In 2003 the DEA launched an offensive called "Operation Pipe Dreams", against purveyors of drug paraphernalia- people who sold glass bongs and pipes online- enforcing a 1986 federal statute governing pipes and drug paraphernalia. Tommy Chong was one of the high profile arrestees in this operation, for being associated with a site called "Chong Glass" and its line of "Nice Dreams" smoking pipes.
These high profile busts all happened a few weeks after my wife and I had ordered a color changing waterpipe from one of those sites. Days afterward, a rather suspicious email arrived from the site announcing a "25% OFF EVERYTHING SALE" for the end of the month. The "To" address was "special@bongsite.com" (address changed to protect the guilty). We chuckled, since it couldn't be more obvious what was going on, and forgot about it.
Two days after this message arrived, I checked my email to find a couple dozen messages. The first was from some guy who claimed he forgot to enter the coupon code for his 25% off, and could the discount be applied to his order? That was quickly followed by another, who wanted to know why he got an email from a site selling bongs, and then lots of "me too" panicked messages came from paranoid stoners wanting to know why they were getting these emails, worrying out loud about Ashcroft's crackdown, claiming that they hadn't even ordered anything from the site (yeah right), observing that the site itself was down (duh) so there was no contact information available, etc. Then they would demand that someone do something to "fix" things so they would stop getting these emails- which prompted angry responses: "Get a clue I did not send this to you I also received this." It was funny watching a crowd of stoners freaking out, but the funniest email was a one line message: "so it's fair to say we all smoke weed".
Eventually some lady sent a message that seemed to shut everyone up: "Apparently they left this mailing list open to forward mail from outside sources. The only people who have any kind of exposure are people who send messages, as their identities are shown". I don't know that's really true (you could be exposed regardless), but it was consistent with the fact that both the initial "25% off sale" email, the "I forgot my coupon" email, and all of the panicked stoner emails had been sent to the same "special@bongsite.com" address, so the original "25% off sale" message could have been sent from anywhere.
Apple is actually a pretty cool company. Some Apple reps came out of nowhere one day and showed up at our office with a shiny new G4. They said, make sure your software works on our system, and we'll keep sending you our current beta builds. At first the machine was only able to display the colorful frisbee of death when we ran our stuff on it, but the builds have slowly been getting better and better.
...where I work. We get prerelease CDs from Apple regularly and we send back bug reports regarding their JVM. We always make sure to destroy the CDs by the proper dates. I suppose we should be more careful with them to avoid turning into a Slashdot story like this one.
Most of the stupid JVM bugs specific to OSX that we run into aren't reproducible on the machine running Tiger. Java seems to be really improved in this release.
Are you confusing Clean Flicks of Colorado with ClearPlay, a Utah-based company?
Clean Flicks was making copies that were edited and renting the copies. ClearPlay provides you an edit list to assist you in how you watch the movie. They do not mark the movie. They don't copy or alter the DVD in any way.
That depends on how you define "copy or alter the DVD". ClearPlay doesn't actually sell edited DVDs but they sell filters for hundreds of DVDs. These basically amount to a list of cut points, with a duration, category, and rating for each, intended to be used in a DVD player capable of recognizing the DVD and enforcing the cut policy you determine. Whether this counts as "marking" the movie or not is open to interpretation, since the movie itself is really just a series of bits. At no point does ClearPlay's system actually produce a censored binary, except as a signal leaving the DVD player. One might argue that this counts as copying, since it has to copy or alter the information on the DVD to apply the filter. But any player has to copy the bits off the disc into memory to play it in the first place. This gets into the sort of legal sophistry that was at the heart of the deCSS case.
If you look at the actual text of the bill you'll see it contains language that says the exemption only applies if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology. Clean Flicks was selling physical DVDs with censored movies on them, so they obviously won't benefit from this provision. That's a no brainer.
>Once the bill is signed into law, the suit against them will be dismissed.
OMG! Won't somebody think of the lawyers?? Every time you dismiss a lawsuit, a lawyer cries.
It's the arbitrariness that bugs me. I may be wrong, but I don't recall PVR manufacturers getting a similar legislative exemption from their legal problems concerning commercial skipping, and IANAL but it's not clear to me that this provision intended for sex and violence can be extended to commercials:
SEC. 202. EXEMPTION FROM INFRINGEMENT FOR SKIPPING AUDIO AND VIDEO CONTENT IN MOTION PICTURES.
(a) In General- Section 110 of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (9), by striking `and' after the semicolon at the end;
(2) in paragraph (10), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and';
(3) by inserting after paragraph (10) the following:
`(11) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household, for such making imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology.'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following: `For purposes of paragraph (11), the term `making imperceptible' does not include the addition of audio or video content that is performed or displayed over or in place of existing content in a motion picture.
`Nothing in paragraph (11) shall be construed to imply further rights under section 106 of this title, or to have any effect on defenses or limitations on rights granted under any other section of this title or under any other paragraph of this section.'.
(b) Exemption From Trademark Infringement- Section 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1114) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(3)(A) Any person who engages in the conduct described in paragraph (11) of section 110 of title 17, United States Code, and who complies with the requirements set forth in that paragraph is not liable on account of such conduct for a violation of any right under this Act. This subparagraph does not preclude liability, nor shall it be construed to restrict the defenses or limitations on rights granted under this Act, of a person for conduct not described in paragraph (11) of section 110 of title 17, United States Code, even if that person also engages in conduct described in paragraph (11) of section 110 of such title.
`(B) A manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that enables the making of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture imperceptible as described in subparagraph (A) is not liable on account of such manufacture or license for a violation of any right under this Act, if such manufacturer, licensee, or licensor ensures that the technology provides a clear and conspicuous notice at the beginning of each performance that the performance of the motion picture is altered from the performance intended by the director or copyright holder of the motion picture. The limitations on liability in subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph shall not apply to a manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that fails to comply with this paragraph.
`(C) The requirement under subparagraph (B) to provide notice shall apply only with respect to technology manufactured after the end of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Family Movie Ac
The Directors Guild of America sued ClearPlay in federal court in Colorado alleging copyright violations. Basically the argument was that ClearPlay was creating a derivative work (actually 2^N - 1 derivative works) by placing markers throughout a movie denoting skippable scenes containing sex or violence. This provision was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) to specifically exempt such marking from being considered a derivative work for purposes of copyright law.
I'd like to think this is an instance of enlightenment in regard to our ridiculous copyright law, but I think it's just a coincidence that this is a reasonable provision. I wouldn't hold my breath expecting something like this for commercials. The culture war- specifically hatred of Hollywood- probably had more to do with this law. Color me cynical, but I suspect it may be a gift to ClearPlay as well, who will be especially well positioned after this. Once the bill is signed into law, the suit against them will be dismissed.
There was a/. article a few years ago about a biometric password scheme that remembered how you laughed. It became a running joke at work, where we have someone with a very distinctive laugh. We figured a scheme like that would become annoying really fast.
Coworker A:huh huh huh... huh huh huh... it's not letting me in... huh huh huh... oh wait I think I changed it... huhhuhuhhuhuh huhhuhhuhuh... huhhuhuhhhuh... no, that doesn't work either huh huh huh...
Many people don't understand how the judiciary works, and the latest round of talking points certainly aren't helping. They're 180 degrees away from the truth.
The federal court is charged by Article III of the Constitution to bear the sole responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. It does this by establishing precedent in case law. The matter has been considered settled since 1803.
Now you (meaning, whoever it is you're parroting) are trying to change it, for what looks like a naked power grab with some nice-sounding crap about how judges should be accountable to the people (a nice way to describe mob rule). But we weren't told before the election that Bush wanted to eliminate one of the branches of government. All we heard was some coded remarks about the Dred Scott decision. Hell, we didn't hear about Social Security phase-out, either, and even though SS phaseout is failing in the legislature (since the public hates it) there are judges in the lineup prepared to declare Social Security unconstitutional since the Constitution says nothing about it. "Legislating from the bench" indeed!
If you are arguing that we should get rid of something that has been working pretty well for two centuries, the onus is on you to explain what you're going to replace it with, and why it's going to be better than the Consitution as it exists today.
This just underscores why we don't need and shouldn't want the rubberstamp judiciary that the president is demanding- one that automatically defers to decisions made by a legislative majority. Congress passes some really bad laws sometimes, and if the courts are packed with judges who have a radical view of the Constitution as a dead document, we could wind up with no judicial oversight for the next 40 years.
I can't wait for CD prices to go down once this bill passes and piracy is stamped out. The corporate world is dying to pass savings on to us, but they just need a little help from the legislature.
Now that Bush has signed the bankruptcy bill, people abusing bankruptcy won't be costing me $400 personally and once that $400 savings is passed on to me from my credit card issuer I'm going to go out and buy a ton of CDs. And no, I'm not going to share them with you! Heh heh heh. Jesus himself said it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than it is for a copyright infringer to get into heaven.
I'm serious. What is the scientific benefit that we can gain from understanding what the universe was like for a microsecond? I'm honestly curious: is there a practical application to this sort of study?
To understand this you first need to abandon your familiar linear timescale, and learn to think about time logarithmically. This is also important for understanding particle decay times as well- strange particles were originally called "strange" because they hung around for 10e-10 seconds instead of the usual 10e-15 to 10e-20 seconds for particles based on up/down quarks. If particle physicists were thinking on a linear timescale, they would just say "gee all these particles are gone in a jiffy!" and we wouldn't have strange quarks today- with all their accompanying technological advantages!
Remember, the few billion years that the universe has been around is going to seem like a really short time 10e60 years from now. The slow-moving beings of that era are going to post to their discussion boards asking why anyone would care about what the universe was like for its first 10e10 years.
Then I don't understand something about your comment. I'm willing to believe that this article is a marketing hack, but I don't understand something here:
If these chips sell to people under no false pretense about what they are and there is a market for them then what exactly are they doing wrong. If they are mislabeling them then yes that is very much illegal , but mostly they make no claim to this , If you want to risk buying these chips then fair enough. They are mostly not pirates though and labeling them that because they are undercutting other firms sounds like a dubious marketing ploy.
Is it the case, or is it not, that you could go into Fry's and purchase Samsung memory that was never manufactured by Samsung? Because that's what the article implies- the manufacturer sells the chips to a reseller, at a low rate, and asks the reseller how he wants to mark the chips. Further down the chain the chips appear in Fry's or some catalog with "Samsung" labels on them. What am I missing?
If these chips sell to people under no false pretense about what they are and there is a market for them then what exactly are they doing wrong. If they are mislabeling them then yes that is very much illegal , but mostly they make no claim to this , If you want to risk buying these chips then fair enough. They are mostly not pirates though and labeling them that because they are undercutting other firms sounds like a dubious marketing ploy.If you had RTFA:
In recent months, some Asian DRAM memory manufacturers have been getting away with selling untested ("UTT") DRAMs. Disturbingly, the practice seems to be getting traction at the lower portion of the module business.
This is being done mostly by Taiwanese DRAM makers, who are undercutting the tier-1 guys by selling untested and unmarked parts. The untested yield is high enough that Asian houses are putting them straight into modules and selling them. Any fallout is reworked or returned by the customer and replaced. Apparently the net cost under such a business model is still cheaper than testing the integrated circuits (ICs). ... Theoretically, the practice of shipping UTT parts is all legitimate. There is nothing illegal or immoral about shipping untested blanks; many UTT parts are sent to companies that put their own label on them as private-label parts. However making UTT parts is, like many other manufacturing practices, open to abuse. The trick is that it's impossible to determine what percentage is being abused. The way the channel is behaving, it seems like it's not a trivial percentage.
The scary aspect of this practice is that some places in Asia are apparently adding counterfeit tier-1 DRAM logos onto the ICs. This will cause some confusion in the market over branding and quality. Even without mismarking in play, this approach creates incremental price pressure. I haven't attempted to quantify the scope of the problem, but it seems like there ought to be a couple DRAM companies who will take at least a marginal hit from it.
My understanding, now, is the channel is filled by modules marked as though they were from tier-1 DRAM suppliers, but in reality they are UTT parts from Asia. (When I say they channel, I'm referring to what might be thought of as second-tier, maybe even third-tier, module and systems houses. Their models are similar to the big guys, although their scope and profit margin tends to be smaller.) The first question after agreeing on the price is, "How do you want them marked?"
This means that if you buy an IBM or Dell, the Samsung or Micron RAM in your computer is genuine, because IBM and Dell deal directly with the tier-1 manufacturers like Samsung, and these manufacturers test their chips as demanded by the clients. If you're building your own system, you're not in a position to demand testing from anybody, and all bets are off. A Samsung or Micron label on the IC effectively means nothing.
It seems lots of people can't tell the difference between capitalism and fraud- and assume that since capitalism is great, fraud must be OK too.
That would only be true for a given mass. There are diesel powered airplanes in production [diamond-air.at] that get the equivalent of 20-30 mpg (US).
For what looks like the equivalent of an extremely tiny compact economy car. You sacrifice a lot by going airborne- you get SUV-like mileage with a cramped interior space.
I'd like to see the mileage of one that's comparable to the ground-based vehicle it's replacing- typically used for four screaming kids and a load of groceries.
From: joe@sixpack.com To: santa@northpole.org Subject: Filthy Communist!
Dear Santa,
You are no longer welcome in our home. I have been distressed to learn that a public access point exists at the North Pole, which means you must be a Communist who hates the American way of life.
We should have known, with the RED suit, and the commune of little elves!
If I invent something and don't want to do anything with it, why should the gov't have the right to force me to share it?
Because you presumably petitioned the government for patent protection in the first place. If you don't want to do anything with your invention, then please don't get the government involved by applying for a patent.
Unless of course your goal is to protect a market for an existing, inferior product. An example would be Gilette's rumored patent on everlasting razor blades.
IIRC there was a poll taken several years ago that asked a simple question (among others): Do you feel that the government should have the ability to censor newspaper articles? 1 in 3 responded Yes.
So I'm going to burn through twice as much power to move zeros around that will never be used?
Somehow I doubt that a doubling of pointer widths is going to result in a doubling of your power requirements.
General purpose computing doesn't need to deal with over 4 billion unique things.
Yes it does, all the time. Not all of us write webapps all day. I work in bioinformatics and hit my head on the 4 GB memory limit constantly. There are 300 billion bases in the human genome, and tens of millions of polymorphisms with information required about their names, aliases, positions, and allele frequencies. I can't store things as first class objects- I have to use RLE encoded primitives everywhere and there is no type safety because everything has to be an int. Many algorithms require repeated visits to arbitrary points on a chromosome so paging through a database is not really an option. If you have to page contigs in and out of memory, many genetic linkage algorithms will take the lifetime of the universe to complete.
The 32->64 bit problem isn't the same as the 8->16 or 16->32 problem. If it was, why not just jump to 128 bit?
The Earth weighs 6E24 kg. 0.375% of it is continental crust, roughly 15% of which is silicon. If you consider that the atomic weight of silicon is 28 g/mol and figure roughly 10000 atoms of silicon per bit, that means that if we were to mine all of the silicon out of the continents, make RAM out of all of it, and put all that RAM in one big giant computer, that computer would need to be designed with an address space 132 bits wide. So you see, even 128 bits is not enough.
Some people think all you need for a good porn movie is a girl, a bed, and a room. And they're right. But for a great porn movie, you need a microgravity environment. NASA could simply fly a married couple into space, sell the resulting video, and have enough money left over for nine shuttle missions. Who wouldn't want to see that? At least once. My own mother would watch it.
The public sector has such prudish production values. I have a feeling that for quite some time we are going to have to settle for what private industry can offer- suborbital sex movies. Doesn't do it for me.
Slashdot Mirror
In 2003 the DEA launched an offensive called "Operation Pipe Dreams", against purveyors of drug paraphernalia- people who sold glass bongs and pipes online- enforcing a 1986 federal statute governing pipes and drug paraphernalia. Tommy Chong was one of the high profile arrestees in this operation, for being associated with a site called "Chong Glass" and its line of "Nice Dreams" smoking pipes.
These high profile busts all happened a few weeks after my wife and I had ordered a color changing waterpipe from one of those sites. Days afterward, a rather suspicious email arrived from the site announcing a "25% OFF EVERYTHING SALE" for the end of the month. The "To" address was "special@bongsite.com" (address changed to protect the guilty). We chuckled, since it couldn't be more obvious what was going on, and forgot about it.
Two days after this message arrived, I checked my email to find a couple dozen messages. The first was from some guy who claimed he forgot to enter the coupon code for his 25% off, and could the discount be applied to his order? That was quickly followed by another, who wanted to know why he got an email from a site selling bongs, and then lots of "me too" panicked messages came from paranoid stoners wanting to know why they were getting these emails, worrying out loud about Ashcroft's crackdown, claiming that they hadn't even ordered anything from the site (yeah right), observing that the site itself was down (duh) so there was no contact information available, etc. Then they would demand that someone do something to "fix" things so they would stop getting these emails- which prompted angry responses: "Get a clue I did not send this to you I also received this." It was funny watching a crowd of stoners freaking out, but the funniest email was a one line message: "so it's fair to say we all smoke weed".
Eventually some lady sent a message that seemed to shut everyone up: "Apparently they left this mailing list open to forward mail from outside sources. The only people who have any kind of exposure are people who send messages, as their identities are shown". I don't know that's really true (you could be exposed regardless), but it was consistent with the fact that both the initial "25% off sale" email, the "I forgot my coupon" email, and all of the panicked stoner emails had been sent to the same "special@bongsite.com" address, so the original "25% off sale" message could have been sent from anywhere.
Apple is actually a pretty cool company. Some Apple reps came out of nowhere one day and showed up at our office with a shiny new G4. They said, make sure your software works on our system, and we'll keep sending you our current beta builds. At first the machine was only able to display the colorful frisbee of death when we ran our stuff on it, but the builds have slowly been getting better and better.
...where I work. We get prerelease CDs from Apple regularly and we send back bug reports regarding their JVM. We always make sure to destroy the CDs by the proper dates. I suppose we should be more careful with them to avoid turning into a Slashdot story like this one.
Most of the stupid JVM bugs specific to OSX that we run into aren't reproducible on the machine running Tiger. Java seems to be really improved in this release.
Are you confusing Clean Flicks of Colorado with ClearPlay, a Utah-based company?
Clean Flicks was making copies that were edited and renting the copies. ClearPlay provides you an edit list to assist you in how you watch the movie. They do not mark the movie. They don't copy or alter the DVD in any way.
That depends on how you define "copy or alter the DVD". ClearPlay doesn't actually sell edited DVDs but they sell filters for hundreds of DVDs. These basically amount to a list of cut points, with a duration, category, and rating for each, intended to be used in a DVD player capable of recognizing the DVD and enforcing the cut policy you determine. Whether this counts as "marking" the movie or not is open to interpretation, since the movie itself is really just a series of bits. At no point does ClearPlay's system actually produce a censored binary, except as a signal leaving the DVD player. One might argue that this counts as copying, since it has to copy or alter the information on the DVD to apply the filter. But any player has to copy the bits off the disc into memory to play it in the first place. This gets into the sort of legal sophistry that was at the heart of the deCSS case.
If you look at the actual text of the bill you'll see it contains language that says the exemption only applies if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology. Clean Flicks was selling physical DVDs with censored movies on them, so they obviously won't benefit from this provision. That's a no brainer.
I'd like a DVD player that only plays the adult scenes. In a loop, so my right hand is freed from having to use the remote.
OMG! Won't somebody think of the lawyers?? Every time you dismiss a lawsuit, a lawyer cries.
It's the arbitrariness that bugs me. I may be wrong, but I don't recall PVR manufacturers getting a similar legislative exemption from their legal problems concerning commercial skipping, and IANAL but it's not clear to me that this provision intended for sex and violence can be extended to commercials:
The Directors Guild of America sued ClearPlay in federal court in Colorado alleging copyright violations. Basically the argument was that ClearPlay was creating a derivative work (actually 2^N - 1 derivative works) by placing markers throughout a movie denoting skippable scenes containing sex or violence. This provision was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) to specifically exempt such marking from being considered a derivative work for purposes of copyright law.
I'd like to think this is an instance of enlightenment in regard to our ridiculous copyright law, but I think it's just a coincidence that this is a reasonable provision. I wouldn't hold my breath expecting something like this for commercials. The culture war- specifically hatred of Hollywood- probably had more to do with this law. Color me cynical, but I suspect it may be a gift to ClearPlay as well, who will be especially well positioned after this. Once the bill is signed into law, the suit against them will be dismissed.
The link you posted is part II of that "series". It's an escalation of an earlier series of credit card pranks. I don't know if it was featured here or not.
Slightly OT, but the best prank on that site is the p-p-p-powerbook!
There was a /. article a few years ago about a biometric password scheme that remembered how you laughed. It became a running joke at work, where we have someone with a very distinctive laugh. We figured a scheme like that would become annoying really fast.
Coworker A: huh huh huh... huh huh huh... it's not letting me in... huh huh huh... oh wait I think I changed it... huhhuhuhhuhuh huhhuhhuhuh... huhhuhuhhhuh... no, that doesn't work either huh huh huh...
Coworker B: Here, I'll log in for you. hahahahah!
Coworker A: Huh huh huh thanks!
Many people don't understand how the judiciary works, and the latest round of talking points certainly aren't helping. They're 180 degrees away from the truth.
The federal court is charged by Article III of the Constitution to bear the sole responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. It does this by establishing precedent in case law. The matter has been considered settled since 1803.
Now you (meaning, whoever it is you're parroting) are trying to change it, for what looks like a naked power grab with some nice-sounding crap about how judges should be accountable to the people (a nice way to describe mob rule). But we weren't told before the election that Bush wanted to eliminate one of the branches of government. All we heard was some coded remarks about the Dred Scott decision. Hell, we didn't hear about Social Security phase-out, either, and even though SS phaseout is failing in the legislature (since the public hates it) there are judges in the lineup prepared to declare Social Security unconstitutional since the Constitution says nothing about it. "Legislating from the bench" indeed!
If you are arguing that we should get rid of something that has been working pretty well for two centuries, the onus is on you to explain what you're going to replace it with, and why it's going to be better than the Consitution as it exists today.
This just underscores why we don't need and shouldn't want the rubberstamp judiciary that the president is demanding- one that automatically defers to decisions made by a legislative majority. Congress passes some really bad laws sometimes, and if the courts are packed with judges who have a radical view of the Constitution as a dead document, we could wind up with no judicial oversight for the next 40 years.
I can't wait for CD prices to go down once this bill passes and piracy is stamped out. The corporate world is dying to pass savings on to us, but they just need a little help from the legislature.
Now that Bush has signed the bankruptcy bill, people abusing bankruptcy won't be costing me $400 personally and once that $400 savings is passed on to me from my credit card issuer I'm going to go out and buy a ton of CDs. And no, I'm not going to share them with you! Heh heh heh. Jesus himself said it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than it is for a copyright infringer to get into heaven.
I'm serious. What is the scientific benefit that we can gain from understanding what the universe was like for a microsecond? I'm honestly curious: is there a practical application to this sort of study?
To understand this you first need to abandon your familiar linear timescale, and learn to think about time logarithmically. This is also important for understanding particle decay times as well- strange particles were originally called "strange" because they hung around for 10e-10 seconds instead of the usual 10e-15 to 10e-20 seconds for particles based on up/down quarks. If particle physicists were thinking on a linear timescale, they would just say "gee all these particles are gone in a jiffy!" and we wouldn't have strange quarks today- with all their accompanying technological advantages!
Remember, the few billion years that the universe has been around is going to seem like a really short time 10e60 years from now. The slow-moving beings of that era are going to post to their discussion boards asking why anyone would care about what the universe was like for its first 10e10 years.
Then I don't understand something about your comment. I'm willing to believe that this article is a marketing hack, but I don't understand something here:
. .
If these chips sell to people under no false pretense about what they are and there is a market for them then what exactly are they doing wrong
If they are mislabeling them then yes that is very much illegal , but mostly they make no claim to this , If you want to risk buying these chips then fair enough
They are mostly not pirates though and labeling them that because they are undercutting other firms sounds like a dubious marketing ploy.
Is it the case, or is it not, that you could go into Fry's and purchase Samsung memory that was never manufactured by Samsung? Because that's what the article implies- the manufacturer sells the chips to a reseller, at a low rate, and asks the reseller how he wants to mark the chips. Further down the chain the chips appear in Fry's or some catalog with "Samsung" labels on them. What am I missing?
If they are mislabeling them then yes that is very much illegal , but mostly they make no claim to this , If you want to risk buying these chips then fair enough
They are mostly not pirates though and labeling them that because they are undercutting other firms sounds like a dubious marketing ploy.If you had RTFA:This means that if you buy an IBM or Dell, the Samsung or Micron RAM in your computer is genuine, because IBM and Dell deal directly with the tier-1 manufacturers like Samsung, and these manufacturers test their chips as demanded by the clients. If you're building your own system, you're not in a position to demand testing from anybody, and all bets are off. A Samsung or Micron label on the IC effectively means nothing.
It seems lots of people can't tell the difference between capitalism and fraud- and assume that since capitalism is great, fraud must be OK too.
That would only be true for a given mass. There are diesel powered airplanes in production [diamond-air.at] that get the equivalent of 20-30 mpg (US).
For what looks like the equivalent of an extremely tiny compact economy car. You sacrifice a lot by going airborne- you get SUV-like mileage with a cramped interior space.
I'd like to see the mileage of one that's comparable to the ground-based vehicle it's replacing- typically used for four screaming kids and a load of groceries.
So now we can mail Santa Clause?
From: joe@sixpack.com
To: santa@northpole.org
Subject: Filthy Communist!
Dear Santa,
You are no longer welcome in our home. I have been distressed to learn that a public access point exists at the North Pole, which means you must be a Communist who hates the American way of life.
We should have known, with the RED suit, and the commune of little elves!
If I invent something and don't want to do anything with it, why should the gov't have the right to force me to share it?
Because you presumably petitioned the government for patent protection in the first place. If you don't want to do anything with your invention, then please don't get the government involved by applying for a patent.
Unless of course your goal is to protect a market for an existing, inferior product. An example would be Gilette's rumored patent on everlasting razor blades.
IIRC there was a poll taken several years ago that asked a simple question (among others): Do you feel that the government should have the ability to censor newspaper articles? 1 in 3 responded Yes.
So I'm going to burn through twice as much power to move zeros around that will never be used?
Somehow I doubt that a doubling of pointer widths is going to result in a doubling of your power requirements.
General purpose computing doesn't need to deal with over 4 billion unique things.
Yes it does, all the time. Not all of us write webapps all day. I work in bioinformatics and hit my head on the 4 GB memory limit constantly. There are 300 billion bases in the human genome, and tens of millions of polymorphisms with information required about their names, aliases, positions, and allele frequencies. I can't store things as first class objects- I have to use RLE encoded primitives everywhere and there is no type safety because everything has to be an int. Many algorithms require repeated visits to arbitrary points on a chromosome so paging through a database is not really an option. If you have to page contigs in and out of memory, many genetic linkage algorithms will take the lifetime of the universe to complete.
The 32->64 bit problem isn't the same as the 8->16 or 16->32 problem. If it was, why not just jump to 128 bit?
The Earth weighs 6E24 kg. 0.375% of it is continental crust, roughly 15% of which is silicon. If you consider that the atomic weight of silicon is 28 g/mol and figure roughly 10000 atoms of silicon per bit, that means that if we were to mine all of the silicon out of the continents, make RAM out of all of it, and put all that RAM in one big giant computer, that computer would need to be designed with an address space 132 bits wide. So you see, even 128 bits is not enough.
I can run more than three applications simultaneously!
Some people think all you need for a good porn movie is a girl, a bed, and a room. And they're right. But for a great porn movie, you need a microgravity environment. NASA could simply fly a married couple into space, sell the resulting video, and have enough money left over for nine shuttle missions. Who wouldn't want to see that? At least once. My own mother would watch it.
The public sector has such prudish production values. I have a feeling that for quite some time we are going to have to settle for what private industry can offer- suborbital sex movies. Doesn't do it for me.