Not to mention that it would be a boon for carjackers. This whole thing is about the worst idea for technology that I've ever heard. How do people get paid to come up with this shit?
a little respect for someone's religion might not be too much to ask.
Why should I respect someone's religion?
Respect is a two way street, if you want someone to respect you and your beliefs you have to be willing to respect them and their belief.
I don't give a shit if anybody respects my beliefs. I do give a shit if they try to use violence against me. I don't use violence against those I don't respect (or anybody, for that matter). Why do they think lack of respect should result in violence?
I'm pretty sure the capabilities of ATI's Eyefinity cards show that our graphics cards are starting to outpace our monitors, even without liquid cooling.
Undoubtedly, but I don't think it's going to drive a screen that's 200,000,000 pixels across, which was my example.
A simple litmus test: As long as you can distinguish antialiased fonts from non-antialiased fonts, a higher resolution would improve your experience.
But that's not what this guy is saying - he's arguing for the highest resolution physically possible, at the largest possible physical size. He puts no constraints on this argument, and he lists these two factors as his only variables.
I'm sure we could get some extremely-high DPI displays if, for example, they only had a bit depth of 1 bit. But I don't think he'd actually like that too much.
Personally, I think choice of display involves a whole lot of factors, including color accuracy and viewing angle for example. But nooooo, all that matters is resolution and size. It's like the people who argue that a camera with a higher megapixel count must be better than a lower one.
I've always wanted the largest monitor with the highest DPI that I could afford.
Typical attitude of looking only at the numbers and thinking "more is better." While there is room for improvement, there are practical limits. For example, would you want a 50" display on your desktop? It would be rather impractical. How about a 30" monitor with 200,000,000 pixels of horizontal resolution. What would be the point, apart from requiring your graphics card to require its own nuclear power station and liquid nitrogen cooling? Your eyes would not be able to perceive the extra pixels.
Going much higher than current resolutions would be pretty counterproductive untill all our OSes and applications had completely resolution-independent interfaces, anyway.
The robot is redundant. Its only task is to press the keys on the keyboard. They could have made it a lot faster, cheaper, and more efficient by simply wiring the output directly to the computer's keyboard input. But that wouldn't involve any unnecessary Lego.
The fact that he hasn't completely succeeded in freeing all software is as much attributable to the unrealistic nature of a goal
This.
Apart from the medical depression bit, I think he is actually upset that everybody doesn't immediately see the genius of His Way and start following His Principles, for they are perfect.
They were often the same people, too, e.g. Woz was both varieties of hacker (which weren't that strongly differentiated anyway).
Actually, Woz had strong moral/ethical apprehension about the use of his blue box phone phreaking system for illicit purposes, so I wouldn't say he wasn't that much into the "cracking" side of things.
You've obviously never seen an Apple prototype - they've had logos on them for decades. It's a way of identifying them as property of the company. Hell, who are we kidding, you'd never be in a position to produce prototypes anyway, you're just talking out your ass and pretending you know about things you haven't the faintest idea about.
In my grandfathers day, a bagboy's salary+tips was enough to support support an adult frugally. A clerk at a corner store could expect to support a small family (essentially the same as working at a 7/11).
Now? A typical wal-mart employee working full time at minimum wage +$0.25 to $2 can pay rent on a 1 bedroom apartment, pay the electric bill and if lucky some food with nothing left for other necessities.
Right, but that's simply the natural effect of population growth, technology, the free market, and capitalism. What do you blame, or think should be done about it? It's not like we can turn the clock back 100 years.
I belive there is a fee that you can pay to a single body for rights to cover a song.
yes, but you couldn't actually claim to be that band and release albums under the original band's name. It's like the difference between plagiarism, and quoting someone else with attribution.
The fact information has to be 'buried' or 'kept' secret really just disproved the point you were trying to make.
How so? For information to want anything, it would need to be able to think, which it can't. It's just an absurd statement, like saying "the color red wants to be red."
That's like saying 'Prisoners don't want to be free, plenty of people are kept locked in prison right now.'
No, that comparison doesn't work, as prisoners are thinking beings, who want to be free, and think of freedom. My data doesn't think about trying to escape from my hard drive. In fact, I have to go to great lengths to ensure that I don't lose that data due to hardware failure, etc.
And 'information wants to be free' is simply anthropomorphizing. It's like saying 'liquids want find a level'.
Right. It's s fucking stupid thing to say, that compromises other valid arguments that may be made alongside it.
Likewise, humans spread information as if it wants to be free,
Some people keep secrets to their grave, so your generalization isn't actually true.
How can information want anything? It's not a sentient being. You also ignore all the information that's been forgotten, been buried, and kept secret over the centuries.
Apologies for the duplicate post. There was some quirk in slashdot where my original just disappeared - I even looked for it in my post history, but it wasn't there. So I posted again, and then the original showed up. Weird.
Copyright infringement isn't stealing. It's counterfeiting, which is worse.
Whatever the illicit copying of music or other creative works is, it's patently not counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is when someone creates an imitation of something, and passes it off as the real thing. The classic example is fake bank notes.
The musical equivalent of counterfeiting would be if a third-rate band covers a song by a famous band, and passes it off as being the original. For example, a Led Zeppelin cover band who does not admit to being a cover band, but claims that they actually are the real Led Zeppelin.
Copyright infringement isn't stealing. It's counterfeiting, which is worse.
Apparently you don't understand the definition of counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is when you make an imitation of something, and pass it off as the real thing. Whatever the illicit copying of music is, it is patently not counterfeiting.
The equivalent of counterfeiting in music, would be for some third-rate band to to a cover of a song by a famous artist, and pass it off as the real thing. For example, a Led Zeppelin cover band not admitting they were a cover band, and saying that they actually are the real Led Zeppelin.
The whole problem with public subsidies in any and all areas is that anyone who needs one shouldn't get one, and those who could make good use of the money don't need it.
Nobody was talking about public subsidies for musicians - just the idea of selling recordings of music on the free market. For some bizarre reason, some people think that recordings shouldn't able to be sold, and the only legitimate way to charge for music is through concerts.
Yes, it is a truly strange sentiment, but one that constantly comes up on slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm still convinced this was intentional, all the way around.
Yes, and you're still ignorant.
That is a context where it might make sense. But that wasn't the way the post I was responding to used the word.
Not to mention that it would be a boon for carjackers. This whole thing is about the worst idea for technology that I've ever heard. How do people get paid to come up with this shit?
Yes, but you have requirements, you don't use them.
a little respect for someone's religion might not be too much to ask.
Why should I respect someone's religion?
Respect is a two way street, if you want someone to respect you and your beliefs you have to be willing to respect them and their belief.
I don't give a shit if anybody respects my beliefs. I do give a shit if they try to use violence against me. I don't use violence against those I don't respect (or anybody, for that matter). Why do they think lack of respect should result in violence?
I'm pretty sure the capabilities of ATI's Eyefinity cards show that our graphics cards are starting to outpace our monitors, even without liquid cooling.
Undoubtedly, but I don't think it's going to drive a screen that's 200,000,000 pixels across, which was my example.
A simple litmus test: As long as you can distinguish antialiased fonts from non-antialiased fonts, a higher resolution would improve your experience.
But that's not what this guy is saying - he's arguing for the highest resolution physically possible, at the largest possible physical size. He puts no constraints on this argument, and he lists these two factors as his only variables.
I'm sure we could get some extremely-high DPI displays if, for example, they only had a bit depth of 1 bit. But I don't think he'd actually like that too much.
Personally, I think choice of display involves a whole lot of factors, including color accuracy and viewing angle for example. But nooooo, all that matters is resolution and size. It's like the people who argue that a camera with a higher megapixel count must be better than a lower one.
last week's South Park (episode 200) depicted Muhammad, founder of Islam, concealed in a bear suit.
This is incorrect. It was actually Santa Claus in the bear costume.
People with good eyesight who use complicated applications or requirements.
How does one use a requirement?
I've always wanted the largest monitor with the highest DPI that I could afford.
Typical attitude of looking only at the numbers and thinking "more is better." While there is room for improvement, there are practical limits. For example, would you want a 50" display on your desktop? It would be rather impractical. How about a 30" monitor with 200,000,000 pixels of horizontal resolution. What would be the point, apart from requiring your graphics card to require its own nuclear power station and liquid nitrogen cooling? Your eyes would not be able to perceive the extra pixels.
Going much higher than current resolutions would be pretty counterproductive untill all our OSes and applications had completely resolution-independent interfaces, anyway.
Peer review and scientific principles don't mesh well with peer review though,
Peer review doesn't mesh well with peer review?? What?
We hope that a global army of open source code developers, students, and other experts in digital signal processing,
I had no idea there was this army. Who is the General in charge of it? What are its military objectives?
The robot is redundant. Its only task is to press the keys on the keyboard. They could have made it a lot faster, cheaper, and more efficient by simply wiring the output directly to the computer's keyboard input. But that wouldn't involve any unnecessary Lego.
The fact that he hasn't completely succeeded in freeing all software is as much attributable to the unrealistic nature of a goal
This.
Apart from the medical depression bit, I think he is actually upset that everybody doesn't immediately see the genius of His Way and start following His Principles, for they are perfect.
They were often the same people, too, e.g. Woz was both varieties of hacker (which weren't that strongly differentiated anyway).
Actually, Woz had strong moral/ethical apprehension about the use of his blue box phone phreaking system for illicit purposes, so I wouldn't say he wasn't that much into the "cracking" side of things.
You've obviously never seen an Apple prototype - they've had logos on them for decades. It's a way of identifying them as property of the company. Hell, who are we kidding, you'd never be in a position to produce prototypes anyway, you're just talking out your ass and pretending you know about things you haven't the faintest idea about.
In my grandfathers day, a bagboy's salary+tips was enough to support support an adult frugally. A clerk at a corner store could expect to support a small family (essentially the same as working at a 7/11). Now? A typical wal-mart employee working full time at minimum wage +$0.25 to $2 can pay rent on a 1 bedroom apartment, pay the electric bill and if lucky some food with nothing left for other necessities.
Right, but that's simply the natural effect of population growth, technology, the free market, and capitalism. What do you blame, or think should be done about it? It's not like we can turn the clock back 100 years.
I belive there is a fee that you can pay to a single body for rights to cover a song.
yes, but you couldn't actually claim to be that band and release albums under the original band's name. It's like the difference between plagiarism, and quoting someone else with attribution.
The fact information has to be 'buried' or 'kept' secret really just disproved the point you were trying to make.
How so? For information to want anything, it would need to be able to think, which it can't. It's just an absurd statement, like saying "the color red wants to be red."
That's like saying 'Prisoners don't want to be free, plenty of people are kept locked in prison right now.'
No, that comparison doesn't work, as prisoners are thinking beings, who want to be free, and think of freedom. My data doesn't think about trying to escape from my hard drive. In fact, I have to go to great lengths to ensure that I don't lose that data due to hardware failure, etc.
And 'information wants to be free' is simply anthropomorphizing. It's like saying 'liquids want find a level'.
Right. It's s fucking stupid thing to say, that compromises other valid arguments that may be made alongside it.
Likewise, humans spread information as if it wants to be free,
Some people keep secrets to their grave, so your generalization isn't actually true.
Information wants to be free.
How can information want anything? It's not a sentient being. You also ignore all the information that's been forgotten, been buried, and kept secret over the centuries.
When your computer is known by people before you yourself are, that's an achievement.
Most people would consider that an anti-achievement in social skills. That's nerds for you, I guess.
Apologies for the duplicate post. There was some quirk in slashdot where my original just disappeared - I even looked for it in my post history, but it wasn't there. So I posted again, and then the original showed up. Weird.
Copyright infringement isn't stealing. It's counterfeiting, which is worse.
Whatever the illicit copying of music or other creative works is, it's patently not counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is when someone creates an imitation of something, and passes it off as the real thing. The classic example is fake bank notes.
The musical equivalent of counterfeiting would be if a third-rate band covers a song by a famous band, and passes it off as being the original. For example, a Led Zeppelin cover band who does not admit to being a cover band, but claims that they actually are the real Led Zeppelin.
Copyright infringement isn't stealing. It's counterfeiting, which is worse.
Apparently you don't understand the definition of counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is when you make an imitation of something, and pass it off as the real thing. Whatever the illicit copying of music is, it is patently not counterfeiting.
The equivalent of counterfeiting in music, would be for some third-rate band to to a cover of a song by a famous artist, and pass it off as the real thing. For example, a Led Zeppelin cover band not admitting they were a cover band, and saying that they actually are the real Led Zeppelin.
The whole problem with public subsidies in any and all areas is that anyone who needs one shouldn't get one, and those who could make good use of the money don't need it.
Nobody was talking about public subsidies for musicians - just the idea of selling recordings of music on the free market. For some bizarre reason, some people think that recordings shouldn't able to be sold, and the only legitimate way to charge for music is through concerts.
Yes, it is a truly strange sentiment, but one that constantly comes up on slashdot.