Not to give them any ideas, but if the RIAA were in a similar situation, they'd probably hire three kids for minimum wage to sit and pirate as much e-books as they could.
it essentially makes them little more than second-rate Athlon imitators which incidentally happen to consume a little less power.
I'm sorry, could you link us to the stats that show the AMD Athlon uses less power than this new transmeta chip?
Unless of course you worded that very badly and you mean that the transmeta consumes less power.
Okay, granted, the guy's post wasn't written in the clearest possible prose. Still your interpretation is far more convoluted than what he wrote. "which incidentally happen to consume a little less power" clearly refers to the subject "imitators". "Athlon" qualifies the "imitators". The "Athlon imitators" are clearly transmeta.
Your interpretation has the phrase "which incidentally happen to consume a little less power" refer to "AMD" as a subject, which then leaves the word imitators in a sort of limbo. Furthermore, the number of the subject and verb don't match up in your case.
In that case Ricardo's should be that it is good to trade with any country where you have good relations, IF the product isn't overpriced and doesn't suck. If the product is not worth it, then we are speaking not about trade, but about tribute.
Pay-per-byte may be the future. Particularly with the features in IPv6 that will enable this to be done more intelligently. The problem with some of these ISPs, however, is their unwillingness to honestly advertise their services. If they prominently displayed their pay-per-byte rates, then consumers would be able to make intelligent decisions (gasp!) The cable companies, however, don't WANT consumers to go for the most byte for the buck. They don't want to provide a commodity service. That's why their pricing schemes are obscure. They want us to give up on trying to understand how many bytes we can get for a buck, throw our hands up in despair, and settle for whatever is fed to us as part of their "premium value-added content"
If pay-per-byte charges were in fact honestly advertised by providers, they would create a demand and a market for ISPs that offered competitive bytes/$ value. This would drive real competition, as well as promote investment in technologies that enable ISPs to provide more bytes. In fact, this would probably help the telecom industry a lot more than the current activity consisting of mergers, synergizing, strategizing, monetizing and whatever else.
If the last mile capacity is high enough to support a full 1.5 Mbps, then they should at least allow full bandwidth between users on the same provider. But they don't. A transfer between Sympatico users doesn't cost Bell any money in terms of external network costs. Yet, the bandwidth cap applies.
Eventually those less-clued lusers will get so badly ripped-off by so many corporations that they will have no money left and die. Then companies will need to look for other market segments in order to grow.
If companies were honest about their bandwidth, both in terms of maximum attainable and total monthly usage, then consumers would be able to choose to give their business to whichever provider offered the best value for money. However, from the big companies' perspective, they don't WANT you to be able to choose based on such objective criteria. They are afraid of becoming a commodity provider, selling gigabytes of bandwidth the way a grocer might sells kilograms of flour. The profit margins just would not be glamorous. That's why they want to obscure, as much as possible, the true bandwidth that they are offering, and instead try to entice customers with branded "products" and "value-added".
English is an official language of India. If some user wants his own little dialect to be supported, the code is open for him or her to modify.
Because you have only two hands
on
Blender Is GPL
·
· Score: 1
And each hand has 5 fingers.
If your right hand is on the mouse, your left hand can only hit five keys. It is irrelevant that there are a bunch of keys on the right side of your keyboard, because forcing the user to move his right hand back and forth between the mouse and keyboard in the midst of a task is idiotic. Having more buttons on the mouse allows you to use your right hand more efficiently.
In the course lawsuit that the RIAA filed against them,the judges came up with a sort of compromise. They gave Audiogalaxy an ultimatum: successfully filter out copyrighted material based on a list which the RIAA must supply. The downfall of Audiogalaxy was the fact that you could still get any "blocked" song by trying various mispellings of the title. That's when they got shut down for good.
In other words, if you want to include an exclusion list for compliance, (and perhaps to benefit from the DMCA safe harbor for service providers), it has to work at least better than Audiogalaxy's did.
Actually, the courts gave Audiogalaxy a chance. They said that if Audiogalaxy could successfully screen the mp3's that were traded, based on the RIAA's lists, then they wouldn't be shut down. The reason Audiogalaxy WAS shut down, was because they were unable to prevent users from sharing mp3s with altered filenames, like "Beetlez" or "Mettalica" etc. Audiogalaxy couldn't live up to the bargain that the court offered them.
I found your post on Slashdot really interesting, especially with respect to the attitude of those organizations towards small-scale enterprises. One idea that occurred to me was that you could create a web interface for MPAA and RIAA to input their exclusion list. You could also give them a special e-mail address that gets processed by a perl script. Give them each an account, and keep a record of your offer to exclude copyrighted material. If you've done all that, you've already done more than ICQ, TiVo and Samsung. I think, also, that you would come under the DMCA safe harbour. Of course, I can't give you legal advice, just some ideas that occurred to me.
Okay, suppose now you have two glasses in each hand and you are heading back into the room where your guests are waiting. You cleverly crouch a little to open the door with your elbow. What if the handle catches your sleeve now? You are stuck there with four glasses in your hand. You are dead.
What you say sounds right... I also remember reading that advocates (as in lawyers) were also not supposed to be paid, back in the old days. They were supposed to present the appearance of being above financial considerations. Barristers wore a small pouch slung over their shoulder so that the client could slip the money in, behind them, in a discreet manner.
You are right,with respect to the American system as it currently stands.However, not all civilizations have been this way. The ancient Greeks, who were the prototype for a large part of our legal system, allowed any citizen to advocate. I'm not sure when it was, in the evolution of law, that the Bar came about, preventing anyone other than barristers from going in front.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to give them any ideas, but if the RIAA were in a similar situation, they'd probably hire three kids for minimum wage to sit and pirate as much e-books as they could.
Schwartz is "claiming defeat"? As opposed to "admitting victory"?
do you mean a primmobot?
With their main readership being aolers, the content will probably become even more low-brow than it is now.
But at least you still have that Japanese model
They need to teach grandma how to rip DVD to divx. That'll get them buying the P4's
it essentially makes them little more than second-rate Athlon imitators which incidentally happen to consume a little less power.
I'm sorry, could you link us to the stats that show the AMD Athlon uses less power than this new transmeta chip?
Unless of course you worded that very badly and you mean that the transmeta consumes less power.
Okay, granted, the guy's post wasn't written in the clearest possible prose. Still your interpretation is far more convoluted than what he wrote. "which incidentally happen to consume a little less power" clearly refers to the subject "imitators". "Athlon" qualifies the "imitators". The "Athlon imitators" are clearly transmeta.
Your interpretation has the phrase
"which incidentally happen to consume a little less power" refer to "AMD" as a subject, which then leaves the word imitators in a sort of limbo. Furthermore, the number of the subject and verb don't match up in your case.
Yeah?? Want a PUN-ch to the face?
In that case Ricardo's should be that it is good to trade with any country where you have good relations, IF the product isn't overpriced and doesn't suck. If the product is not worth it, then we are speaking not about trade, but about tribute.
There's no tax on the Metric System!
That would be a wonderful way of creating more competition
Pay-per-byte may be the future. Particularly with the features in IPv6 that will enable this to be done more intelligently. The problem with some of these ISPs, however, is their unwillingness to honestly advertise their services. If they prominently displayed their pay-per-byte rates, then consumers would be able to make intelligent decisions (gasp!) The cable companies, however, don't WANT consumers to go for the most byte for the buck. They don't want to provide a commodity service. That's why their pricing schemes are obscure. They want us to give up on trying to understand how many bytes we can get for a buck, throw our hands up in despair, and settle for whatever is fed to us as part of their "premium value-added content"
If pay-per-byte charges were in fact honestly advertised by providers, they would create a demand and a market for ISPs that offered competitive bytes/$ value. This would drive real competition, as well as promote investment in technologies that enable ISPs to provide more bytes. In fact, this would probably help the telecom industry a lot more than the current activity consisting of mergers, synergizing, strategizing, monetizing and whatever else.
If the last mile capacity is high enough to support a full 1.5 Mbps, then they should at least allow full bandwidth between users on the same provider. But they don't. A transfer between Sympatico users doesn't cost Bell any money in terms of external network costs. Yet, the bandwidth cap applies.
Eventually those less-clued lusers will get so badly ripped-off by so many corporations that they will have no money left and die. Then companies will need to look for other market segments in order to grow.
I basically agree.
If companies were honest about their bandwidth, both in terms of maximum attainable and total monthly usage, then consumers would be able to choose to give their business to whichever provider offered the best value for money. However, from the big companies' perspective, they don't WANT you to be able to choose based on such objective criteria. They are afraid of becoming a commodity provider, selling gigabytes of bandwidth the way a grocer might sells kilograms of flour. The profit margins just would not be glamorous. That's why they want to obscure, as much as possible, the true bandwidth that they are offering, and instead try to entice customers with branded "products" and "value-added".
English is an official language of India. If some user wants his own little dialect to be supported, the code is open for him or her to modify.
And each hand has 5 fingers.
If your right hand is on the mouse, your left hand can only hit five keys. It is irrelevant that there are a bunch of keys on the right side of your keyboard, because forcing the user to move his right hand back and forth between the mouse and keyboard in the midst of a task is idiotic. Having more buttons on the mouse allows you to use your right hand more efficiently.
Another thing to keep in mind: Audiogalaxy.
In the course lawsuit that the RIAA filed against them,the judges came up with a sort of compromise. They gave Audiogalaxy an ultimatum: successfully filter out copyrighted material based on a list which the RIAA must supply. The downfall of Audiogalaxy was the fact that you could still get any "blocked" song by trying various mispellings of the title. That's when they got shut down for good.
In other words, if you want to include an exclusion list for compliance, (and perhaps to benefit from the DMCA safe harbor for service providers), it has to work at least better than Audiogalaxy's did.
Actually, the courts gave Audiogalaxy a chance. They said that if Audiogalaxy could successfully screen the mp3's that were traded, based on the RIAA's lists, then they wouldn't be shut down. The reason Audiogalaxy WAS shut down, was because they were unable to prevent users from sharing mp3s with altered filenames, like "Beetlez" or "Mettalica" etc. Audiogalaxy couldn't live up to the bargain that the court offered them.
I found your post on Slashdot really interesting, especially with
respect to the attitude of those organizations towards small-scale
enterprises. One idea that occurred to me was that you could create a
web interface for MPAA and RIAA to input their exclusion list. You could
also give them a special e-mail address that gets processed by a perl
script. Give them each an account, and keep a record of your offer to
exclude copyrighted material. If you've done all that, you've already
done more than ICQ, TiVo and Samsung. I think, also, that you would come
under the DMCA safe harbour. Of course, I can't give you legal advice,
just some ideas that occurred to me.
Good luck!
Okay, suppose now you have two glasses in each hand and you are heading back into the room where your guests are waiting. You cleverly crouch a little to open the door with your elbow. What if the handle catches your sleeve now? You are stuck there with four glasses in your hand. You are dead.
They should make lobotomies mandatory, since brains are circumvention devices.
What you say sounds right... I also remember reading that advocates (as in lawyers) were also not supposed to be paid, back in the old days. They were supposed to present the appearance of being above financial considerations. Barristers wore a small pouch slung over their shoulder so that the client could slip the money in, behind them, in a discreet manner.
You are right,with respect to the American system as it currently stands.However, not all civilizations have been this way. The ancient Greeks, who were the prototype for a large part of our legal system, allowed any citizen to advocate. I'm not sure when it was, in the evolution of law, that the Bar came about, preventing anyone other than barristers from going in front.
On the other hand, people use the word "like" to indicate that a simile or metaphor is coming up, sort of like a substitution marker.
So, for 5pts, trace the output of the following sentence:
"I'm, like, literally dying of thirst."