived work this has to do with copyright.
To just amke the point, if you hire a professional to setup the camera, and then press the button yourself, you own the copyright. Thuis setup is used a lot for exactly that reason.
> Since they are two sides of the same coin, the act we wish to prevent is basically downloading/sharing. Making one illegal, but not the other shifts the emphasis of responsibility for the 'combined act' onto one party. This may be more practical in terms of law enforcement (better to prosecute one sharer than many downloaders).
Now, whatever applies in your situation depends on the law of the country... but where I live (the Netherlands) and in for example Canada, there is a real difference between the downloading and sharing, and downloading is legal for a very simple reason, the consumer is paying for it.
In other words, it is legal for me as well to goto a library, rent a CD, and make a personal copy of it.
It is not legal for me to make copies of a CD to give them to other people however.
For the same reason i is legal for me to download a file for my personal use, but not to distribute it.
> Finder Keepers, Loser Weepers has quite a bit of law behind it, I suggest you learn about that.
While this is not true in many parts of the world, it seems true in the USA.
What that means for the CF card seems clear.
Does this apply to the copyright on the pictures? I'd say that that is not clear at all, but my understanding is that a copyright transfer can only take place explicitly.
> what it is is something entirely new and different, and atoms are not bits, and they are subject to different rules and interpretations
While very popular amongst the Slashdot population, this is not true.
Rules to deal with abstract things, ideas etc, have existed for a logn time, way before anyone thought up a computer.
The copying is not stealign argument is valid, but a rule to make copying without permission illegal has existed for centuries at the very least.
> what are those rules?
> i don't know, but neither should you pretend to know either
I don't pretend to know them, neither did the parent poster, I know them. Why? because they are quite well described and have been for a long time.
The fact that you disagree with the rules doesn't change that.
> Actually... What if you're on vacation and you ask someone to take a picture of you with your camera? Assuming you don't pay them, and they don't run off with your camera, do they own the Copyright, or do you?
Somewhat interesting case. AT first glance, yes, they do own the copyright, but despite the fact that no payment is involved, this could still be considered work for hire, in which case you own the copyright.
> Sooo... what if I aim the camera and my buddy presses the button?
Strictly spoken the person pressign the button owns the copyright.
This is why it makes sense at times to let a professional setup the equipment and press the button yourslef, which in fact happens quite often for exactly this reason.
> What if I take a perfectly framed picture of a copyrighted picture? Do I then own the copyright?
You own the copyroight n a derived work, yes.
> What if the shutter button is pressed by two people simultaneously?
2 peopel own it, just like when you were playing music together for example.
More questions? those were really easy.
> and as stated in parent, the legality of this is unknown.
ANd parent was wrong, this is copyright infringement, and not legal.
> The reality is that the legal system provides something called Justice For A Price, and the price you'd pay for something like this would drastically outstrip any actual benefits, monetary or otherwise, you'd get from winning the case.
Right so far...
> Which, unfortunately, unless you get a jury of extremely rabid law students on crack, you could not do with "He did something WRONG! I have ambiguous proof at best, but he DID!" Crying wins sympathy only if you can indicate something happened to you, and in this case, you can't prove shit.
Except for the fact that the proof for it is not ambigious at all.
Almost all ID games are available for Linux, unlike those of many other publishers.
Seeing how ID is also sayign themselves that a Linux version is comming, it is quite reasonable to ask when it will come and to wait for it to be there before buying their games...
Take a peek at Enemy Territory maybe? (yeah, I know, content mostly made by Splash Damage and not ID)
ID is mostly an engine builder.. but they do have a few very good games out there as well beyond Doom (or actually, the original Wolfenstein)
Ir peopel who build it from the source (ah well.. guess most people don't anyway.. I happen to be one of those who do)
> Not only do you need a dictionary, you need to STFU and RTFA:
I don't need a dictionary, you need to learn somethign about this weird concept called typo.
> Bullshit. It is not the same code. It is a totally different source code that does a similar function in a different way. the original code is nowhere to be found in the Mambo code.
The question is still if the person who put it there had a right to put it there.
If some developer works for a company, and has a contract that allows his employer to have a claim on his work (where related to the business of the company) regardless of when he does that work, then the company has a claim, and such contracts are way more common then you might think.
There are various other possibilities why they can have a claim on the code still, it being trivial doesn't really matter much for that.
If there exists such a claim, they first of all have a claim against whomever ut it in there, and can possibly demand that the code be removed from the project. Do they actually have a claim? I would not know, I just hear 2 sides, one saying they have, the other saying they don't, and both make arguments that are already flawed at first glance, so I have no reason whatsoever to believe either side.
> I'm glad I use Geeklog and Postnuke for my websites.
So do I (well, I don't use Postnuke), oh, and ocms.