it comes with very little ram, little hd space/speed. and a very slow gfx card by default.
plus you gain x86 native speed.
apple confirms, ppc is dying. now if they had been smart and let others make ppc mac machines and not tied their os to their hardware, ppc would be much more ubiquitous.
and no, current benchmarks show that the g5's are slightly slower than current x86 cpus , more so in integer focused apps. floating point is also lower but gets much better with altivec. but the price premium to get a g5 computer is many times a good x86 computer, so the cost-performance ratio is not very favorable.
apple wants too much profit per machine to make macs feasible for the x86 enthusiast. x86'ers are used to having great performance at rock bottom prices and the ability to mix and match hardware and not to have to buy a brand new machine when they want to upgrade to current gen.
around this time, ati/nvidia are optimizing for multi-core cpus in their drivers. so soon you'll be able to get much more performance from your slightly-slower 4800+ than a single fx57.
only if you find yourself willing to endure the boring game long enough to get to that part.
i gave up by disc 2 (pc ver).
it's definitely not your parents FF.
too much story turns it from a game into an interactive fiction. long sequences that you cannot escape from, having to play through the story to get to some action. it's just the reverse of the original FFs. 7+ lost me as a fan.
that and the fact that office97 programs start up faster than notepad. on a modern computer, it's so fast that it opens before you finish clicking the second time on the icon. and just about every function most people want is in 97. and you can pick up a copy on ebay very cheap http://search.ebay.com/office-97 .
though, unless you absolutely need it, it's best to stay away from office altogether. it'll only add to your problems. even if OO and other FOSS programs aren't as good, they won't change the file formats on you or lock you in. that point alone is worth never considering MSO.
good business and ethics/morality clearly are mutually exclusive.
that's only if you believe you have "bought" anything in the first place.
the software/copyright/movie/music cartels are trying as hard as they can to convince even intelligent geeks that what they really get for their hard earned money is a LICENSE.
and they are succeeding quite well if you listen to the umpteen slashdot users spout off how you "only bought a license" garbage.
it's sad but it can be countered through education.
thanks to future advancements in DRM, Insidious Computing and online "distribution" you won't be able to do that for much longer.
try asking people you know that own err i mean paid for a "license" for half life 2. ask them to let you borrow it...
it's going to get A LOT worse before we see any relief.
they just now have gotten a whiff of Insidious Computing and the enormous power it brings them to implement Digital Handcuffs (DRM). did you think they would spend billions of dollars and then back down? there is only one logical outcome: an escalation of an "arms race" in which content producers try to illegally restrict access to purchased products while hackers try to retain some shred of freedom in property rights.
do not give these people any money. that's how you bludgeon them and bring em down. starve them of the money they so richly scheme to take from you and give you a revokable "license" in return.
online "distribution"... i spit on thee and hack in your general direction.
have you tried not giving those bastards your hard earned money?
they're not far off from the computer/video game industry.
and the reason being, is we have, no offense, people like you who don't even take a stand intellectually, let alone actually. you just find new ways to bypass the little problems but you feed them money to keep them afloat to ensure you new problems down the road.
can you at least think they're not the good guys while you're watching their dvds, enjoying their music and playing their games?
how about we donate our time and energy writing and making new compilations in our spare time and help out those less fortunate gain access to fundamental public domain knowledge?
copyright is an abomination, in terms of mother nature and human morality.
it is UNNATURAL. that much is certain. the original agreement between the public and the authors was that they would have a limited monopoly after which the information/knowledge would fall BACK into the public domain.
everything that is published by default is in the public domain. but through copyright, we're trying to encourage new works that in a few measly years would become widely available to the public for just the price of duplication. NOT waiting after the heat death of the universe for it to come back to the public domain. NOT having laws like the DMCA and all the like preventing us making use of products we paid for.
the cartels broke the contract. period. everyone is entitled to judge for themselves if they wish to continue with copyright law is as or if they wish to rewrite it for themselves.
and as for the shills who argue straight-faced that copyright = property, why is there any time limit on it then? clearly, property belongs to you forever (forever as in scientifically, not the supreme court's time dilation experiment which makes 100 years + authors life seem "limited").
that's the argument you make when shills bring up that copyright is a natural right, like property rights. then by that definition, it should, logically and ethically, belong to that person forever.
no, the original contract (and even the extremely perverse version of copyright laws we have now) say that the author is given temporary exclusivity to their "compilation" (knowledge isn't created or destroyed) in order to promote progess of science and the arts such that the copyrighted material is soon brought BACK into the public domain from which it sprang.
you cannot promote progress of science and arts through the use of property rights... because property rights last forever... even if the owner dies, they can leave it to their children and so on.
so no, the shills have it wrong and hope we aren't paying attention.
copyright is an UNNATURAL right GRANTED by the government on behalf of the public to encourage progress in the science and the arts through having a LIMITED (that's like saying if i have a penny, then i am almost a millionare... too bad sane judges would throw you out of court if you argued that using that type of logic) monopoly, from which the author would profit and then give it back to the public domain from which it came.
throw that in the shills' faces when they have the nerve to hide among us and promote their sick and anti-public agendas.
the contract is severly broken. any other legal contract that was violated would be decided by the courts but money speaks louder than logic and contracts. and frankly, the dumbasses in the supreme court thought that 100 years + the authors lifetime is LIMITED. they need to have the decency to say they are incompetent and step down.
and please no replies about how this is all about "piracy" because as you have noticed, the argument isn't even remotely related to not paying for products. it is about cartels that broke the agreement. and if you do see people trying to make this about "piracy", call them for what they are.
that's one of the lessons they understood from the likes of the soviet union and nazi germany.
if you really want a tight grip, make sure no one even knows you have a tight grip in the first place.
in fascist america, there is no spoon unless the govt tells you there is.
anyone fool enough to raise their voice and tell the truth, is first ridiculed, then discredited, then meets with an untimely demise like martin luther king, john lennon. typically a small private plane is involved but sometimes it's a "crazed" fan or a "white supremist". never mind that the FBI and CIA have been caught numerous times impersonating others in order to meet their objectives.
that's what they learned... make sure the orwellian future looks like apple pie and the flag. and discredit anyone who says otherwise. and oh yeah, send other people's kids to fight for your pet wars. we're so glad we have a press and media that acts like a watchdog and not corporate and fascist cheerleeders, it might give the wrong impression to say, the deliberately uninformed/misinformed public.
and oh yeah, almost forgot. make sure you have shills patrolling the online forums. you don't want some poor citizen reading about things that show the esteemed govt and its cronies in a bad light. never mind that they earned every bit of their reputations, that's just heresay.
making people disappear is too obvious. it's better to make sure people think the person is crazy or find some dirt on them or just do what the presstitutes do, make shit up.
you make it possible, in a small way, for them to continue making DRM-crippled products.
i'm just saying, in these, the DRM dark ages, we must be ever more vigilant. we have to make it far too costly for the DRM industry to keep making digital handcuffs.
every little bit helps but what helps the most is education. tell you family and friends, if given a choice, take compact flash over SD or sony "magic gate" type products. i mean you are certainly being charged for having those "features" in there yet you will never get any benefit from them. so ultimately it's just best not to donate money to your own lynch fund.
the key is to make people automatically choose non-DRM crippled products given a choice. a shift in the way people think can be achieved if word gets out but the mainstream media is unwilling to do their part. just tell one or 2 people about the basic drawbacks of DRM.
that's why in japan they banned camera phones and the like in magazine shops.
the bribers erm i mean lobbyists who "talk" to congress, all spout this same garbage.
everything that can potentially record any data, analog or digital, is a terrorist tool.
how many stories have you heard of just on/. that fits along these lines?
they want to get rid of the analog hole. that is their ultimate goal, at least in the short term. in the digital domain, it is far easier to restrict access and functionality than can ever be imagined in the analog realm.
every year i keep seeing draconian new laws being introduced under the guise of security and in relation, copyright "protection" (apparently the law is not the protection..). one of those laws, the DMCA, won't even allow you to talk about "security" issues. and now that virtually every country is getting its own version... the frog seems to be coming along nicely.
every little issue, seemingly unconnected and unrelated is in fact another piece of the DRM foundation.
it's a pattern. sometimes it's more difficult to see unless you connect the dots.
the underlying message that the "copyright issue" in this story (regardless if from the article or the editor) is that they don't want you to control the ability to copy. what implications does that have? where is the next step? these are important matters, especially for the geek crowd who value cheap and easy copying/access to information in the digital age.
"as reported, DRM/Insidious Computing technology will prevent lawful uses by the true owners of products. It is causing copyright concerns."
copyright gives you the right to use a copyrighted product in any way you choose. the original agreement was for copyright law to be law only. that means it is up to the courts and the legal system to decide if there has been infringement. technical methods to prevent lawful use is an infringement itself.
from my point of view, any product that prevents you using your purchased product in a lawful manner (everything except distribution), results in the immediate revocation of the company's copyright priviledges.
you want DRM/Insidious Computing, fine. but in doing so, you forfeit your copyright protections. that means it becomes in essence, a trade secret. if someone cracks the protec^H^prevention scheme, then they can legally and ethically release all of the information for free into the public domain.
now all we need are some reasonable judges and congre^H^H(well you can't have everything...)who won't listen to steamboat willie's copyright cartel.
Slashdot Mirror
that dual proc g5 isn't fully loaded.
it comes with very little ram, little hd space/speed. and a very slow gfx card by default.
plus you gain x86 native speed.
apple confirms, ppc is dying. now if they had been smart and let others make ppc mac machines and not tied their os to their hardware, ppc would be much more ubiquitous.
and no, current benchmarks show that the g5's are slightly slower than current x86 cpus , more so in integer focused apps. floating point is also lower but gets much better with altivec. but the price premium to get a g5 computer is many times a good x86 computer, so the cost-performance ratio is not very favorable.
apple wants too much profit per machine to make macs feasible for the x86 enthusiast. x86'ers are used to having great performance at rock bottom prices and the ability to mix and match hardware and not to have to buy a brand new machine when they want to upgrade to current gen.
anyway, enough of that.
around this time, ati/nvidia are optimizing for multi-core cpus in their drivers. so soon you'll be able to get much more performance from your slightly-slower 4800+ than a single fx57.
well, i don't remember. this was when ff7 first came out for the pc which was many years ago.
only if you find yourself willing to endure the boring game long enough to get to that part.
i gave up by disc 2 (pc ver).
it's definitely not your parents FF.
too much story turns it from a game into an interactive fiction. long sequences that you cannot escape from, having to play through the story to get to some action. it's just the reverse of the original FFs. 7+ lost me as a fan.
sounds like you were distracted by rationalizing the universe with a container of small shiny glass spheres.
" I presume the author made no money from it."
seems the RIAA(MPAA) selectively choose the most "profitable" "clients" to go after.
so they're a "republic" eh?
sounds like they need to have democracy brought to them.
oh wait...
that and the fact that office97 programs start up faster than notepad. on a modern computer, it's so fast that it opens before you finish clicking the second time on the icon. and just about every function most people want is in 97. and you can pick up a copy on ebay very cheap http://search.ebay.com/office-97 .
though, unless you absolutely need it, it's best to stay away from office altogether. it'll only add to your problems. even if OO and other FOSS programs aren't as good, they won't change the file formats on you or lock you in. that point alone is worth never considering MSO.
good business and ethics/morality clearly are mutually exclusive.
but not many copies of "Hackers"...
irony? i know at least one person who doesn't think so.
that's only if you believe you have "bought" anything in the first place.
the software/copyright/movie/music cartels are trying as hard as they can to convince even intelligent geeks that what they really get for their hard earned money is a LICENSE.
and they are succeeding quite well if you listen to the umpteen slashdot users spout off how you "only bought a license" garbage.
it's sad but it can be countered through education.
thanks to future advancements in DRM, Insidious Computing and online "distribution" you won't be able to do that for much longer.
try asking people you know that own err i mean paid for a "license" for half life 2. ask them to let you borrow it...
it's going to get A LOT worse before we see any relief.
they just now have gotten a whiff of Insidious Computing and the enormous power it brings them to implement Digital Handcuffs (DRM). did you think they would spend billions of dollars and then back down? there is only one logical outcome: an escalation of an "arms race" in which content producers try to illegally restrict access to purchased products while hackers try to retain some shred of freedom in property rights.
do not give these people any money. that's how you bludgeon them and bring em down. starve them of the money they so richly scheme to take from you and give you a revokable "license" in return.
online "distribution"... i spit on thee and hack in your general direction.
have you tried not giving those bastards your hard earned money?
they're not far off from the computer/video game industry.
and the reason being, is we have, no offense, people like you who don't even take a stand intellectually, let alone actually. you just find new ways to bypass the little problems but you feed them money to keep them afloat to ensure you new problems down the road.
can you at least think they're not the good guys while you're watching their dvds, enjoying their music and playing their games?
Massively Multiplayer Grief.
no, they existed LONG before the RIAA and MPAA.
the publishers' longevity even makes cthulu jealous.
seems to me that the way to copy google's library is through a distributed project.
write a small application, having thousands upon thousands of people download and install it.
have each copy request a few pages of every work offered by google.
have a server at the back end reassemble each work.
then make those works available through a bittorrent like network back to the volunteers or everyone.
voila, profit.
how about we donate our time and energy writing and making new compilations in our spare time and help out those less fortunate gain access to fundamental public domain knowledge?
copyright is an abomination, in terms of mother nature and human morality.
it is UNNATURAL. that much is certain. the original agreement between the public and the authors was that they would have a limited monopoly after which the information/knowledge would fall BACK into the public domain.
everything that is published by default is in the public domain. but through copyright, we're trying to encourage new works that in a few measly years would become widely available to the public for just the price of duplication. NOT waiting after the heat death of the universe for it to come back to the public domain. NOT having laws like the DMCA and all the like preventing us making use of products we paid for.
the cartels broke the contract. period. everyone is entitled to judge for themselves if they wish to continue with copyright law is as or if they wish to rewrite it for themselves.
and as for the shills who argue straight-faced that copyright = property, why is there any time limit on it then? clearly, property belongs to you forever (forever as in scientifically, not the supreme court's time dilation experiment which makes 100 years + authors life seem "limited").
that's the argument you make when shills bring up that copyright is a natural right, like property rights. then by that definition, it should, logically and ethically, belong to that person forever.
no, the original contract (and even the extremely perverse version of copyright laws we have now) say that the author is given temporary exclusivity to their "compilation" (knowledge isn't created or destroyed) in order to promote progess of science and the arts such that the copyrighted material is soon brought BACK into the public domain from which it sprang.
you cannot promote progress of science and arts through the use of property rights... because property rights last forever... even if the owner dies, they can leave it to their children and so on.
so no, the shills have it wrong and hope we aren't paying attention.
copyright is an UNNATURAL right GRANTED by the government on behalf of the public to encourage progress in the science and the arts through having a LIMITED (that's like saying if i have a penny, then i am almost a millionare... too bad sane judges would throw you out of court if you argued that using that type of logic) monopoly, from which the author would profit and then give it back to the public domain from which it came.
throw that in the shills' faces when they have the nerve to hide among us and promote their sick and anti-public agendas.
the contract is severly broken. any other legal contract that was violated would be decided by the courts but money speaks louder than logic and contracts. and frankly, the dumbasses in the supreme court thought that 100 years + the authors lifetime is LIMITED. they need to have the decency to say they are incompetent and step down.
and please no replies about how this is all about "piracy" because as you have noticed, the argument isn't even remotely related to not paying for products. it is about cartels that broke the agreement. and if you do see people trying to make this about "piracy", call them for what they are.
anti-"fair use" lab.
calling it fair use is a bit incorrect, since having purchased a copyrighted product, you ARE ENTITLED to use it any way you wish.
fair use is for people who haven't purchased it i.e. quoting small passages, using small clips of video/audio etc.
this is yet another way for the cartels to say "fu** you, you consumer piece of shi* a**hole".
i recall Carlin saying something similar in one of his performances.
get the word out about what the MPAA/RIAA really are, not that suing poor families selectively isn't doing the same thing.
you can still pass on viruses to other vulnerable systems.
so it doesn't matter that you aren't infected, it's still not safe to be promiscuous because it can potentially harm others.
linux/mac/fbsd/etc people still need to virus scan files, just not on a real-time basis (unless you feel that's warranted).
being a good net citizen requires people look out for each... though how many people really try to do good, no matter how small...
copy PREVENTION.
only if the llama finds it pleasing.
http://www.electiledysfunction.org.nyud.net:8090/C onyersOhioHearing_chunk_1.wmv
:-)
right click and save as.
glad to know there are so many Diebold and ES&S supporters on slashdot...
it's in wmv format but mplayer will play it just fine.
that's one of the lessons they understood from the likes of the soviet union and nazi germany.
if you really want a tight grip, make sure no one even knows you have a tight grip in the first place.
in fascist america, there is no spoon unless the govt tells you there is.
anyone fool enough to raise their voice and tell the truth, is first ridiculed, then discredited, then meets with an untimely demise like martin luther king, john lennon. typically a small private plane is involved but sometimes it's a "crazed" fan or a "white supremist". never mind that the FBI and CIA have been caught numerous times impersonating others in order to meet their objectives.
that's what they learned... make sure the orwellian future looks like apple pie and the flag. and discredit anyone who says otherwise. and oh yeah, send other people's kids to fight for your pet wars. we're so glad we have a press and media that acts like a watchdog and not corporate and fascist cheerleeders, it might give the wrong impression to say, the deliberately uninformed/misinformed public.
and oh yeah, almost forgot. make sure you have shills patrolling the online forums. you don't want some poor citizen reading about things that show the esteemed govt and its cronies in a bad light. never mind that they earned every bit of their reputations, that's just heresay.
making people disappear is too obvious. it's better to make sure people think the person is crazy or find some dirt on them or just do what the presstitutes do, make shit up.
have a good day citiz... slave.
you make it possible, in a small way, for them to continue making DRM-crippled products.
i'm just saying, in these, the DRM dark ages, we must be ever more vigilant. we have to make it far too costly for the DRM industry to keep making digital handcuffs.
every little bit helps but what helps the most is education. tell you family and friends, if given a choice, take compact flash over SD or sony "magic gate" type products. i mean you are certainly being charged for having those "features" in there yet you will never get any benefit from them. so ultimately it's just best not to donate money to your own lynch fund.
the key is to make people automatically choose non-DRM crippled products given a choice. a shift in the way people think can be achieved if word gets out but the mainstream media is unwilling to do their part. just tell one or 2 people about the basic drawbacks of DRM.
that's all.
thanks for reading.
uh huh.
/. that fits along these lines?
that's why in japan they banned camera phones and the like in magazine shops.
the bribers erm i mean lobbyists who "talk" to congress, all spout this same garbage.
everything that can potentially record any data, analog or digital, is a terrorist tool.
how many stories have you heard of just on
they want to get rid of the analog hole. that is their ultimate goal, at least in the short term. in the digital domain, it is far easier to restrict access and functionality than can ever be imagined in the analog realm.
every year i keep seeing draconian new laws being introduced under the guise of security and in relation, copyright "protection" (apparently the law is not the protection..). one of those laws, the DMCA, won't even allow you to talk about "security" issues. and now that virtually every country is getting its own version... the frog seems to be coming along nicely.
every little issue, seemingly unconnected and unrelated is in fact another piece of the DRM foundation.
it's a pattern. sometimes it's more difficult to see unless you connect the dots.
the underlying message that the "copyright issue" in this story (regardless if from the article or the editor) is that they don't want you to control the ability to copy. what implications does that have? where is the next step? these are important matters, especially for the geek crowd who value cheap and easy copying/access to information in the digital age.
"as reported, DRM/Insidious Computing technology
will prevent lawful uses by the true owners of products. It is causing copyright concerns."
copyright gives you the right to use a copyrighted product in any way you choose. the original agreement was for copyright law to be law only. that means it is up to the courts and the legal system to decide if there has been infringement. technical methods to prevent lawful use is an infringement itself.
from my point of view, any product that prevents you using your purchased product in a lawful manner (everything except distribution), results in the immediate revocation of the company's copyright priviledges.
you want DRM/Insidious Computing, fine. but in doing so, you forfeit your copyright protections. that means it becomes in essence, a trade secret. if someone cracks the protec^H^prevention scheme, then they can legally and ethically release all of the information for free into the public domain.
now all we need are some reasonable judges and congre^H^H(well you can't have everything...)who won't listen to steamboat willie's copyright cartel.