There is and was NOTHING proprietary in the IBM-PC. This includes up to the PC-AT ('286) system. It has the Intel processor and it has Intel 82xx family peripheral chips. All commerical off-the-shelf with nothing proprietary in them
Which is a proprietary Intel chip.
The only component that had to be reverse-engineered was the BIOS firmware.
Right, the proprietary BIOS firmware.
You must either have a strange definition of "proprietary", or categorize the proprietary things in the IBM-PC as "not proprietary", just because you like the system. Either way, it's very strange the way you say it doesn't contain ANY proprietary chips, and you then cite proprietary chips as your examples.
Excuse me? Can you point to the "facts" you are speaking of? You don't have to be an Apple fan for this article to set off your BS detector. You'd actually have to be extremely gullible to believe it.
While we're at it, let's not teach evolution until it's proven beyond a doubt. Ditto gravity: why are we talking about it when we haven't even detected gravitons?
Well, evolution has been proven beyond a doubt. And in the case of gravity and evolution, both have been observed to happen. But this story about Steve Jobs is just a fabrication - with nobody actually observing Jobs doing or saying any of these things.
The thing is: sometimes you have to make decisions on what to do and how to react, based on the best available information at the time, and *sometimes* that information isn't in the form of actual facts.
So, tell me what information is there AT ALL about what the article is speculating about? As far as I can tell, there is no information behind any of this. We're not talking about "the best information available at the time" here, we're talking about no information whatsoever.
Also, why do we even need to react or make a decision based on this? It's not like this is a story about a meteor about to hit the earth. It's about some supposed business model that can be easily ignored. I don't see how it changes our lives in any way.
Other than that, it's a very similar experience to having an old C-64 with no disk drive.
Except of course for the custom sound and graphics co-processors, which were half the fun of a c64, especially if you were into making games. I'll take "interesting and fun" over "no proprietary parts" any day of the week.
Actually, I don't think your statement is even true. Didn't actual IBM-PC use proprietary processors until the clones came out? If PC clones were invented today, they would probably be determined "illegal" by the courts. Just because somebody copies something, it doesn't make the original non-proprietary.
I thought most people bought books to READ them, not to have a stack of paper on their bookshelf. Sure, some people collect books as objects, but they are a minority. For most people, the content matters.
Except that Torvalds is not a gifted comedic writer, and Douglas Adams was a Mac fanatic. I don't think the comparison holds water at all. Adams was all about using technology creatively, not creating the tools.
Okay, so you're playing your MP3s on a PC with something in excess of a 300W PSU. And I'm playing them on a CD player with maybe a 100W PSU. So who's using more electricity and therefore burning more hydrocarbons to have that electricity generated then?
You, because my computer is already being used for other work. Didn't you even read my post? I need the computer for work anyway, and that's when I listen to music - while working.
It has EVERYTHING to do with it. The point I am making is that I am more likely to recycle a CD by virtue of selling it second hand when I have finished with it - whereas electronic goods are likely to be just dumped.
But you are still consuming more. An MP3 doesn't need to be recycled, because it was never manufactured in the first place. Unless you are giving up your computer for a CD player, this argument doesn't hold water. As I see you are posting on slashdot, I don't think you have given up your computer. When it comes down to it - you are using computer+CD player+CDs. While I just use the computer.
Ah, now I see where you're going with this argument! You justify piracy as being "eco-friendly"! That's a new one on me!
When did I justify pirating? I just mentioned in parentheses as possible. I buy my music online, haven't got time to trawl pirate sites. But I'm not going to pretend other people don't do it.
Where did you get that little factoid from? How can something probably encoded from a CD in the first place be of a higher quality than what the CD was???
When did I mention anything about them being encoded from CD? A band could release a 24-bit, 96- kHz downloadable track from the studio masters - i.e, better than a CD.
Whoa there now, sonny! "kHz" or "kiloHertz" is a measurement of sound frequency, bitrate is "kbps" or "kilobits per second" is a measurement of sampling rate. So now please explain to me how you can compare two entirely different measurements?
Duh - I'm not "comparing" them. I'm using both measurements. You know that both bit-depth and frequency apple to the same audio file? CDs are BOTH 16-bit and 44.1 kHz. These factors can be varied independently. See above example. I'm wondering if you need some reading comprehension training, because that's three statements in a row where you've totally missed what I'm saying.
Nope, I just think it's a damn stupid way of arguing against CDs - especially to someone who does not accept man-made global warming, considers Al Gore a complete charlatan feathering his own political nest, and believes that the climate is changing because of a *NATURAL* planetary cycle (see under "Ice Ages which happened long before man was ever on this planet").
Why does it have to have anything to do with global warming? Even without global warming, you are consuming limited resources totally unnecessarily. And the manufacturing causes other pollution totally unrelated to global warming (such as toxic waste running into rivers). Those resources could go to make more useful things - things that haven't already been superceded by the internet. Frankly, the "quality is slightly better" argument is much more ridiculous. How is a tiny increase in sound quality justification for massive waste? It just seems like the height of greed and selfishness to waste resources and make others suffer (those sweatshops don't run themselves) just for a miniscule improvement in sound quality.
Anyway, I'd like to see your evidence that the recent rapid rise in global temperature has anything to do with a natural cycle. Yes, there have been ice ages before, but no, there has never been such a sidden rise that happens to coincide with massive industrial activity.
I think you'll find the science in not on your side there. Regardless - I don't understand your obsession with global warming, it's not as if other forms of pollution and waste aren't harming humans and our environment even more. If you think that stuff is "stupid", then you're nothing but a dinosaur. There's hardly anything that's more important to our future.
What about the petrochemicals and mining required to manufacture the MP3 player that you need to play your portable music on?
I don't know - what of it? I don't use a portable MP3 player. I use my computer, which is already used for other work. So there are zero petrochemicals or mining used for me to consume MP3s. Even if I did use a portable player, a portable CD player would consume more resources, because it is a lot larger and contains many mechanical components.
Sure, a lot of CDs are thrown into landfill sites, but I doubt very much these are proper bought music CDs
What does that have to do with anything? Even if you don't throw away the CD, the energy and materials have already been consumed in the manufacturing process.
If you want to go ahead and waste your money on lower quality music formats, then go do it - and let me enjoy my nice quality plastic disks on a nice hi-fi setup.
I enjoy my music on a high-quality hi-fi (I hate headphones, and have great speakers). And there's little practical difference between well-compressed music and CDs. Even then, it's possible to buy (or pirate) uncompressed music online. And downloads are capable of higher quality than CD. CDs are limited to 16-bit 44.1 kHz quality. Downloads can go up to any bitrate or depth possible.
Sounds like you're in denial that buying CDs consumes a lot more energy and resources than downloading.
Can we not all work to really pushing down the prices of CDs so that everyone gets the option of either a nice shiny disk or ripping MP3s themselves?
Why would you want to (re)-popularize CDs? They are not a very responsible choice. They take petrochemicals and mining to manufacture, and that's just the start. After manufacture, they require vast amounts of fossil fuels to transport to the user. They require physical space to store in a warehouse or in a retail store. They are simply environmentally and energy-cost irresponsible. Why is a stupid plastic disc worth so much waste to you?
Have you ever considered that we might be living in some kind of artificial reality and we are actually nothing but a source of sustenance for The Machines?
However, we all know that the source of the content for either Spam, the email, and Spam, the food is equally as questionable.
Huh? SPAM (the meat) is as questionable as fraudulent email? I don't think so. It fed troops in WWII. Although processed, it is made to consistent quality-control standards. And it's actually not as bad as people think it is. It's far better than McDonalds, for example.
At least it's honest. When you buy SPAM, you get exactly what it is advertised as being. They make no pretence at being gourmet-quality food. This is the opposite of email spam, which is fundamentally dishonest and abusive.
Don't be so sure. When a band can distribute its albums by posting a zip file on a web site, there's a lot less incentive to turn to labels
Then that would *be* the music industry. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore just because it takes on a different form. "Industry" simply means "any general business activity; commercial enterprise" - so it doesn't have to be centralized or large to be an industry.
but there may still be other laws that restrict the use of the content.
Such as?
And also, permission to use your likeness for promotional purposes might not be possible to establish through a clickable ToS; it boils down to the question whether you are receiving valuable consideration in exchange for permitting use of your likeness.
But more likely, permission can be established through a clickable ToS. Not sure if that has been tested in court, but if it were, I'd bet on the court siding with Facebook's ToS, rather than the user, unless the user is a minor. And what does valuable consideration have to do with anything? People give away the right to publish or broadcast their image for nothing, every single day.
I suggest you get drunk, then photograph yourself photocopying your penis, and post the photos to Facebook. Then photograph yourself posting the photos to Facebook, and post those photos to Myspace. Then use blogger to write a blog about you what you did. Then write a slashdot journal about your blog. Then link to your slashdot journal in an random slashdot comment. Then post a link to your slashdot comment on Digg.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is a proprietary Intel chip.
The only component that had to be reverse-engineered was the BIOS firmware.Right, the proprietary BIOS firmware.
You must either have a strange definition of "proprietary", or categorize the proprietary things in the IBM-PC as "not proprietary", just because you like the system. Either way, it's very strange the way you say it doesn't contain ANY proprietary chips, and you then cite proprietary chips as your examples.
Excuse me? Can you point to the "facts" you are speaking of? You don't have to be an Apple fan for this article to set off your BS detector. You'd actually have to be extremely gullible to believe it.
Well, evolution has been proven beyond a doubt. And in the case of gravity and evolution, both have been observed to happen. But this story about Steve Jobs is just a fabrication - with nobody actually observing Jobs doing or saying any of these things.
The thing is: sometimes you have to make decisions on what to do and how to react, based on the best available information at the time, and *sometimes* that information isn't in the form of actual facts.So, tell me what information is there AT ALL about what the article is speculating about? As far as I can tell, there is no information behind any of this. We're not talking about "the best information available at the time" here, we're talking about no information whatsoever.
Also, why do we even need to react or make a decision based on this? It's not like this is a story about a meteor about to hit the earth. It's about some supposed business model that can be easily ignored. I don't see how it changes our lives in any way.
Except of course for the custom sound and graphics co-processors, which were half the fun of a c64, especially if you were into making games. I'll take "interesting and fun" over "no proprietary parts" any day of the week.
Actually, I don't think your statement is even true. Didn't actual IBM-PC use proprietary processors until the clones came out? If PC clones were invented today, they would probably be determined "illegal" by the courts. Just because somebody copies something, it doesn't make the original non-proprietary.
... and countless other liquids spilt in it.So, you had Samantha Fox Strip Poker on your c64, too?
What jokes about what you could do while waiting for a C64 to boot? You flipped the switch, and it was booted. Took maybe a second.
I thought most people bought books to READ them, not to have a stack of paper on their bookshelf. Sure, some people collect books as objects, but they are a minority. For most people, the content matters.
No, it should be a towel store.
Except that Torvalds is not a gifted comedic writer, and Douglas Adams was a Mac fanatic. I don't think the comparison holds water at all. Adams was all about using technology creatively, not creating the tools.
You, because my computer is already being used for other work. Didn't you even read my post? I need the computer for work anyway, and that's when I listen to music - while working.
It has EVERYTHING to do with it. The point I am making is that I am more likely to recycle a CD by virtue of selling it second hand when I have finished with it - whereas electronic goods are likely to be just dumped.But you are still consuming more. An MP3 doesn't need to be recycled, because it was never manufactured in the first place. Unless you are giving up your computer for a CD player, this argument doesn't hold water. As I see you are posting on slashdot, I don't think you have given up your computer. When it comes down to it - you are using computer+CD player+CDs. While I just use the computer.
Ah, now I see where you're going with this argument! You justify piracy as being "eco-friendly"! That's a new one on me!When did I justify pirating? I just mentioned in parentheses as possible. I buy my music online, haven't got time to trawl pirate sites. But I'm not going to pretend other people don't do it.
Where did you get that little factoid from? How can something probably encoded from a CD in the first place be of a higher quality than what the CD was???When did I mention anything about them being encoded from CD? A band could release a 24-bit, 96- kHz downloadable track from the studio masters - i.e, better than a CD.
Whoa there now, sonny! "kHz" or "kiloHertz" is a measurement of sound frequency, bitrate is "kbps" or "kilobits per second" is a measurement of sampling rate. So now please explain to me how you can compare two entirely different measurements?Duh - I'm not "comparing" them. I'm using both measurements. You know that both bit-depth and frequency apple to the same audio file? CDs are BOTH 16-bit and 44.1 kHz. These factors can be varied independently. See above example. I'm wondering if you need some reading comprehension training, because that's three statements in a row where you've totally missed what I'm saying.
Nope, I just think it's a damn stupid way of arguing against CDs - especially to someone who does not accept man-made global warming, considers Al Gore a complete charlatan feathering his own political nest, and believes that the climate is changing because of a *NATURAL* planetary cycle (see under "Ice Ages which happened long before man was ever on this planet").Why does it have to have anything to do with global warming? Even without global warming, you are consuming limited resources totally unnecessarily. And the manufacturing causes other pollution totally unrelated to global warming (such as toxic waste running into rivers). Those resources could go to make more useful things - things that haven't already been superceded by the internet. Frankly, the "quality is slightly better" argument is much more ridiculous. How is a tiny increase in sound quality justification for massive waste? It just seems like the height of greed and selfishness to waste resources and make others suffer (those sweatshops don't run themselves) just for a miniscule improvement in sound quality.
Anyway, I'd like to see your evidence that the recent rapid rise in global temperature has anything to do with a natural cycle. Yes, there have been ice ages before, but no, there has never been such a sidden rise that happens to coincide with massive industrial activity.
I think you'll find the science in not on your side there. Regardless - I don't understand your obsession with global warming, it's not as if other forms of pollution and waste aren't harming humans and our environment even more. If you think that stuff is "stupid", then you're nothing but a dinosaur. There's hardly anything that's more important to our future.
I don't know - what of it? I don't use a portable MP3 player. I use my computer, which is already used for other work. So there are zero petrochemicals or mining used for me to consume MP3s. Even if I did use a portable player, a portable CD player would consume more resources, because it is a lot larger and contains many mechanical components.
Sure, a lot of CDs are thrown into landfill sites, but I doubt very much these are proper bought music CDsWhat does that have to do with anything? Even if you don't throw away the CD, the energy and materials have already been consumed in the manufacturing process.
If you want to go ahead and waste your money on lower quality music formats, then go do it - and let me enjoy my nice quality plastic disks on a nice hi-fi setup.I enjoy my music on a high-quality hi-fi (I hate headphones, and have great speakers). And there's little practical difference between well-compressed music and CDs. Even then, it's possible to buy (or pirate) uncompressed music online. And downloads are capable of higher quality than CD. CDs are limited to 16-bit 44.1 kHz quality. Downloads can go up to any bitrate or depth possible.
Sounds like you're in denial that buying CDs consumes a lot more energy and resources than downloading.
Why would you want to (re)-popularize CDs? They are not a very responsible choice. They take petrochemicals and mining to manufacture, and that's just the start. After manufacture, they require vast amounts of fossil fuels to transport to the user. They require physical space to store in a warehouse or in a retail store. They are simply environmentally and energy-cost irresponsible. Why is a stupid plastic disc worth so much waste to you?
Have you ever considered that we might be living in some kind of artificial reality and we are actually nothing but a source of sustenance for The Machines?
Whoa...
It wouldn't be complete without Goatse and the GNA.
Except that they both ARE violent. How can you possibly say with a straight face that tasering isn't violent?
Huh? SPAM (the meat) is as questionable as fraudulent email? I don't think so. It fed troops in WWII. Although processed, it is made to consistent quality-control standards. And it's actually not as bad as people think it is. It's far better than McDonalds, for example.
At least it's honest. When you buy SPAM, you get exactly what it is advertised as being. They make no pretence at being gourmet-quality food. This is the opposite of email spam, which is fundamentally dishonest and abusive.
Then that would *be* the music industry. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore just because it takes on a different form. "Industry" simply means "any general business activity; commercial enterprise" - so it doesn't have to be centralized or large to be an industry.
Such as?
And also, permission to use your likeness for promotional purposes might not be possible to establish through a clickable ToS; it boils down to the question whether you are receiving valuable consideration in exchange for permitting use of your likeness.But more likely, permission can be established through a clickable ToS. Not sure if that has been tested in court, but if it were, I'd bet on the court siding with Facebook's ToS, rather than the user, unless the user is a minor. And what does valuable consideration have to do with anything? People give away the right to publish or broadcast their image for nothing, every single day.
I suggest you get drunk, then photograph yourself photocopying your penis, and post the photos to Facebook. Then photograph yourself posting the photos to Facebook, and post those photos to Myspace. Then use blogger to write a blog about you what you did. Then write a slashdot journal about your blog. Then link to your slashdot journal in an random slashdot comment. Then post a link to your slashdot comment on Digg.
You buy porn???
Depends on what you're complaining about.
No shit. That was addresses in the GP post. The question it asked was: why the double standard? That's the salient point.
But they should accept loans or free stuff from companies to review in the first place - they should go out and buy the product they are reviewing.
Plas don't let pals use nuclear weapons.
The X-box succeeded because of Sony's incompetence, not because of Microsoft's brilliance. And they're both being beaten by Nintendo now, anyway.