Bullshit. Yes, and we could also go back and live in mud huts as well. It's certainly possible, it's just not realistic.
The Chinese government hasn't advanced, they've used the techniques of sweatshops and virtual indentured servitude which have been in place for a really long time, referring to them as advanced is a bit like saying that the steam engine is advanced because if you run out of fuel mid route you have the option of chopping more wood or burning other things to keep you going.
The larger cats tend to be. I remember getting to pet the lion cubs at the zoo one time, and they're basically just big kittens.
There's just three reasons why lions aren't appropriate pets, size, habitat requirements and instinct. While they're not malicious in most cases, they do still have a strong degree of instinct left. Sort of like tigers, which is part of what happened during that incident involving Roy. I doubt the animal really meant to hurt him, but lacked the processes to avoid it.
I take it you suck with animals. Cats definitely do respond to their names to the extent that dogs do. What you're confusing is motivation to respond and capability to respond. Cats by virtue of being most active at night tend not to be up when we are. Which is probably one of the reasons why they were so useful at catching rats.
It varies quite a bit how much they're willing to do, but my parents did get a few "presents" from their pet cat, including a not quite dead squirrel that somehow he'd managed to catch. And this was a fluffy whit cat who you wouldn't expect to be able to catch a squirrel.
Also, it's easy to get people to like you if you're easy, it's quite a bit more difficult if you don't just give them what they want every time. It takes a lot less intellect to just do what you're told than it does to figure out if it's a good idea.
If Hitler were going around these days, he'd almost certainly start with the folks on MySpace followed by the folks on Facebook and finish up with the folks on Twitter, before he got to the rest of the people he wanted to remove from the gene pool.
That was what I was wondering about. Cats have convinced us to keep them around and feed them without them having to do anything for us, that seems pretty smart. Whereas we seem to expect dogs to do tricks, work and reciprocate. Cats sort of get by just by being cute and not having to contribute anything else.
Actually that's the natural extension to your argument. In order for there to be no damages to the developer, 100% of those pirates must have been completely unwilling to buy the software, if even one of the individuals would have paid but ends up not paying because of the pirated version then the pirates have harmed the developer.
It's not him being silly, it's you making an argument you weren't prepared to stick up for and expected folks not to notice.
It's still copyright infringement. I doubt very much that the folks around here would be so outraged if the methodology for identifying pirates were sound and the requested settlement bore some resemblance to the damages.
I doubt that they'd end up losing many customers from here if they charged say $200 or so to the people identified as having pirated it. It's a slap on the wrist, much more than actually buying the game, but few people aren't going to be able to afford to pay that either.
Indeed, the humble indie bundle pretty well proved that there will always be some piracy and that it's not just people that are trying to get around DRM either.
A lot of that is people that can't pay for one reason or another are not able to actually take their money and give it to the developers, but a lot more of it is people that are cheap or are all about the developer lulz of pirating it even if they don't actually ever play it.
Neither, the whole premise is a false dilemma. Failing to pay for DRM does not waive a person's right to protect their property in court. I'd really have to wait and see how exactly they intend on doing it before I have much of an opinion, the reality is that this could be done legitimately and in a fair minded way or it could end up being a witch hunt.
I suspect more fair, but things can get biased accidentally with bad methodology or third party intervention.
I picked up my first SB Live card for about $30 OEM when I was buying some other stuff. Came pretty barebones, just card, antistatic pouch and driver disc, but definitely a good buy. Historically the price for a SB card was between $50 and $100 or so, except for a relatively brief period when those cards were out and hadn't yet been undercut by decent integrated audio..
People who say that don't generally know what they're talking about. The problem is that when you push the sample rate high enough the effect is indistinguishable from continuous. The other problem is that the quality of the equipment that people are using negates any benefit that might be there. Even a $50 pair of Sennheiser over the ears is likely going to exceed the quality that a lot of the commodity hardware is putting out. And that's not even the expensive stuff like Grados.
Most of that ends up being a combination of confirmation bias and the placebo effect. Under the conditions that people normally listen to music under, there is no advantage to vinyl and quite a few disadvantages due to the format.
Isn't that a driver problem though? I mean a lot of companies have released drivers which nominally supported 64-bits but didn't work correctly. Not really a particularly good criteria to judge need based on.
Well, apart from realtek more or less having that market locked up.
It's not really necessary, the words are pronounced the same whether you add the extra "s" or not. It's like the word "creek" depending upon where you are, that might be pronounced creek or crick. Same spelling different pronunciation. Likewise Hiccough and Hiccup are apparently pronounced the same way despite being spelled differently.
The point being that it's really just a waste of a millisecond adding it on, when it means and is read precisely the same way.
No such thing, that would violate laws of physics. You can make it indistinguishable from real time like you're implying, but as soon as you start actually processing it you introduce latency. Probably not a lot, but you do introduce it, to say otherwise is really uninformed.
Sounds like either a bad driver or a defective part. I haven't had any trouble of that sort with my soundcard. It's probably the same chipset that yours had. right now I've got the volume turned up only about a third of the way and I'm hearing things just fine.
The other possibility is that it's your speakers. Some speakers require more power than others to drive them.
So, you learn to identify something that's known to be fake? It's a pretty good bet that if your girlfriend sounds like a woman in a porn vid that she's faking it.
Hence why it's referred to as discrete. There's a discontinuity where it plugs into the socket. As opposed to the integrated ones which are essentially continuous with the mainboard having no such disconnection. Perhaps it's a bit lame that only folks with a math background are going to appreciate.
The ext?fs work well unless they don't. In my, admittedly limited experience, I've lost more files on ext2fs than on all other filesystems I've dabbled in combined. Admittedly, I had backups, but any fs that depends upon you having backups to that extent should not be trusted. And while I'm sure the newer ones are better, I'm not sure that I personally trust them as ext2fs shouldn't have been that easy to corrupt. IIRC that was only a couple years ago, and it should've been both robust and well undestood by then.
Well, don't forget to use that magic rewinding tape that mysteriously never fills no matter how many backups you use it for. Better safe than sorry I always say.
But that's not particularly helpful. I don't believe that Btrfs is supported beyond Linux at the moment and neither FreeBSD nor Open Solaris support both. Meaning that you're comparing a filesystem that's been grafted onto Linux via fuse with one that can ultimately be integrated into the Linux kernel.
Indeed. The main reason to use ZFS over the other ones, even in cases where the features are the same is that ZFS is more widely available. Admittedly, it's far from universal, but right now it's officially supported in more than one OS. I'm not aware of a filesystem that provides similar functionality to ZFS which is more widely available.
And it's hardly fair to compare a filesystem that's being run in such a convoluted way to one that's able to be much more tightly integrated, especially considering that it's a licensing issue not a technical one that mandates the approach.
And yes, I've personally used ZFS on both FreeBSD and Solaris, and I haven't had any complaints about speed. Resource utilization yes, but that's been greatly improved.
I'm sure that Hammer and Btrfs are both great filesystems, but like EXT4FS, they aren't particularly useful in cross platform computing at present, and while servers aren't going to be doing that, it is something to consider when you've got massive arrays of disks that if you can't take it directly that you'll be stuck with some sort of really annoying migration process for the disks as well as the rest of it.
Still not illegal. Sure they can audit it, but they have to prove that it was more than a typo. You'd have to pay plus a penalty, but what you've got there is a straw man.
Technically speaking we have an oligopoly and it's every bit as illegal to abuse as a monopoly. It's not anywhere near as expensive to operate the last mile as you're suggesting. The speed available at my house hasn't increased in nearly a decade by any significant figure. I'm now getting 5mbps with DSL versus 4mbps via cable and that's over a decade. I've seen no evidence that the DSL company has increased or replaced its equipment and as such the price ought to be going down. It's not, but since wholesale bandwidth is so much cheaper now than it was back then and their equipment should have amortized by now, I don't think I can assume that this is a competitive market.
And yes the DoJ does have the ability to go in and break it up. And really, the DoJ shouldn't have allowed it to happen in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. Yes, and we could also go back and live in mud huts as well. It's certainly possible, it's just not realistic.
The Chinese government hasn't advanced, they've used the techniques of sweatshops and virtual indentured servitude which have been in place for a really long time, referring to them as advanced is a bit like saying that the steam engine is advanced because if you run out of fuel mid route you have the option of chopping more wood or burning other things to keep you going.
The larger cats tend to be. I remember getting to pet the lion cubs at the zoo one time, and they're basically just big kittens.
There's just three reasons why lions aren't appropriate pets, size, habitat requirements and instinct. While they're not malicious in most cases, they do still have a strong degree of instinct left. Sort of like tigers, which is part of what happened during that incident involving Roy. I doubt the animal really meant to hurt him, but lacked the processes to avoid it.
I take it you suck with animals. Cats definitely do respond to their names to the extent that dogs do. What you're confusing is motivation to respond and capability to respond. Cats by virtue of being most active at night tend not to be up when we are. Which is probably one of the reasons why they were so useful at catching rats.
It varies quite a bit how much they're willing to do, but my parents did get a few "presents" from their pet cat, including a not quite dead squirrel that somehow he'd managed to catch. And this was a fluffy whit cat who you wouldn't expect to be able to catch a squirrel.
Also, it's easy to get people to like you if you're easy, it's quite a bit more difficult if you don't just give them what they want every time. It takes a lot less intellect to just do what you're told than it does to figure out if it's a good idea.
If Hitler were going around these days, he'd almost certainly start with the folks on MySpace followed by the folks on Facebook and finish up with the folks on Twitter, before he got to the rest of the people he wanted to remove from the gene pool.
That was what I was wondering about. Cats have convinced us to keep them around and feed them without them having to do anything for us, that seems pretty smart. Whereas we seem to expect dogs to do tricks, work and reciprocate. Cats sort of get by just by being cute and not having to contribute anything else.
Actually that's the natural extension to your argument. In order for there to be no damages to the developer, 100% of those pirates must have been completely unwilling to buy the software, if even one of the individuals would have paid but ends up not paying because of the pirated version then the pirates have harmed the developer.
It's not him being silly, it's you making an argument you weren't prepared to stick up for and expected folks not to notice.
It's still copyright infringement. I doubt very much that the folks around here would be so outraged if the methodology for identifying pirates were sound and the requested settlement bore some resemblance to the damages.
I doubt that they'd end up losing many customers from here if they charged say $200 or so to the people identified as having pirated it. It's a slap on the wrist, much more than actually buying the game, but few people aren't going to be able to afford to pay that either.
Indeed, the humble indie bundle pretty well proved that there will always be some piracy and that it's not just people that are trying to get around DRM either.
A lot of that is people that can't pay for one reason or another are not able to actually take their money and give it to the developers, but a lot more of it is people that are cheap or are all about the developer lulz of pirating it even if they don't actually ever play it.
Neither, the whole premise is a false dilemma. Failing to pay for DRM does not waive a person's right to protect their property in court. I'd really have to wait and see how exactly they intend on doing it before I have much of an opinion, the reality is that this could be done legitimately and in a fair minded way or it could end up being a witch hunt.
I suspect more fair, but things can get biased accidentally with bad methodology or third party intervention.
I picked up my first SB Live card for about $30 OEM when I was buying some other stuff. Came pretty barebones, just card, antistatic pouch and driver disc, but definitely a good buy. Historically the price for a SB card was between $50 and $100 or so, except for a relatively brief period when those cards were out and hadn't yet been undercut by decent integrated audio..
People who say that don't generally know what they're talking about. The problem is that when you push the sample rate high enough the effect is indistinguishable from continuous. The other problem is that the quality of the equipment that people are using negates any benefit that might be there. Even a $50 pair of Sennheiser over the ears is likely going to exceed the quality that a lot of the commodity hardware is putting out. And that's not even the expensive stuff like Grados.
Most of that ends up being a combination of confirmation bias and the placebo effect. Under the conditions that people normally listen to music under, there is no advantage to vinyl and quite a few disadvantages due to the format.
Isn't that a driver problem though? I mean a lot of companies have released drivers which nominally supported 64-bits but didn't work correctly. Not really a particularly good criteria to judge need based on.
Well, apart from realtek more or less having that market locked up.
It's not really necessary, the words are pronounced the same whether you add the extra "s" or not. It's like the word "creek" depending upon where you are, that might be pronounced creek or crick. Same spelling different pronunciation. Likewise Hiccough and Hiccup are apparently pronounced the same way despite being spelled differently.
The point being that it's really just a waste of a millisecond adding it on, when it means and is read precisely the same way.
They must have a small one if they can use an SPDIF socket.
No such thing, that would violate laws of physics. You can make it indistinguishable from real time like you're implying, but as soon as you start actually processing it you introduce latency. Probably not a lot, but you do introduce it, to say otherwise is really uninformed.
Sounds like either a bad driver or a defective part. I haven't had any trouble of that sort with my soundcard. It's probably the same chipset that yours had. right now I've got the volume turned up only about a third of the way and I'm hearing things just fine.
The other possibility is that it's your speakers. Some speakers require more power than others to drive them.
Generally in porn, the racket gets held in other ways, if you catch my drift. Also, you usually don't get an odd number of balls.
So, you learn to identify something that's known to be fake? It's a pretty good bet that if your girlfriend sounds like a woman in a porn vid that she's faking it.
Hence why it's referred to as discrete. There's a discontinuity where it plugs into the socket. As opposed to the integrated ones which are essentially continuous with the mainboard having no such disconnection. Perhaps it's a bit lame that only folks with a math background are going to appreciate.
The ext?fs work well unless they don't. In my, admittedly limited experience, I've lost more files on ext2fs than on all other filesystems I've dabbled in combined. Admittedly, I had backups, but any fs that depends upon you having backups to that extent should not be trusted. And while I'm sure the newer ones are better, I'm not sure that I personally trust them as ext2fs shouldn't have been that easy to corrupt. IIRC that was only a couple years ago, and it should've been both robust and well undestood by then.
Well, don't forget to use that magic rewinding tape that mysteriously never fills no matter how many backups you use it for. Better safe than sorry I always say.
But that's not particularly helpful. I don't believe that Btrfs is supported beyond Linux at the moment and neither FreeBSD nor Open Solaris support both. Meaning that you're comparing a filesystem that's been grafted onto Linux via fuse with one that can ultimately be integrated into the Linux kernel.
Indeed. The main reason to use ZFS over the other ones, even in cases where the features are the same is that ZFS is more widely available. Admittedly, it's far from universal, but right now it's officially supported in more than one OS. I'm not aware of a filesystem that provides similar functionality to ZFS which is more widely available.
And it's hardly fair to compare a filesystem that's being run in such a convoluted way to one that's able to be much more tightly integrated, especially considering that it's a licensing issue not a technical one that mandates the approach.
And yes, I've personally used ZFS on both FreeBSD and Solaris, and I haven't had any complaints about speed. Resource utilization yes, but that's been greatly improved.
I'm sure that Hammer and Btrfs are both great filesystems, but like EXT4FS, they aren't particularly useful in cross platform computing at present, and while servers aren't going to be doing that, it is something to consider when you've got massive arrays of disks that if you can't take it directly that you'll be stuck with some sort of really annoying migration process for the disks as well as the rest of it.
Still not illegal. Sure they can audit it, but they have to prove that it was more than a typo. You'd have to pay plus a penalty, but what you've got there is a straw man.
Technically speaking we have an oligopoly and it's every bit as illegal to abuse as a monopoly. It's not anywhere near as expensive to operate the last mile as you're suggesting. The speed available at my house hasn't increased in nearly a decade by any significant figure. I'm now getting 5mbps with DSL versus 4mbps via cable and that's over a decade. I've seen no evidence that the DSL company has increased or replaced its equipment and as such the price ought to be going down. It's not, but since wholesale bandwidth is so much cheaper now than it was back then and their equipment should have amortized by now, I don't think I can assume that this is a competitive market.
And yes the DoJ does have the ability to go in and break it up. And really, the DoJ shouldn't have allowed it to happen in the first place.