no it doesn't... it say that this system can only be used by having two cards mounted on the motherboard. Necessary and sufficient conditions.
Perhaps, however, it would have been less confusing if they'd said "two (or more)". Note that they say "like Crossfire", which can certainly support more than 2 cards.
If you assume they're talking about the difference between two mounted cards and one mounted card working with onboard graphics, it makes a lot more sense.
of course, the article doesn't explicitly say 2 cards are needed.. It's referring to the fact that onboard graphics were previously replaced by PCI/AGP/PCI-E graphics cards, and that the two systems wouldn't work together at all.
I can't say for sure (i haven't read up on it properly yet), but what AMD appear to have done is made it possible to have an SLI-style system that is capable of using onboard graphics and PCI-E graphics at the same time.
you know, that's one piece of language drift i don't mind.. the windows rootkit is a totally different beast to an elevation exploit..
you're totally right tho. Back in the day, this would have just been called a boot infector with some interesting stealth. I gotta say, i'm really surprised that stuff like this still works..
The patent is actually kinda obvious, actually actually. Whether it was obvious in 1999 when it was registered is another matter, but distributed content serving is certainly quite obvious now. Also, whether or not they're an innovative company is irrelevant if they're suing another company for infringing on their (obvious or not) patent specifically to stop them competing. That's the very definition of anti-competitive behavior, even if it's legally allowed.
please note: despite the fact that Akamai's services tend to keep them off the radar for most people (even as they serve them content) most of the slashdot community are likely to be familiar with them, their services, etc.. Also, the fact that their co-founder died in a plane crash on 9/11 has very little to do with this argument, as sad as it may be.
This is a common perception. If it were true, Pajitnov might have a point.
Turns out that not all companies (or governments) have the common good in mind. in fact, it occurs to me that certain business groups and companies might be served well by reinforcing the idea that FOSS came second, simply because it adds some kind of originator legitimacy to their otherwise (potentially) morally questionable practices, and it makes the FOSS groups look like ungrateful kids who just want stuff for free. Just sayin'..
It's all about the perception of who is on the other end, and how they go about enforcing things. Big established guy squashing little guy vs. little guy sticking up for himself against a bigger guy.
Emotional arguments aside, there are some real issues with the way recording companies operate.
Also, there's a significant difference between downloading a song for free and listening to it on your mp3 player and downloading a song by an unsigned artist for free, and then using it on a TV or radio ad, and then trying to claim that the artist sold you the rights when you're queried on it.
There are 3G USB modems that are becoming increasingly common around where i live. Doubt it'd take much effort to make that into a viable phone platform..
heh.. even if you are using the idea, someone should be able to come up with a new way of doing it without violating your patent.. of course, this may not work with some products (such as pharmaceuticals) but i suspect the patent systems was originally developed without them in mind..
i'll take your word for it.. I was under the impression that Windows CE was the base OS for the console (as in, used by everything), which i realize is kinda odd for a games console, at least back then.
There are too many issues to be addressed here, and i take mild offense at your appeal to expertise.. so let me ask you a rather loaded question: are these artists products or customers (or both)?
Heh.. In that sense, the copyright holders could be perceived to be at fault for believing that they have the inherent right to control the information after it leaves their sphere of influence.
An interesting (and perhaps logical) idea... though i doubt you'll get much agreement from the incumbents.
You're both quite correct.. Money is supposed to be a representation of personal bartering power, and it is also becoming increasingly abstracted from the physical medium it's used to represent. These two things aren't mutually exclusive at all, and that poses some interesting issues.
If that's the assumption we're working with, then ok, sure.
I don't think i've bought an album without hearing what's on it in a long time though, and i'm really not likely to either. I prefer (morally, if you will) to support artists i like directly, and that's because i know the money won't actually make it to them otherwise.
The difference is, of course, that everyone already knows about it on slashdot, and has a dedicated opinion. This is the LA times, a somewhat more mainstream publication, ne?
They're the only ones qualified, unless she just wants someone else to void the warranty. Or do Best Buy have some 'approved pc technician' program i'm not aware of?
you know, it's possible she knew enough to know that fixing the power button should not affect the hdd at all, even if she didn't know how to back the hdd up herself..
besides, wouldn't breaking the seals to remove the hdd void the warranty by default? I know this isn't the case with some laptops, but most i've worked on have required the equivalent of a voiding before you can change anything at all.
Regardless of the ad hominem (yeah, i bet that makes me look all learned too) and the emotional argument, the GP is at least partially correct.
The telecos are bound by law to be neutral, 3rd party carriers. If, at any point they unduly monitor or tamper with the communications that they carry they are supposed to be subject to harsh penalties. They all know this. Ignorance is certainly no excuse, but in this case they were willfully complicit. They followed the instructions of the current party, instead of those written in to law, and should be held accountable for that.
So yeah, the telecos that participated in the monitoring program are legally responsible, and giving them immunity from this permanently reduces their accountability.
Indeed.. I've always wondered how a company can justify putting the wages of a security employee on a statutory damages claim... Especially when (in merit of the fact that they're in court in the first place) that employee kinda failed in his or her position.
I work with federated search engines, which automatically search academic databases and aggregate the contents. While most of the databases searched by this system have dedicated points of entry for systems like mine (Z39.50), some still require you to search in their own native interface. For those databases we use a regex parser over the html, to try and identify various pieces of information by their previous tags and their positions on the page. These parsers tend to break easily, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone would think you're talking about a court of law here..
no it doesn't... it say that this system can only be used by having two cards mounted on the motherboard. Necessary and sufficient conditions.
Perhaps, however, it would have been less confusing if they'd said "two (or more)". Note that they say "like Crossfire", which can certainly support more than 2 cards.
If you assume they're talking about the difference between two mounted cards and one mounted card working with onboard graphics, it makes a lot more sense.
here ya go: http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1197375200475.html
of course, the article doesn't explicitly say 2 cards are needed.. It's referring to the fact that onboard graphics were previously replaced by PCI/AGP/PCI-E graphics cards, and that the two systems wouldn't work together at all.
I can't say for sure (i haven't read up on it properly yet), but what AMD appear to have done is made it possible to have an SLI-style system that is capable of using onboard graphics and PCI-E graphics at the same time.
you know, that's one piece of language drift i don't mind.. the windows rootkit is a totally different beast to an elevation exploit..
you're totally right tho. Back in the day, this would have just been called a boot infector with some interesting stealth. I gotta say, i'm really surprised that stuff like this still works..
Loyalty a good argument does not make.
The patent is actually kinda obvious, actually actually. Whether it was obvious in 1999 when it was registered is another matter, but distributed content serving is certainly quite obvious now. Also, whether or not they're an innovative company is irrelevant if they're suing another company for infringing on their (obvious or not) patent specifically to stop them competing. That's the very definition of anti-competitive behavior, even if it's legally allowed.
please note: despite the fact that Akamai's services tend to keep them off the radar for most people (even as they serve them content) most of the slashdot community are likely to be familiar with them, their services, etc.. Also, the fact that their co-founder died in a plane crash on 9/11 has very little to do with this argument, as sad as it may be.
This is a common perception. If it were true, Pajitnov might have a point.
Turns out that not all companies (or governments) have the common good in mind. in fact, it occurs to me that certain business groups and companies might be served well by reinforcing the idea that FOSS came second, simply because it adds some kind of originator legitimacy to their otherwise (potentially) morally questionable practices, and it makes the FOSS groups look like ungrateful kids who just want stuff for free. Just sayin'..
perhaps we should be telling them that science makes the masses gullible and stupid ;)
It's all about the perception of who is on the other end, and how they go about enforcing things. Big established guy squashing little guy vs. little guy sticking up for himself against a bigger guy.
Emotional arguments aside, there are some real issues with the way recording companies operate.
Also, there's a significant difference between downloading a song for free and listening to it on your mp3 player and downloading a song by an unsigned artist for free, and then using it on a TV or radio ad, and then trying to claim that the artist sold you the rights when you're queried on it.
There are 3G USB modems that are becoming increasingly common around where i live. Doubt it'd take much effort to make that into a viable phone platform..
heh.. even if you are using the idea, someone should be able to come up with a new way of doing it without violating your patent.. of course, this may not work with some products (such as pharmaceuticals) but i suspect the patent systems was originally developed without them in mind..
Uncle Enzo wants to have a little conversation with you, sir. Follow me please.
i'll take your word for it.. I was under the impression that Windows CE was the base OS for the console (as in, used by everything), which i realize is kinda odd for a games console, at least back then.
Or when they helped SEGA develop the Dreamcast, including it's oh-so-unbreakable copy protection system.
There are too many issues to be addressed here, and i take mild offense at your appeal to expertise.. so let me ask you a rather loaded question: are these artists products or customers (or both)?
screw that.. i wanna attach a 3g module and use it as a phone. ;)
Heh.. In that sense, the copyright holders could be perceived to be at fault for believing that they have the inherent right to control the information after it leaves their sphere of influence.
An interesting (and perhaps logical) idea... though i doubt you'll get much agreement from the incumbents.
You're both quite correct.. Money is supposed to be a representation of personal bartering power, and it is also becoming increasingly abstracted from the physical medium it's used to represent. These two things aren't mutually exclusive at all, and that poses some interesting issues.
I have always wondered how the *AA plans on dealing with people who have eidetic memories..
If that's the assumption we're working with, then ok, sure.
I don't think i've bought an album without hearing what's on it in a long time though, and i'm really not likely to either. I prefer (morally, if you will) to support artists i like directly, and that's because i know the money won't actually make it to them otherwise.
The difference is, of course, that everyone already knows about it on slashdot, and has a dedicated opinion. This is the LA times, a somewhat more mainstream publication, ne?
you mean.. like the guys who she gave it to?
They're the only ones qualified, unless she just wants someone else to void the warranty. Or do Best Buy have some 'approved pc technician' program i'm not aware of?
you know, it's possible she knew enough to know that fixing the power button should not affect the hdd at all, even if she didn't know how to back the hdd up herself..
besides, wouldn't breaking the seals to remove the hdd void the warranty by default? I know this isn't the case with some laptops, but most i've worked on have required the equivalent of a voiding before you can change anything at all.
Regardless of the ad hominem (yeah, i bet that makes me look all learned too) and the emotional argument, the GP is at least partially correct.
The telecos are bound by law to be neutral, 3rd party carriers. If, at any point they unduly monitor or tamper with the communications that they carry they are supposed to be subject to harsh penalties. They all know this. Ignorance is certainly no excuse, but in this case they were willfully complicit. They followed the instructions of the current party, instead of those written in to law, and should be held accountable for that.
So yeah, the telecos that participated in the monitoring program are legally responsible, and giving them immunity from this permanently reduces their accountability.
Indeed.. I've always wondered how a company can justify putting the wages of a security employee on a statutory damages claim... Especially when (in merit of the fact that they're in court in the first place) that employee kinda failed in his or her position.
Well.. perhaps the method you're talking about.
I work with federated search engines, which automatically search academic databases and aggregate the contents. While most of the databases searched by this system have dedicated points of entry for systems like mine (Z39.50), some still require you to search in their own native interface. For those databases we use a regex parser over the html, to try and identify various pieces of information by their previous tags and their positions on the page. These parsers tend to break easily, of course.