something that has been forgotten in the sands of time.
the difference between making money and making it honestly is that you are working to benefit the public and yourself versus just benefitting yourself exclusively.
i mean that's why corporations are allowed to exist in the first place: the benefit to the public.
in what ways does having a 100% monopoly on NFL games, benefit the public?
there was a sale a week ago on x800xt cards. these are essentially the same as an x850xt and cost 250 bucks. a little clock escalation and you'd get a screaming performer for current and future games.
learning to look for deals and not buying the retail brick and mortar 500+ overpriced last-gen cards is the secret to gaming on a budget.
p.s. the a64 3800 1MB l2 is a fast-a** mother of a cpu.
consider that pci-x motherboards cost in the range of 3-500 bucks, i'd say you're better off with a pci-e video card.
yeah, pci-x != pci-e.
plus everyone and their uncle swear up and down that a certain brand of hard drive is completely terrible etc etc. that's because the statistical sample is exceedingly small. all brands (with the exception of the deathstar) have about the same failure rate. but if you care about reliability, go for the enterprise drives; they come with 5 year warranties and are certified to run 24/7 with 1.0million+ MTBF.
an antec or other mid-range 400+watt ps is more than enough. i know, i've used it in several systems i've built.
if it costs less than 80 bucks, it's not worth putting in a computer you care about. you can still use the cheaper ones for junk computers and where the power draw is low.
the 6600 is a piece of crap compared to the 7800. that's one area where you don't want to skimp. it IS worth the extra dough.
so now you have your 6600. 6 months down the line when you want to play a new game... you'll have trouble running it acceptably at a decent resolution with most effects.
in a gaming system, the video card is the number one componenet. cpu and ram come after that. a fast video card can override a slower cpu while the reverse isn't true.
"borrowing" is a fundamental process of the universe.
get it out of your head that "borrowing" = stealing/ripoff.
where would humanity be if only the originator of an idea/implementation could be the sole beneficiary?
we as a species NEED to share. not just for survival but to enrich ourselves. that's just another reason i think patents/copyrights are bad ideas. only until recently, were humans free to do with ideas/knowledge what they wished.
on a side note, apple has adopted a lot of x86/pc world technology. does that mean you berate them for their decisions?
when the Insidious Computing group denies the owner of the machine their encyrption key, that alone dissolves all the points you brought up.
when the real owner no longer has the key, then by definition, someone else does. and that someone else has an agenda that is anti-privacy, anti-freedom, anti-property rights.
they deny you and me, the owners of our respective machines, the key to enable full access to them.
that is all one really needs to know in order to figure out the destination.
just an aside, consoles (read: computers) also get away with this purely evil methodolgy. they deny the rightful owner of the machine full access to it. you bought the cpu, gfx chip, sound chip, storage mechanisms, but are NOT ALLOWED access to them. i don't know about other people, but i find that so outrageous and so reprehensible, that i cannot for the life of me figure out why they are still allowed to do business in the civilzed world.
i mean after all, people don't rent consoles... they purchase them outright... and what a business model it is: preventing the lawful use of property that is legally purchased.
Insidious Computing is not in any way optional and most assuredly not for the benefit of the public.
there is a simple test you can do to determine this for yourself.
ask them why they won't let the "owner" of the machine have access to the encyrption key(s)?
if it is truly for the protection of the owner, then having the key would certainly allow the owner to decide what is best for themselves.
the only reason to disallow access to your own property is for the enforcement of DRM and things like remote attestation.
i don't know if you've heard or not, but very soon, within 5-10 years you will NOT be able to access the internet without REMOTE ATTESTATION. and the only way to ensure that remote attestation is authentic is to prevent the legal and lawful owner of the machine from changing anything about what the system reports to servers.
there is NO benefit whatsoever from disallowing the OWNER from having the key to his/her machine.
this isn't a damn rental, you BOUGHT AND OWN the physical components as well as the right to use the software (aka encryption programs on the chips).
and also if you think this only applies to MS systems and software you are very naive. just wait until the software vendor you use (which is not MS) gets ahold of a "trusted" system... they can do all sorts of things to you, even if most or all of it is reprehensible. they will cite the EULA and enforce every single provision and add new ones without your knowledge. oh of course, it won't be a tidal wave. they know better than to make so many changes at one time. they will boil the frog more slowly...
" Eh, it's all just signs of Microsoft cracking. Right now it's running around in so many directions, trying to do so many things that one side of Microsoft can't tell what the other's doing."
what a bunch of utter bu**sh**.
i've never bought into the absurd notion that a company or organization doing things that the other people in the said groups don't know about.
it's just a red herring. or another way to say it is "plausible deniability".
it's not hard to see that it's very effective... almost no one holds them accountable when their "PR" dept brings it up or an "astroturfer".
Balmer: bill, i think the public is catching on to what we're up to with our so-called "trusted computing"
Gates: then we'll just have to boil the frog more slowly.
they're not cracking up at all. they've probably been analyzing the situation and determined that the shi* they're forcing down our throats would be more easily accomplished if they do it in smaller amounts, with some chocolate along for the ride to cover up the smell/taste.
they were killed because mother nature DRM'd their dna and after the copyright period ended, no one could decrypt the sequence to enter it into the public domain.
Slashdot Mirror
you forget, dear sir, that the EULA is the other major component of DRM.
DRM is the technical aspect and the EULA is the aspect that is activated when the first fails.
remember kids, when you support EULAs, you boil a baby frog slowly.
and since Nethack has no competition, then you're even more right.
it's not foolish, it's honest commerce.
something that has been forgotten in the sands of time.
the difference between making money and making it honestly is that you are working to benefit the public and yourself versus just benefitting yourself exclusively.
i mean that's why corporations are allowed to exist in the first place: the benefit to the public.
in what ways does having a 100% monopoly on NFL games, benefit the public?
did BBC report on the recent massive vote fraud in britain?
i mean, voting is so crucial to having a democracy, one wonders why it isn't on the front page of every publication.
they're rationalizing copyright infringement.
when you shill for the RIAA, at least get the terms right in order to argue on a level playing field.
oh wait...
10 thousand bucks is a hell of a lot of money for a car when you can get a 30 year old yugo for 200 bucks.
i have yet to find cargo that the yugo won't transport from point a to b acceptably.
there was a sale a week ago on x800xt cards. these are essentially the same as an x850xt and cost 250 bucks. a little clock escalation and you'd get a screaming performer for current and future games.
learning to look for deals and not buying the retail brick and mortar 500+ overpriced last-gen cards is the secret to gaming on a budget.
p.s. the a64 3800 1MB l2 is a fast-a** mother of a cpu.
consider that pci-x motherboards cost in the range of 3-500 bucks, i'd say you're better off with a pci-e video card.
yeah, pci-x != pci-e.
plus everyone and their uncle swear up and down that a certain brand of hard drive is completely terrible etc etc. that's because the statistical sample is exceedingly small. all brands (with the exception of the deathstar) have about the same failure rate. but if you care about reliability, go for the enterprise drives; they come with 5 year warranties and are certified to run 24/7 with 1.0million+ MTBF.
you don't need a "boutique" psu.
an antec or other mid-range 400+watt ps is more than enough. i know, i've used it in several systems i've built.
if it costs less than 80 bucks, it's not worth putting in a computer you care about. you can still use the cheaper ones for junk computers and where the power draw is low.
you forgot tritech. they made the paper-only pyramid 3d chip. it was very advanced for the time and way ahead of it's competitors.
m id+3d
just an obscure company almost no one has heard of.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=tritech+pyra
the 6600 is a piece of crap compared to the 7800. that's one area where you don't want to skimp. it IS worth the extra dough.
so now you have your 6600. 6 months down the line when you want to play a new game... you'll have trouble running it acceptably at a decent resolution with most effects.
in a gaming system, the video card is the number one componenet. cpu and ram come after that. a fast video card can override a slower cpu while the reverse isn't true.
thankfully, that's what happens with open standards and no vendor monopolies. competition lowers prices far more and faster than any other method.
they just induced the readership into delaying certain rights by falsely promising they would edit the article summaries.
what ever happened to Gathering of Developers?
or did it just turn into a Gathering of Corporate Whores?
how many hours do you do something that others don't approve of?
unless it's impacting his health, just leave him be.
so only 98 more versions of bluetooth to catch up to this new IRDA standard.
99 versions of bluetooth on the wall, 99 versions of bluetooth. take one down, pass it around, 98 versions of bluetooth on the wall.
"borrowing" is a fundamental process of the universe.
get it out of your head that "borrowing" = stealing/ripoff.
where would humanity be if only the originator of an idea/implementation could be the sole beneficiary?
we as a species NEED to share. not just for survival but to enrich ourselves. that's just another reason i think patents/copyrights are bad ideas. only until recently, were humans free to do with ideas/knowledge what they wished.
on a side note, apple has adopted a lot of x86/pc world technology. does that mean you berate them for their decisions?
"since when are we going to sensor what people say on the internet."
since it "undermines national security"
when the Insidious Computing group denies the owner of the machine their encyrption key, that alone dissolves all the points you brought up.
when the real owner no longer has the key, then by definition, someone else does. and that someone else has an agenda that is anti-privacy, anti-freedom, anti-property rights.
they deny you and me, the owners of our respective machines, the key to enable full access to them.
that is all one really needs to know in order to figure out the destination.
just an aside, consoles (read: computers) also get away with this purely evil methodolgy. they deny the rightful owner of the machine full access to it. you bought the cpu, gfx chip, sound chip, storage mechanisms, but are NOT ALLOWED access to them. i don't know about other people, but i find that so outrageous and so reprehensible, that i cannot for the life of me figure out why they are still allowed to do business in the civilzed world.
i mean after all, people don't rent consoles... they purchase them outright... and what a business model it is: preventing the lawful use of property that is legally purchased.
something to think about.
Insidious Computing is not in any way optional and most assuredly not for the benefit of the public.
there is a simple test you can do to determine this for yourself.
ask them why they won't let the "owner" of the machine have access to the encyrption key(s)?
if it is truly for the protection of the owner, then having the key would certainly allow the owner to decide what is best for themselves.
the only reason to disallow access to your own property is for the enforcement of DRM and things like remote attestation.
i don't know if you've heard or not, but very soon, within 5-10 years you will NOT be able to access the internet without REMOTE ATTESTATION. and the only way to ensure that remote attestation is authentic is to prevent the legal and lawful owner of the machine from changing anything about what the system reports to servers.
there is NO benefit whatsoever from disallowing the OWNER from having the key to his/her machine.
this isn't a damn rental, you BOUGHT AND OWN the physical components as well as the right to use the software (aka encryption programs on the chips).
and also if you think this only applies to MS systems and software you are very naive. just wait until the software vendor you use (which is not MS) gets ahold of a "trusted" system... they can do all sorts of things to you, even if most or all of it is reprehensible. they will cite the EULA and enforce every single provision and add new ones without your knowledge. oh of course, it won't be a tidal wave. they know better than to make so many changes at one time. they will boil the frog more slowly...
" Eh, it's all just signs of Microsoft cracking. Right now it's running around in so many directions, trying to do so many things that one side of Microsoft can't tell what the other's doing."
what a bunch of utter bu**sh**.
i've never bought into the absurd notion that a company or organization doing things that the other people in the said groups don't know about.
it's just a red herring. or another way to say it is "plausible deniability".
it's not hard to see that it's very effective... almost no one holds them accountable when their "PR" dept brings it up or an "astroturfer".
Balmer: bill, i think the public is catching on to what we're up to with our so-called "trusted computing"
Gates: then we'll just have to boil the frog more slowly.
they're not cracking up at all. they've probably been analyzing the situation and determined that the shi* they're forcing down our throats would be more easily accomplished if they do it in smaller amounts, with some chocolate along for the ride to cover up the smell/taste.
refraining to boil the frog too quickly.
they don't want us jumping out before it's too late.
and by us, i mean the folks who haven't a clue as to how Insidious this whole thing is.
i am also partial to Sinister Computing; it has a nice ring to it.
well that's another good reason...
did anyone else read the parent's post to the tune of a song lyric?
maybe i'm just tired or maybe it's the heat.
they were killed because mother nature DRM'd their dna and after the copyright period ended, no one could decrypt the sequence to enter it into the public domain.