Lossy is outdated? I guess you are running uncompressed video to your HDTV? I doubt that lossy compression will be outdated within our lifetimes - it allows you to do more with less. So, instead of running 1080p in your home cinema, you could run 4k for the same file size and bit rate.
Yeah, that was very bad. Perhaps I can help clarify why. In restaurants and eating, you want diversity. You don't want to eat the same thing every day. It's fantastic that some foods are "incompatible" and weird. With format standards, you don't really want diversity. You want uniformity. You want it to do exactly the same thing every time.
Dining is about taste and personal preference. Standards, not so much.
Personally, I want to know what happened to the CFC scare.
We switched to hydrocarbons for things like aerosol cans, alternative gases for refrigeration, and places like McDonalds switched to cardboard from foam packaging. There aren't that many activities that require CFCs anymore.
You could put solar panels on your roof, or a windmill in your back yard, depending on your location. Or buy "green electricity" which is the same thing but generated off-site.
They can't be testing games on Windows 7, because there are no games for Windows 7. It's 91 less than Windows 98, and 353 less than the Xbox 360. How can this be compatible with anything? I don't think internal alpha builds of Solitaire count.
Which "concept of intellectual property" are you talking about?
I'm talking about the general concept. Many people on slashdot seem to think any form of IP is immoral, criminal, or wrong.
The reality is that the entire patent edifice, as currently implemented, is at the bottom based on a very dubious and entirely arbitrary ideas about what it means to say two ideas are the same or different. It's all hand waving.
Sure, I agree that the current system is very flawed. I never said otherwise. But it doesn't change the fact that that's the system. It needs to be reformed. The problem is that if you want to play in the technology sphere, you have to use it, or someone else will use it against you.
So, you see no difference between (say) a patent troll, a broad, over-reaching patent, a concise patent on something genuinely novel & a patent on something with prior art?
Absolutely I see differences, and I think the patent system is not in good shape and should be reformed. But without that reform, the laws make it difficult to separate them, save for some insightful rulings by judges.
You seem to have a rather naive view that people think either patents are inherently evil or OK. Like most things in life, there are shades of grey.
Which is basically what I was hinting at in the first place.
Legal != ethical. I don't know why the fuck you bought that up.
Because for things like public companies, the law is the foundation of ethics. Sure, individual ethics can go beyond that, but it's a basic framework for public legal entities.
What I was trying to get at is that there are many different frameworks for ethics. In the eyes of some shareholders or economists, it would be unethical if Apple didn't use the court to protect their patents to the fullest extent possible. You'll certainly see that argument a lot on slashdot - that a publicly traded company must do everything possible for the bottom line, to the detriment of all else.
Now, I don't agree with that, but we are dealing with a complex set of overlapping ethics frameworks here.
but threatening that you "are ready to suit up and go against anyone," is not the actions of a company that's as ethical as Apple like to present itself.
How? If your ethical system agrees with patents and enforcing them in court, then it's perfectly ethical. It's certainly legal.
All I can see coming of this is a patent cold war, where companies like Palm and RIM will use their patents on obvious basic functions to threaten Apple similarly.
But that's exactly what we've already got. It's been going on for a couple of decades at least.
How will it affect advertising income? The households participating in the Nielsen ratings will have access to the digital service, so it won't affect ratings at all.
I'm sure they'll get around to doing the same for Bush eventually. I seriously doubt the Obama team came in and pulled an 'rm -rf' on the old webpage.....
That's not the point of the article... it's that it might only be archived in one repository, and that might not be enough.
The government might not be directly controlling the market, but it has a great deal of influence. Even small things have an impact. For example, the optimism of the Clinton years encouraged new thinking and entrepreneurship. The pessimism, fear and war of the Bush years encouraged retreat and downsizing. Also, the rest of the world didn't like what Bush was doing, and the dollar plummets. I also wouldn't be surprised if the massive corruption of the Bush government encouraged corruption within corporations. When the "leader" does something, it tends to legitimize it for others. hell, Bush's government was directly involved with corporate corruption - see Halliburton's contracts, and the phone companies participating in wiretapping programs.
No, it wasn't plummeting. One aspect of it (dotcoms, etc) simply went through a correction. It took a lot more than that for the economy to get to the state it is in now.
Don't worry. After this civilization is destroyed, the only thing of value that will remain intact is Simpsons DVDs. A new civilization will be rebuilt from these remnants, and we'll populate an entire planet for each episode. On some of those planets, Smithers will be black.
Right. So you're intellectually incurious. otherwise you wouldn't dismiss entire swathes of human experience and expression.
I can't imagine what your days must be like - how are your conversations and personal relationships - do you ever have a discussion that includes opinion rather than simply fact? Do you ever speculate? Do you ever discuss a movie or book with someone?
This whole "oh, it's just something made up by some guy" attitude of yours is kind of weird and scary.
Slashdot Mirror
Lossy is outdated? I guess you are running uncompressed video to your HDTV? I doubt that lossy compression will be outdated within our lifetimes - it allows you to do more with less. So, instead of running 1080p in your home cinema, you could run 4k for the same file size and bit rate.
A pity it's not called the iIriver, then it would have been more successful.
Arrrrr, because pirates would have used it.
Yeah, that was very bad. Perhaps I can help clarify why. In restaurants and eating, you want diversity. You don't want to eat the same thing every day. It's fantastic that some foods are "incompatible" and weird. With format standards, you don't really want diversity. You want uniformity. You want it to do exactly the same thing every time.
Dining is about taste and personal preference. Standards, not so much.
Personally, I want to know what happened to the CFC scare.
We switched to hydrocarbons for things like aerosol cans, alternative gases for refrigeration, and places like McDonalds switched to cardboard from foam packaging. There aren't that many activities that require CFCs anymore.
You could put solar panels on your roof, or a windmill in your back yard, depending on your location. Or buy "green electricity" which is the same thing but generated off-site.
No anchovies.
Heretic!
They can't be testing games on Windows 7, because there are no games for Windows 7. It's 91 less than Windows 98, and 353 less than the Xbox 360. How can this be compatible with anything? I don't think internal alpha builds of Solitaire count.
Namely, how much time (and thus money) are they willing to throw at the game?
Doesn't matter, they just have to supply enough pizza.
Which "concept of intellectual property" are you talking about?
I'm talking about the general concept. Many people on slashdot seem to think any form of IP is immoral, criminal, or wrong.
The reality is that the entire patent edifice, as currently implemented, is at the bottom based on a very dubious and entirely arbitrary ideas about what it means to say two ideas are the same or different. It's all hand waving.
Sure, I agree that the current system is very flawed. I never said otherwise. But it doesn't change the fact that that's the system. It needs to be reformed. The problem is that if you want to play in the technology sphere, you have to use it, or someone else will use it against you.
See my previous comment.
Ethical and legal are two different pairs of shoes. They don't always match.
I know. Read my previous post.
So, you see no difference between (say) a patent troll, a broad, over-reaching patent, a concise patent on something genuinely novel & a patent on something with prior art?
Absolutely I see differences, and I think the patent system is not in good shape and should be reformed. But without that reform, the laws make it difficult to separate them, save for some insightful rulings by judges.
You seem to have a rather naive view that people think either patents are inherently evil or OK. Like most things in life, there are shades of grey.
Which is basically what I was hinting at in the first place.
Legal != ethical. I don't know why the fuck you bought that up.
Because for things like public companies, the law is the foundation of ethics. Sure, individual ethics can go beyond that, but it's a basic framework for public legal entities.
What I was trying to get at is that there are many different frameworks for ethics. In the eyes of some shareholders or economists, it would be unethical if Apple didn't use the court to protect their patents to the fullest extent possible. You'll certainly see that argument a lot on slashdot - that a publicly traded company must do everything possible for the bottom line, to the detriment of all else.
Now, I don't agree with that, but we are dealing with a complex set of overlapping ethics frameworks here.
Furthermore, the "Stuff that matters" part is intended to assure that Slashdot news won't be quite a banal as Digg's news.
And yet, we have Idle. Sigh.
but threatening that you "are ready to suit up and go against anyone," is not the actions of a company that's as ethical as Apple like to present itself.
How? If your ethical system agrees with patents and enforcing them in court, then it's perfectly ethical. It's certainly legal.
All I can see coming of this is a patent cold war, where companies like Palm and RIM will use their patents on obvious basic functions to threaten Apple similarly.
But that's exactly what we've already got. It's been going on for a couple of decades at least.
I hate to break the news to you, but these patents are also enforced in Europe, so you're in exactly the same boat.
Yes, but not everybody thinks that the concept of Intellectual Property is inherently evil.
What's the incentive to spend the money and take the risks to do that?
How will it affect advertising income? The households participating in the Nielsen ratings will have access to the digital service, so it won't affect ratings at all.
What about the redacted bits?
So forgetting information has been going on for centuries folks. I wish I could reverse that.
I think you'll regret that wish, when every person who has ever lived rise from their graves looking for brains.
I'm sure they'll get around to doing the same for Bush eventually. I seriously doubt the Obama team came in and pulled an 'rm -rf' on the old webpage.....
That's not the point of the article... it's that it might only be archived in one repository, and that might not be enough.
The government might not be directly controlling the market, but it has a great deal of influence. Even small things have an impact. For example, the optimism of the Clinton years encouraged new thinking and entrepreneurship. The pessimism, fear and war of the Bush years encouraged retreat and downsizing. Also, the rest of the world didn't like what Bush was doing, and the dollar plummets. I also wouldn't be surprised if the massive corruption of the Bush government encouraged corruption within corporations. When the "leader" does something, it tends to legitimize it for others. hell, Bush's government was directly involved with corporate corruption - see Halliburton's contracts, and the phone companies participating in wiretapping programs.
No, it wasn't plummeting. One aspect of it (dotcoms, etc) simply went through a correction. It took a lot more than that for the economy to get to the state it is in now.
Don't worry. After this civilization is destroyed, the only thing of value that will remain intact is Simpsons DVDs. A new civilization will be rebuilt from these remnants, and we'll populate an entire planet for each episode. On some of those planets, Smithers will be black.
Right. So you're intellectually incurious. otherwise you wouldn't dismiss entire swathes of human experience and expression.
I can't imagine what your days must be like - how are your conversations and personal relationships - do you ever have a discussion that includes opinion rather than simply fact? Do you ever speculate? Do you ever discuss a movie or book with someone?
This whole "oh, it's just something made up by some guy" attitude of yours is kind of weird and scary.