You mean Linux adapted something from Windows instead of the other way around? Fundamentally, preload and superfetch are just gussied up versions of the sticky bit which I am sure wasn't unique to unix back in the 70s either.
In most states, the jury swears an oath to uphold the law. Whose law? There are plenty of laws on the books that are contradictory. I think the lawyers like it that way, it helps keep them employed.
I hope we can get some sort of media acceleration beyond the stale old XVideo & XV-MC. You won't get it, and the reason is DRM.
ATI's cards that have h.264 acceleration (and all kinds of other good stuff like smart de-interlacing all collectively branded as "UVD") are unlikely to ever have the specs for UVD disclosed because they integrated the good stuff with the bad stuff (DRM) and are afraid the exposing how to use the good stuff in UVD will also expose how to circumvent the bad stuff on microsoft windows systems.
So, once again, those DRM apologists who say that DRM is purely optional, that if you don't want to use it, it won't hurt you, are proven wrong again.
On the plus side, the next gen cards will have the DRM broken out into a separate part of the chip so that they can feel safe in publishing the specs for good video stuff while leaving the bad stuff locked away.
What the hell would you know? You're talking out of your ass. I'd mod you up if I hadn't already posted in this thread. The idiots who modded you flamebait are only proving your (and the GP's) point.
That said, free speech is one places where the US is about as liberal as one can possibly be and takes it to extremes that few other nations do. Just don't say the name of one of the acts of the vagina monologues on television.
Computers swim in the see of thought. Dosing tonight?
It may be that algorithms are the stuff of thought. When it comes to evolving sentience, computers are playing on their home field. Swallowing colors of the sound I hear.
Is it a leap of faith to assume the right program will just evolve intelligence? Sure, but the idea is far from absurd. On one hand yes, on another hand no. Wave hands, wave, wave, wave. Lucy in the sky with diamonds! Yeah.
Answer this question: How many times have eyes evolved on this planet? Once. Once in the entire infinite universe.
How many times have ESP organs evolved on this planet? How about life that takes its fuel from atomic fusion? Animals that move via anti-gravity?
The difference is that no AIs have ever existed regardless of origin, just as no atomic-fueled, ESP and anti-gravity using life forms have ever evolved.
So to assume that some sort of genetic algorithm can feasibly produce AI is a gigantic leap of faith.
He's proposing a variation where monkeys that make the least progress towards typing hamlet are killed off, and the remaining monkeys are allowed to breed to replenish their numbers. Conveniently, this requires only a large finite number of monkeys. No it doesn't.
Answer these questions - what's half of infinity? What's infinity divided by googol?
I don't see how that makes any difference. It's well known that the locks on my house are easy to bypass. I even saw them doing it on the news the other day (not my house, but the same locks). Yes, analogies suck. The reason that analogy sucks is that locks are actively put in place for a purpose. URL twiddling is a lot more like being in a room with only half the lights on and you shining your own flashlight into a dark corner.
We already know it doesn't take any intelligence to speak of. All it takes is lots of trials How do we know that? Are you seriously proposing the Infinite Monkey Theorem as being feasible? There is a reason it is called infinite you know.
exactly, although if they had a case against him for hacking, it would seem they would have used that already as a slam-dunk case. I would really like to hear the details of "hack" - sounds like it might have been one of those where he just twiddled the URL based on the format of already "public" URLs. IMO, that should not count as illegal hacking, its so trivial, obvious and common practice.
Seems it would be better for a society as a whole to reduce those forces that lead to the creation of people who engage in pshing. But apparently that sounds too much like solving the problem You presume that it is more cost effective to fix the "root" problem. It isn't. Especially with copyright where the "root" problem is simply an artificial construct created in the last few centuries.
You can take this to heart - the cost to society of effective copyright enforcement dwarfs the value received to society as a whole.
Furthermore, switching to a new business model isn't "treating the symptom" its entirely possible that copyright-based business models are holding us back. Its obvious they make it real easy for cartels to form and those are never good for the market.
On the other hand - perhaps human intelligence is just not at the level required to create an AI at the same, much less, better level. If that's true, we are stuck.
That's how it's distributed. Believe it or not, cabletv subscriptions don't pay for shows to be produced except in the case of the premium channels like Showtime, HBO. Duh, that's what I am talking about. Very popular those channels are.
As for your "known quantities" comments... no, they're basing it on the reputation of the producers. What part of "with little knowledge of what they are in for beyond the reputations of the actors and director and tons and tons of advertising." did you not read when I wrote it?
Your system will make it nearly impossible for an unknown to break in. You can't rely on your reputation when you don't have one yet. Echo, echo, echo...
The current system is just as hard for an unknown to break in, in fact I think it is worse because the distribution channels are controlled by a cartel that only exists because of copyright law. Without a cartel on distribution, anyone can distribute their work and make a name for themselves.
Prepay only works if you can guarantee that the work will be completed Its called escrow.
also it puts a huge barrier to entry to anyone but the already established superstars. Jesus, is there a fucking echo in here? Didja read my second post in this thread where I addressed exactly that point?
Subscriptions don't work in general - it's the same problem. Most people prefer completed works so they don't have to wait for the next installment Have you heard of this thing called cabletv? You pay a subscription and you get your entertainment in weekly installments.
Subscriptions are also still subject to the "famous people sell the most" problem. Echo, echo, echo...
You're just pushing the issue of scarcity around. It's still the same system No, its not the same system, not by a long shot. The whole problem is that copyright is unenforceable because distribution is now practically free. But you can't distribute what hasn't been published, so that's the point where scarcity continues to exist and thus the point where creators can still enforce a contract.
Why not just enforce copyright, and then you get all the same benefits, but it actually works out to be better for the consumer - you know what you're buying, when you're buying it. The whole term of the deal is a known quantity and you're getting exactly what you pay for. People like to say such things without really thinking about them. Most people go to the movies with little knowledge of what they are in for beyond the reputations of the actors and director and tons and tons of advertising. Similarly with music where they tend to hear one song on the radio a million times (more tons and tons of advertising) and then buy the entire album. Similarly with books where they buy on the reputation of the author and tons and tons of advertising. Sure, you can go and point out that some people pay attention to reviews, but many reviews are just shills and the number of people who are devoted followers of reviews pretty small compared to those who are swayed by advertising. When comes down to brass tacks, very few people actually buy their entertainment as "known quantities."
For supply and demand to work, the suppliers (the creators) still need to be compensated. Otherwise you're talking slavery/mooching/indentured servitude. If there were an infinite number of creators, you may have a point. There aren't. Didja miss my first post in this thread? You know, the one where I addressed how to do that without copyright?
Record stores and cinemas are the one place where copyright law makes sense and is enforceable. Because copyright laws have a cost to society. Selective enforcement won't make record stores and cinemas very happy, there will be a constant push to re-expand copyright to improve their business.
But pre-pay is kind of a hard thing for a new artist to use successfully. Name one model that is easy for a new artist to use successfully. 99.99% give it away to get started anyway, the only difference is that under the current system they give it away to the record labels, or movie studios or print publishers. No point in giving it away to a select few when you might as well give it away to the general public.
Bootleggers are probably the worst outcome of all cases, since they crank out mass quantities of duplicates with none of the initial investment. For essentially no work they'll make more off the back of a given work than the creator did, and that's a real good disincentive to bother. They only reason bootleggers make big money is because of copyright laws. Without copyright to artificially prop up the price of copies, the price would fall to nearly zero since the internet makes distribution nearly free. The only bootleggers left would be selling their service as distributors, just like any other distributor.
Without copyright you can bet they'd all be cheap duplicates of the original CD/film and nobody involved in producing the original work would make any money. I really don't see how one necessarily follows from the other. You presume that the creators would expect to be paid for the distribution of copies and that 'bootleggers' would take any profit out of that. So, the solution isn't to become a pauper. Its to figure out how to make money despite the bootleggers. For example, pre-sales - if enough fans pay for enough advance copies to make the production worthwhile, then the creators still make money, the fans still get new productions from creators they like and the bootleggers can still sell knock off copies to every one else. Take it a step further and the creators can sell subscriptions - as long as enough subscription moneys come in, they keep releasing the next in line - be it tv episodes, songs for the next 'album' or even movies (like sequels, or just new works from known quantities).
They still haven't released updated doc's for 3D/Video rendering etc The reason they have not released docs for video rendering, and won't for the current generation of cards, is microsoft.
The video rendering hardware is intertwined with their DRM enforcement hardware. On MS Windows that's all fine and dandy because MS loves DRM and MS drivers are closed source. But ATI is afraid that if they release the specs for the current video/drm combo hardware that will compromise their DRM on Windows. Security through obscruity, blah, blah, blah.
Their solution is for their next generation of cards to separate the DRM hardware from the video rendering hardware. Then they can give out the specs for just the video rendering half and preserve their DRM secrecy on Windows. But that means they will never release those specs for any of their current cards.
So, yet another away that people who don't need DRM and don't want DRM still have to pay the price for DRM.
I already stated that some of the people are innocent, and [hopefully] will be found so by the legal system. Not in the post I was responding to.
By "these people" I was referring to those who are, in fact, guilty. Pretty hard to figure that out from your post since the topic of discussion was a list of people the RIAA had demanded from the university, not a list of people convicted of copyright infringement.
It isn't at all the fault of the people who actually broke the law?
These people distributed copyrighted material that they had no right nor authorization to distribute. Woah boy! Since when does being accused by the RIAA automatically mean someone is guilty? There have been numerous examples of the MAFIAA targetting the wrong people and even worse, the standard level of evidence they routinely bring to court has been laughably vague. They don't verify that the material being distributed is their material, they just go by keywords in filenames, some of them so general as to be meaningless.
You've made one hell of a leap of logic there and you should be ashamed of yourself for not applying some critical thinking beforehand.
The DoD has decided that Marijuana use is much more dangerous than alcohol use, from a "data security" perspective, Got one valid citation for your claims?
Like I wrote originally, secret and many TS clearances do not require drug testing at any point. Sure the military itself may institute random drug testing as a condition of employment, but that's independent of a person's clearance. Civilian contractors certainly are under no federal requirement to drug test their employees.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting side-effect of nationalized health-care.
ATI's cards that have h.264 acceleration (and all kinds of other good stuff like smart de-interlacing all collectively branded as "UVD") are unlikely to ever have the specs for UVD disclosed because they integrated the good stuff with the bad stuff (DRM) and are afraid the exposing how to use the good stuff in UVD will also expose how to circumvent the bad stuff on microsoft windows systems.
So, once again, those DRM apologists who say that DRM is purely optional, that if you don't want to use it, it won't hurt you, are proven wrong again.
On the plus side, the next gen cards will have the DRM broken out into a separate part of the chip so that they can feel safe in publishing the specs for good video stuff while leaving the bad stuff locked away.
One of many such statements by ATI/AMD.
The idiots who modded you flamebait are only proving your (and the GP's) point.
How many times have ESP organs evolved on this planet?
How about life that takes its fuel from atomic fusion?
Animals that move via anti-gravity?
The difference is that no AIs have ever existed regardless of origin, just as no atomic-fueled, ESP and anti-gravity using life forms have ever evolved.
So to assume that some sort of genetic algorithm can feasibly produce AI is a gigantic leap of faith.
Answer these questions - what's half of infinity? What's infinity divided by googol?
You can take this to heart - the cost to society of effective copyright enforcement dwarfs the value received to society as a whole.
Furthermore, switching to a new business model isn't "treating the symptom" its entirely possible that copyright-based business models are holding us back. Its obvious they make it real easy for cartels to form and those are never good for the market.
On the other hand - perhaps human intelligence is just not at the level required to create an AI at the same, much less, better level. If that's true, we are stuck.
The current system is just as hard for an unknown to break in, in fact I think it is worse because the distribution channels are controlled by a cartel that only exists because of copyright law. Without a cartel on distribution, anyone can distribute their work and make a name for themselves.
Now I am waiting for you to echo again.
You know, the one where I addressed how to do that without copyright?
Whatever dude. You seem to have failed econ 101.
You presume that the creators would expect to be paid for the distribution of copies and that 'bootleggers' would take any profit out of that.
So, the solution isn't to become a pauper. Its to figure out how to make money despite the bootleggers. For example, pre-sales - if enough fans pay for enough advance copies to make the production worthwhile, then the creators still make money, the fans still get new productions from creators they like and the bootleggers can still sell knock off copies to every one else. Take it a step further and the creators can sell subscriptions - as long as enough subscription moneys come in, they keep releasing the next in line - be it tv episodes, songs for the next 'album' or even movies (like sequels, or just new works from known quantities).
The video rendering hardware is intertwined with their DRM enforcement hardware. On MS Windows that's all fine and dandy because MS loves DRM and MS drivers are closed source. But ATI is afraid that if they release the specs for the current video/drm combo hardware that will compromise their DRM on Windows. Security through obscruity, blah, blah, blah.
Their solution is for their next generation of cards to separate the DRM hardware from the video rendering hardware. Then they can give out the specs for just the video rendering half and preserve their DRM secrecy on Windows. But that means they will never release those specs for any of their current cards.
So, yet another away that people who don't need DRM and don't want DRM still have to pay the price for DRM.
These people distributed copyrighted material that they had no right nor authorization to distribute. Woah boy! Since when does being accused by the RIAA automatically mean someone is guilty?
There have been numerous examples of the MAFIAA targetting the wrong people and even worse, the standard level of evidence they routinely bring to court has been laughably vague. They don't verify that the material being distributed is their material, they just go by keywords in filenames, some of them so general as to be meaningless.
You've made one hell of a leap of logic there and you should be ashamed of yourself for not applying some critical thinking beforehand.
Like I wrote originally, secret and many TS clearances do not require drug testing at any point. Sure the military itself may institute random drug testing as a condition of employment, but that's independent of a person's clearance. Civilian contractors certainly are under no federal requirement to drug test their employees.