Just to be clear, that is not the philosophy that is espoused in the book nor is it the one I am espousing. That is the point of the mutual benefit part and trading for what one produces. Lobbying the government to protect your industry or your own business from competition, making more money at the expense of the group, is explicitly condemned in the book.
In this case, forcing companies to pay US citizens is an attempt to make more money for the figurative company that is the US as a whole at the expense of the group, which is the world as a whole. In the end, it is doomed to failure.
Mod parent up. People would do well if they read a book about the ideas that made this country great and those that are tearing it down. If one can't at least see that a man has the right to his own life and what he has earned through legitimate business, contracts to the mutual benefit of both parties, then perhaps one lacks the capability to reason.
I don't think the reason for moving to those higher refresh rates is the desire for higher frame rates in 3D rendering, at least at this point.
Games played at high resolutions with a lot of detail can't be rendered even close to 120fps, and I think pretty much everyone would pretty a better looking game at 60fps than a worse looking one at 120fps. Although that may change as hardware gets better.
I think the primary benefit of moving to higher refresh rates is avoiding conversions between different media types at different frame rates with non-integer multiples, e.g. 24fps media to 30fps (60Hz vertical) requires repeating frames or other tricks. I'm not very technically savvy in this area, but this is what I have gleaned from reading wikipedia.
Just because a monitor displays at 120Hz or 240Hz does not mean you need to render at that speed. Currently the only time graphics cards render at the same speed as the monitor refresh is if vertical sync is enabled and they can render above that amount, otherwise they'll render at half. E.g. if the graphics card can only do 45fps and the monitor refreshes at 60Hz and vertical sync is enabled, then the monitor will get updates every 2 cycles, rendering will effectively be done at 30fps.
That article is a pretty interesting read, thank you for posting it. I wonder how well such a scheme would work today assuming that there are many more crackers than there were in 2001 and that they now have better tools and skills.
Don't kid yourself, large US based companies doesn't pay tax either. Tax heavens are just an easier way to avoid paying tax, it is saving the companies money on the payroll to accountants and number magicians, but no not on the tax bill. Only people and small companies pay tax.
Such protections will not make the tiniest dent in piracy. All it takes is for 1 guy to break the scheme and upload the fixed version to piratebay or something and users will continue pirating just as they did before. The people doing the downloading don't even have to be aware that the protection scheme was ever even there.
If it weren't those things what would it be? I reckon that it would have to be something even more outlandish than those already are, thus they would bring a smaller following. It is wrong to dismiss the justifications for fanatical behavior as irrelevant. They should be evaluated carefully and condemned by society if they are found to be harmful or, at the very least, tempered carefully.
Hah! You condemn him for "Argument from Authority" and then in the next sentence you appeal to the "Authority of the Many". Way to go, very insightful.
There are fundamental fallacies to our existing economy. They assume a workable environment in which to do business, and that the environment is infinite and free.
What justification do you have for making this statement? Who is "they"? Businessmen and politicians clearly do not feel this way, which is why industries have tons of environmental regulations that they have to follow.
Precedent doesn't mean it's not wrong. Past wrongs to do not justify future wrongs.
I agree that the bailouts are a bad idea and those companies should fail if they can't run their business properly. However, I don't recall there being a telecom bailout on the table. It's like saying that it's OK to steal from Bob because Roger stole from you.
You are stealing from the owners of the company and their employees. And you are stealing from other places where those telecoms could better invest their money. When they are forced to place lines where no production can be gained, they are unable to place lines somewhere else where there would be production gains.
Yes, lets force businessmen to operate at a loss, that will be good for the economy. The government has no right to pass such a law, and they shouldn't. If people want internet service, then they should pay for it. Trade value for value. Stealing from big corporations is still stealing and in the end will hurt everyone.
Mass Effect is an incredible RPG. I haven't played Fallout yet, but I have heard only good things. Much like survival horror, the genre is evolving. They are much more action based than turn based these days.
Outlawing talking on phones while driving is the wrong solution. Just punish the people that cause accidents more severely depending on how irresponsible they were being when they caused it. E.g. if they were drunk they should be very severely punished, talking on the cellphone less so, eating maybe less so, etc..
This way, no one's freedom is reduced and people are held accountable for their actions. We don't need more victimless crimes on the books (e.g. talking on a cell phone while driving and NOT getting into an accident).
It helps the home economy by allocating money more efficiently. We can now spend the money we saved on making things that we are good at making, like soldiers, for example. It is specialization in areas where there exists a comparative advantage.
If people who deal drugs are guilty of robbery assault or murder then arrest them for those crimes. Don't make something else a crime just so you have an excuse to arrest them. If you do that you will end up making criminals out of many otherwise decent people, and that is just the start of your troubles.
Prostitution is the willing exchange of money for sex. When prostitutes are victimized by pimps, johns, drug dealers, etc., it is not because they are engaging in the act of prostitution with those people. The crime they are victim to may be abuse, assault, kidnapping, or whatever else, but it is not prostitution. You are implying that by making prostitution a crime, you are protecting prostitutes. That is clearly absurd. The way to protect prostitutes is to bring justice against those who harm them.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to be clear, that is not the philosophy that is espoused in the book nor is it the one I am espousing. That is the point of the mutual benefit part and trading for what one produces. Lobbying the government to protect your industry or your own business from competition, making more money at the expense of the group, is explicitly condemned in the book.
In this case, forcing companies to pay US citizens is an attempt to make more money for the figurative company that is the US as a whole at the expense of the group, which is the world as a whole. In the end, it is doomed to failure.
Mod parent up. People would do well if they read a book about the ideas that made this country great and those that are tearing it down. If one can't at least see that a man has the right to his own life and what he has earned through legitimate business, contracts to the mutual benefit of both parties, then perhaps one lacks the capability to reason.
I don't think the reason for moving to those higher refresh rates is the desire for higher frame rates in 3D rendering, at least at this point.
Games played at high resolutions with a lot of detail can't be rendered even close to 120fps, and I think pretty much everyone would pretty a better looking game at 60fps than a worse looking one at 120fps. Although that may change as hardware gets better.
I think the primary benefit of moving to higher refresh rates is avoiding conversions between different media types at different frame rates with non-integer multiples, e.g. 24fps media to 30fps (60Hz vertical) requires repeating frames or other tricks. I'm not very technically savvy in this area, but this is what I have gleaned from reading wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#Frame_rate_differences
Just because a monitor displays at 120Hz or 240Hz does not mean you need to render at that speed. Currently the only time graphics cards render at the same speed as the monitor refresh is if vertical sync is enabled and they can render above that amount, otherwise they'll render at half. E.g. if the graphics card can only do 45fps and the monitor refreshes at 60Hz and vertical sync is enabled, then the monitor will get updates every 2 cycles, rendering will effectively be done at 30fps.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
All of this stuff is done in software on the CPU, so the graphics hardware really doesn't affect it.
That article is a pretty interesting read, thank you for posting it. I wonder how well such a scheme would work today assuming that there are many more crackers than there were in 2001 and that they now have better tools and skills.
Don't kid yourself, large US based companies doesn't pay tax either. Tax heavens are just an easier way to avoid paying tax, it is saving the companies money on the payroll to accountants and number magicians, but no not on the tax bill. Only people and small companies pay tax.
[citation needed]
Why does it take so long to discover the hardware? Is there some fundamental reason? Is it support for legacy hardware?
Such protections will not make the tiniest dent in piracy. All it takes is for 1 guy to break the scheme and upload the fixed version to piratebay or something and users will continue pirating just as they did before. The people doing the downloading don't even have to be aware that the protection scheme was ever even there.
If it weren't those things what would it be? I reckon that it would have to be something even more outlandish than those already are, thus they would bring a smaller following. It is wrong to dismiss the justifications for fanatical behavior as irrelevant. They should be evaluated carefully and condemned by society if they are found to be harmful or, at the very least, tempered carefully.
No, a B-tree is not a binary tree. It is an m-ary tree where all the leaf nodes are at the same depth, so it is balanced.
Hah! You condemn him for "Argument from Authority" and then in the next sentence you appeal to the "Authority of the Many". Way to go, very insightful.
There are fundamental fallacies to our existing economy. They assume a workable environment in which to do business, and that the environment is infinite and free.
What justification do you have for making this statement? Who is "they"? Businessmen and politicians clearly do not feel this way, which is why industries have tons of environmental regulations that they have to follow.
Precedent doesn't mean it's not wrong. Past wrongs to do not justify future wrongs.
I agree that the bailouts are a bad idea and those companies should fail if they can't run their business properly. However, I don't recall there being a telecom bailout on the table. It's like saying that it's OK to steal from Bob because Roger stole from you.
You are stealing from the owners of the company and their employees. And you are stealing from other places where those telecoms could better invest their money. When they are forced to place lines where no production can be gained, they are unable to place lines somewhere else where there would be production gains.
Yes, lets force businessmen to operate at a loss, that will be good for the economy. The government has no right to pass such a law, and they shouldn't. If people want internet service, then they should pay for it. Trade value for value. Stealing from big corporations is still stealing and in the end will hurt everyone.
Mass Effect is an incredible RPG. I haven't played Fallout yet, but I have heard only good things. Much like survival horror, the genre is evolving. They are much more action based than turn based these days.
Outlawing talking on phones while driving is the wrong solution. Just punish the people that cause accidents more severely depending on how irresponsible they were being when they caused it. E.g. if they were drunk they should be very severely punished, talking on the cellphone less so, eating maybe less so, etc..
This way, no one's freedom is reduced and people are held accountable for their actions. We don't need more victimless crimes on the books (e.g. talking on a cell phone while driving and NOT getting into an accident).
In all fairness, you can pretty easily ignore the camera component of War3 and get along just fine.
Not at all. Solid state drives are still orders of magnitude slower than RAM (i.e. main memory).
In other words, we now force the good drivers to subsidize the mistakes of the bad drivers.
They didn't demolish new content. They demolished content they've been playing for months on the beta server.
Not exactly helping the home economy.
It helps the home economy by allocating money more efficiently. We can now spend the money we saved on making things that we are good at making, like soldiers, for example. It is specialization in areas where there exists a comparative advantage.
Wikipedia
If people who deal drugs are guilty of robbery assault or murder then arrest them for those crimes. Don't make something else a crime just so you have an excuse to arrest them. If you do that you will end up making criminals out of many otherwise decent people, and that is just the start of your troubles.
It is sad that we live with a legal system where this kind of ass covering is necessary.
Prostitution is the willing exchange of money for sex. When prostitutes are victimized by pimps, johns, drug dealers, etc., it is not because they are engaging in the act of prostitution with those people. The crime they are victim to may be abuse, assault, kidnapping, or whatever else, but it is not prostitution. You are implying that by making prostitution a crime, you are protecting prostitutes. That is clearly absurd. The way to protect prostitutes is to bring justice against those who harm them.