Why would anyone care about cracking their DRM? It's not like their videos are of higher quality than DVD rips! No, the only thing this accomplishes is negative publicity, and as a pay-for video download service is pretty much based on goodwill, it will lose them business as well.
Apples don't usually grow in the wild, so someone had to plant them first. But assuming they grew in the wild, then the 'freedom to roam' would allow people to still pick the apples, at least here in Finland. I actually agree with you, limiting access to renewable natural (i.e. not man-made, planted) resources is an artificial monopoly.
Every time someone suggests something like this, it reminds me of how lazy people can be. Instead of thinking up real solutions, you hope that the problem goes away.
Instead of starving mankind, we should be pushing for new solutions. More nuclear power, breeder reactors, renewable power sources, fusion power, genetic engineering to increase crop yields, recycling, CO2 sequestration, asteroid mining, space habitation etc. These are all necessary if we want to survive as a species, and these are all time-consuming, expensive and hard things. But no, some people would rather lie on their couch and hope that a couple of billion people die off so they don't need to do anything.
What's artificial about it? I think you'll find it to be fairly difficult to use your neighbor's shovel at the same time he is! Physical things can't be copied, but if we applied the same rules of supply and demand to copyrights and patents, then their price would be zero, thanks to the practically infinite supply.
You asked "Why are so many nerds just dying for the nanotechnology future to get here?" and got your answer. If your new question is in reference to your second question about sci-fi and Harry Potter, then I ask you why you had to ask the first question if you already knew the answer to it. Any questions?
Games have already been benchmarked on both and the performance difference was negligible (GameSpot reported at least once that the difference was +/- one frame per second.)
I find that surprising, as there are no "real" drivers out for ATI or NVIDIA yet. Ati still has their beta version up on their page, and Nvidia has drivers for RTM. Waiting at least until both companies have released WHQL drivers for the release version of Vista is in order before one can judge any potential performance difference.
Virtual memory isn't that useful from a performance standpoint, as it eats its own share of resources, but it is very useful for simplifying development. Not needing to care about how much memory a graphics card has makes things cleaner, and virtual memory makes multi-tasking the GPU easier as the OS will be able to page unused data from graphics memory to main memory. Multi-tasking will not make gaming any faster either, but it will make switching between applications that use directx much less of a hassle, and will make the GPU much more useful for general purpose computing. To answer your last question, I refer to your earlier comment in your post, i.e. nowadays the gains in improving the graphics is so small that some of that performance can be used to make the development process easier & faster. These features are also useful if the GPU is to be brought on-chip in the CPU, as it would seem Intel & AMD are planning to do. Hopefully we'll one day have a x86-like instruction set (or maybe an extension to x86?) that will be used on GPUs, until then DX10 is a step in the right direction.
DX10 by itself doesn't require Vista, but they decided to get rid of the legacy cruft and re-wrote the entire graphics system. This allows neat things like multi-tasking and virtual memory handling for GPUs, but requires completely new drivers. This also supposedly enables a much higher performance, a game running on DX10 should be a lot faster than the same game running on DX9, assuming that they both use the exact same shaders. So yes, they could port DX10 to XP, but this would require two different kinds of DX10, with different features (no virtual GPU memory on XP = lame), and with different levels of performance. IMO the clean break is a good thing, but the HDCP bloat makes me hesitate to upgrade.
The problem is, that the insurgents don't attack at targets within compounds, they attack at people who are outside and vulnerable. They're insurgents, not idiots.
Would someone providing a service based on OSS not find that software useful? =)
But in all seriousness, the GPL is just a legal framework for how the software can be used, IMO one can't derive the "spirit of OSS" based on it. And the GPL only covers the software itself, it doesn't extend to services based on the software.
Because OSS has no warranty, you think charging for service is against the spirit of OSS? I'm not sure I understand your logic. Do you mean that you feel it's not right to charge for a service based on software without warranty? AFAIK commercial software also comes without warranty..
Sooner or later, I would have to find some source of funding. One choice is to charge for it. For people who value the principles of open source software and the like, this is not a disireable option.
What do principles of open-source software have to do with charging money for a service? Isn't that in fact the very core of most open-source businesses? While I consider myself somewhat of a open-source proponent, I have to admit I really don't see a problem with someone charging for a service. In your example I would not be paying for software, but in fact for bandwidth, hardware, maintenance etc.
Ads I hate however, and have no qualms about blocking all of them.
You might want to cancel the pointy wizard hat you just ordered from theprophetshop.com, the summary is only two sentences long so half of the comments focusing on the second sentence isn't particularly odd.;)
Well, wouldn't it be profitable to make a client that just keeps notifying the server of new objects that sell well in the world? I'm not too clear on the crafting process in Second Life but I imagine it takes resources.
The way I understand it, is that there is no "crafting" system per se, but users create things outside of the client, and then upload them to the SL system. Users can then set flags in their creation that makes it non-copyable, non-transferable and/or non-sellable. Therefore a client that creates items perpetually would not give a user any advantage, as items can already be copied at will. There is no rules in SL (except in player created environments), as it is more of a virtual space than a game. This is what I've understood of it, I haven't played it myself so this is only second-hand information.
So what you're basically saying is that you want a client that gives more upload capacity to poor uploaders, thus improving your ratio while keeping demand for your upload capacity high through essentially wasting your upload capacity? Sounds like something I'd want to keep far away from my swarm, as a wasteful strategy like that would kill the speed in a torrent.
Genesis I: 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, AND SUBDUE IT: AND HAVE DOMINION over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every liviing thing that moveth upon the earth.
dominion defined as:
1. supreme authority
2. absolute ownership
Genesis I: 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, AND SUBDUE IT: AND HAVE DOMINION OVER THE FISH of the sea, AND OVER THE FOWL of the air, and over every liviing thing that moveth upon the earth.
See, you've totally misrepresented that quote from the holy book, no wonder you're going to hell!:)
Or if you prefer, read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"
Evolution doesn't cover morality, if we based our society on 'the survival of the fittest', then we would also have to get rid of the legal framework around society. It basically becomes a choice between a free-for-all with no laws where the fittest survives, or accepting the fact that exploiting lifeforms of lower intelligence is wrong. I believe we will eventually reach a point where we can produce our meat without exploiting sentient beings, as evidenced by the technological advances of late. Within a century people who insist on human supremacy will be as anachronistic as the white supremacists of today.
I think you're grossly overestimating the usefulness of intelligence in a human vs lion fight. Assuming they attack each other (a human might be able to scare off the lion or the lion might not be hungry), there is very little time to use that big brain to construct weapons or traps, so unless the human is equipped with some weapons the fight is heavily skewed towards the lion. Even if the human somehow stayed conscious after the 150-225 kg lion leaps on him, he would need to be very lucky to simultaneously survive the lions claws/teeth, while somehow hitting the lion with a rock or something else in a critical spot. A small child trying to beat up an adult comes to mind, the sheer difference in size makes it pretty much impossible. Lots of luck would be required, and luck is not passed on to your offspring.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know that without a search warrant?
Intelligent Design is not. But intelligent design is. Humans are neither.
But how do you prevent them from flying off the box?
Why would anyone care about cracking their DRM? It's not like their videos are of higher quality than DVD rips! No, the only thing this accomplishes is negative publicity, and as a pay-for video download service is pretty much based on goodwill, it will lose them business as well.
Caffeine is bad.
Apples don't usually grow in the wild, so someone had to plant them first. But assuming they grew in the wild, then the 'freedom to roam' would allow people to still pick the apples, at least here in Finland. I actually agree with you, limiting access to renewable natural (i.e. not man-made, planted) resources is an artificial monopoly.
Every time someone suggests something like this, it reminds me of how lazy people can be. Instead of thinking up real solutions, you hope that the problem goes away.
Instead of starving mankind, we should be pushing for new solutions. More nuclear power, breeder reactors, renewable power sources, fusion power, genetic engineering to increase crop yields, recycling, CO2 sequestration, asteroid mining, space habitation etc. These are all necessary if we want to survive as a species, and these are all time-consuming, expensive and hard things. But no, some people would rather lie on their couch and hope that a couple of billion people die off so they don't need to do anything.
Sigh.
What's artificial about it? I think you'll find it to be fairly difficult to use your neighbor's shovel at the same time he is! Physical things can't be copied, but if we applied the same rules of supply and demand to copyrights and patents, then their price would be zero, thanks to the practically infinite supply.
Nothing wrong with sitting in a café, but I do not recommend watching porn there.
While we might be doing some tangible good in other countries
?
You asked "Why are so many nerds just dying for the nanotechnology future to get here?" and got your answer. If your new question is in reference to your second question about sci-fi and Harry Potter, then I ask you why you had to ask the first question if you already knew the answer to it. Any questions?
"To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago. Furthermore, the Indonesian school Obama attended in Jakarta is a public school that is not and never has been a Madrassa."
Games have already been benchmarked on both and the performance difference was negligible (GameSpot reported at least once that the difference was +/- one frame per second.)
I find that surprising, as there are no "real" drivers out for ATI or NVIDIA yet. Ati still has their beta version up on their page, and Nvidia has drivers for RTM. Waiting at least until both companies have released WHQL drivers for the release version of Vista is in order before one can judge any potential performance difference.
Virtual memory isn't that useful from a performance standpoint, as it eats its own share of resources, but it is very useful for simplifying development. Not needing to care about how much memory a graphics card has makes things cleaner, and virtual memory makes multi-tasking the GPU easier as the OS will be able to page unused data from graphics memory to main memory. Multi-tasking will not make gaming any faster either, but it will make switching between applications that use directx much less of a hassle, and will make the GPU much more useful for general purpose computing. To answer your last question, I refer to your earlier comment in your post, i.e. nowadays the gains in improving the graphics is so small that some of that performance can be used to make the development process easier & faster. These features are also useful if the GPU is to be brought on-chip in the CPU, as it would seem Intel & AMD are planning to do. Hopefully we'll one day have a x86-like instruction set (or maybe an extension to x86?) that will be used on GPUs, until then DX10 is a step in the right direction.
DX10 by itself doesn't require Vista, but they decided to get rid of the legacy cruft and re-wrote the entire graphics system. This allows neat things like multi-tasking and virtual memory handling for GPUs, but requires completely new drivers. This also supposedly enables a much higher performance, a game running on DX10 should be a lot faster than the same game running on DX9, assuming that they both use the exact same shaders. So yes, they could port DX10 to XP, but this would require two different kinds of DX10, with different features (no virtual GPU memory on XP = lame), and with different levels of performance. IMO the clean break is a good thing, but the HDCP bloat makes me hesitate to upgrade.
The problem is, that the insurgents don't attack at targets within compounds, they attack at people who are outside and vulnerable. They're insurgents, not idiots.
Would someone providing a service based on OSS not find that software useful? =)
But in all seriousness, the GPL is just a legal framework for how the software can be used, IMO one can't derive the "spirit of OSS" based on it. And the GPL only covers the software itself, it doesn't extend to services based on the software.
Because OSS has no warranty, you think charging for service is against the spirit of OSS? I'm not sure I understand your logic. Do you mean that you feel it's not right to charge for a service based on software without warranty? AFAIK commercial software also comes without warranty..
Sooner or later, I would have to find some source of funding. One choice is to charge for it. For people who value the principles of open source software and the like, this is not a disireable option.
What do principles of open-source software have to do with charging money for a service? Isn't that in fact the very core of most open-source businesses? While I consider myself somewhat of a open-source proponent, I have to admit I really don't see a problem with someone charging for a service. In your example I would not be paying for software, but in fact for bandwidth, hardware, maintenance etc.
Ads I hate however, and have no qualms about blocking all of them.
You might want to cancel the pointy wizard hat you just ordered from theprophetshop.com, the summary is only two sentences long so half of the comments focusing on the second sentence isn't particularly odd. ;)
Well, wouldn't it be profitable to make a client that just keeps notifying the server of new objects that sell well in the world? I'm not too clear on the crafting process in Second Life but I imagine it takes resources.
The way I understand it, is that there is no "crafting" system per se, but users create things outside of the client, and then upload them to the SL system. Users can then set flags in their creation that makes it non-copyable, non-transferable and/or non-sellable. Therefore a client that creates items perpetually would not give a user any advantage, as items can already be copied at will. There is no rules in SL (except in player created environments), as it is more of a virtual space than a game. This is what I've understood of it, I haven't played it myself so this is only second-hand information.
Indeed. I guess the US isn't the only country with a puritanic view on sex.
So what you're basically saying is that you want a client that gives more upload capacity to poor uploaders, thus improving your ratio while keeping demand for your upload capacity high through essentially wasting your upload capacity? Sounds like something I'd want to keep far away from my swarm, as a wasteful strategy like that would kill the speed in a torrent.
Genesis I: 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, AND SUBDUE IT: AND HAVE DOMINION over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every liviing thing that moveth upon the earth.
:)
dominion defined as:
1. supreme authority
2. absolute ownership
Genesis I: 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, AND SUBDUE IT: AND HAVE DOMINION OVER THE FISH of the sea, AND OVER THE FOWL of the air, and over every liviing thing that moveth upon the earth.
dominion defined as:
1. domination & submission, in this case of fish and fowl i.e. zoophilia
See, you've totally misrepresented that quote from the holy book, no wonder you're going to hell!
Or if you prefer, read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"
Evolution doesn't cover morality, if we based our society on 'the survival of the fittest', then we would also have to get rid of the legal framework around society. It basically becomes a choice between a free-for-all with no laws where the fittest survives, or accepting the fact that exploiting lifeforms of lower intelligence is wrong. I believe we will eventually reach a point where we can produce our meat without exploiting sentient beings, as evidenced by the technological advances of late. Within a century people who insist on human supremacy will be as anachronistic as the white supremacists of today.
'nuf said
Indeed.
I think you're grossly overestimating the usefulness of intelligence in a human vs lion fight. Assuming they attack each other (a human might be able to scare off the lion or the lion might not be hungry), there is very little time to use that big brain to construct weapons or traps, so unless the human is equipped with some weapons the fight is heavily skewed towards the lion. Even if the human somehow stayed conscious after the 150-225 kg lion leaps on him, he would need to be very lucky to simultaneously survive the lions claws/teeth, while somehow hitting the lion with a rock or something else in a critical spot. A small child trying to beat up an adult comes to mind, the sheer difference in size makes it pretty much impossible. Lots of luck would be required, and luck is not passed on to your offspring.