Nah, the moderators are in a very bad mood today. Especially if one makes comments about "football" in this case being "American Football" (otherwise known as rugby for girls). That's guaranteed a -1 Troll or -1 Flamebait mod;)
Well, what about just using "regular" DDR ram as cache? That'll still be way faster than using flash. There is persistant storage on the video card (They still have a flashable BIOS, or has advancements passed me completely?) for the BIOS. Increasing the readspeed of the BIOS would decrease the time required for the video card to initialize and cache the BIOS to RAM. But that is afaik a once-off improvement, and not anything to shout really loud about.
I don't see any need for persistant storage on a video card, and volatile "storage" is way faster and a lot more durable.
Yes, video cards need fast RAM. If you haven't noticed, this article is about flash memory, not RAM. If you shove this crap into a video card, you'll be going a helluvalot slower than you are today;)
"Gonzales, understandably, wanted to plead her case before a jury; tens of thousands of dollars in damages arising from a few dozen MP3s seems excessive to most people. But BMG was clever. They moved for summary judgment only with regard to the 30 MP3s that Gonzales admitted she downloaded and retained without owning CD copies, and only asked for the $750 minimum in statutory damages for each song. This left the jury with nothing to decide. She admitted she'd copied the songs, leaving only the question of damages, and BMG asked for the smallest damages the jury could lawfully award."
Anyway, that's one case, and they won because they pulled technical tricks...
I kinda wanted to say the same to you when you replied... You completely misunderstood my post. If you want do discuss, atleast try to read the post first.
borrow my friends movie collections and make copies of them. I rent from blockbuster and copy all the movies I rented. I buy some software, copy it, then resell it. By your definitions, all these things are perfectly legal.
No. Read what I said a few more times until you get it. Reselling copied software is obviously illegal, and I have in no way claimed that it wasn't.
And, another reason for you to read my post again is that you completely missed the RIAA point. It wasn't whether or not they were civil. Try guessing what the point was, and why I made it...
The article you linked to does absolutely bupkiss in explaining why downloading copyrighted material is an offense. You see, there is a huge difference between UPloading and DOWNloading. UPloading (You see the U and P at the beginning of the word, signifying direction? Good) copyrighted material is a criminal offense. DOWNloading (Getting the four first letters here? I know it's a bit harder but you can get it if you try!) is not.
Copyright law restricts the distribution of works by limiting peoples ability to copy/share it. It does NOT, however, restrict anyone from recieving a copy. Remember this! You have no idea whether or not the person sharing a file has recieved permission from the copyright holder to share it or not (It is possible to LEGALLY SHARE a copyrighted work you know, eg. by viral advertising). I don't know any countries where it is illegal to download copyrighted work (except possibly France?), but I know a hell of a lot of countries prohibiting the sharing of said works.
Another "sharing-is-legal" point:
Have you noticed that the RIAA has sued an insanely huge number of people? Do you notice a common trait in these cases? Are they sued for DOWNloading (There's the hard word again!) copyrighted works? No... They're sued for UPloading copyrighted works...
There.. My rant is done.
(I have to my knowledge 0 infringing bits on my PC/iPod/HTPC, I buy/rent(!) music/videos, support artists and so on. I'm "supporting" TPB's "crusade" as a way of getting RIAA/MPAA/Hollywood/Artists to "get" this new digital age and its possibilities, and hopefully some distant time in the future stop treating me as a criminal by default)
It looks like a publisher, it "quacks" like a publisher. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is a publisher. YouTube has NO WAY of checking the rights of the uploaded material! If I make a school project and someone rips a copy and uploads to YouTube, how can they know? They can't. It is the persons that are uploading content that have the necessary info to judge whether or not it is LEGAL to upload it to YouTube. Also, screening every single video uploaded to YouTube would take an incredible amount of manpower. Are you saying that YouTube should be legally responsible for the actions of millions of users? In fact, I would say that the users uploading the content are the publishers, and youtube is purely the medium on which this content is displayed. To me, that makes a whole lot more sense than suing YouTube every time an idiot tries to upload a clip of Dr. Phil or whatever.
And, by the way... Aren't the ones sending you links then responsible for the content by your reasoning? Have you reported any of your contacts to RIAA/MPAA?
And you're doing what the RIAA is doing: spreading FUD.
Copyright is not a criminal matter, it's civil -- so I'm not calling anyone a criminal.
If you break copyright law, you can go to court and face a fine/jailtime. Whether or not you're calling anyone a criminal is semantics. Which btw. RIAA does not seem to understand. They are comparing pirating with stealing a car/purse/statue of liberty, which I believe are all criminal matters?
A hammer is "content neutral". A hammer is not dedicated to breaking windows. A better example is a lock pick. As I understand it, possession of these is illegal in most US states as "burglar tools" (professional locksmiths excepted). The argument that the owner of the lockpick only uses it to open doors he is legally obliged to do is considered unlikely. There has been no huge outcry on this as an invasion of your natural rights, because it protects more innocent people than it harms.
I don't live in the US fortunately. Over here we don't prohibit tools because they may be used for a crime. If I made myself a set of lockpicks to open my car when I lost the key, so frigging what? That doesn't make me a criminal! If I use the tools to steal a car, I would be a criminal. What defines a lockpick btw? I've got plenty of tools that I may easily use to pick a lock, are they prohibited too, or are only factory-made lockpicks prohibited? Your choice of tool is interesting though. When I was younger I routinely picked locks for fun. Not to gain entry anywhere, but to learn how to do it. The lack of "huge outcry" isn't surprising. Besides slashdotters, it doesn't seem to be much outcry about removing US citizens rights. It would appear that few americans notice rights being taken away, and even fewer cares about the slippery slope.
SeeqPod/YouTube/ThePirateBay aren't doing anything illegal. The persons uploading/sharing copyrighted material are. Don't destroy a perfectly good tool because some people use it to find copyrighted material. You can use Google to find CP too. Google ain't doing anything illegal. Stop being scared of the internet, use the fricking tools and go after the ones actually breaking copyright law! (BTW, can you document that SeeqPod/YouTube are mostly used for illegal purposes as you claim in your OP, or is that just scaretactics?)
You're doing the same mistake as the RIAA is doing. You are assuming that people are criminal by default, and you blame the tools instead of the user. A hammer *can* be used to break windows, therefore it should be illegal and not under "safe harbor" provisions. I've used g2p.org, but there's still not a single "unlicenced"/"pirated" bit on my harddrive (I used it to find an obscure and FREE electronica collection where I only remembered part of the name).
Regarding YouTube.. Do you have any basis to claim that the most popular content on YouTube is infringing? Where do you find all this content? All the links people send me are LOLCATS, people staring into the camera and such.
A tool is a tool is a tool. Don't forget that. You, my friend, are a Tool of the RIAA
My financial information? Hah! I don't have finances:-P But really, if paypal is hacked, they can get a list of my transactions (which is really boring) and possibly my CC#. They can use the CC# to buy a car for all I care, I won't be the one paying for it. I'll just get another card, and hey, Presto!... This does *not* mean that I give away my CC# to anyone... But I "trust" paypal enough. (And if my mailserver is hacked, I'm the one to blame since I administer that server myself)
Look, I'm all for privacy and shit. But if some details are leaked, it's not that big of a deal. If I'm monitored 24/7 it's an entirely different matter.
When (if) PayPal gets hacked, I really don't care much. There's rarely any cash there, and if they grab my CC info my CC company covers any loss from fraud... Been there, done that.
Look, if you take my statement out of context, it's overly broad. I think we agree on that. I would apologize for that, except the snippy tone of the dude I was replying to didn't really entice me to go into full-diplomatic mode to make every statement air-tight. My point isn't that people cannot post anonymously, my point is that he wouldn't be able to do that here. Now, I will apologize for one thing: Too many times I've posted on this site and instead of taking my point head-on, people try to snipe at details of it as if that refutes anything that was actually said. I replied to you without really thinking about what I was saying and I failed to clarify. I made the mistake, I'm sorry.
Apology accepted, Admiral;) (And I'm sorry for sniping and stuff. Just woke up and I'm not in a good mood when that happens)
Anyway, slipping back into the context of this discussion, you hit the nail right on the head. He may not be anonymous to the blogger. Only I'd take that a step further and suggest that he isn't anonymous to the blogger. This is, of course, assuming that this guy is telling the unvarnished truth. Somehow he convinced this guy that he's an employee of Microsoft and that he's leaking information. Now, either he is completely anonymous to the blogger, which makes his story questionable or the blogger knows who he is and believes he's telling the truth. An investigation could reveal that. Either way, my point stands. It is worth questioning the source of this information. He's either not who he says he is, or he is taking a big risk by talking about it.
Somehow I got the impression that the blogger doesn't exactly know who this person is, but has confirmed details via another contact at MS? Anyway, that's another alternative.
And since I'm drawing heat for this topic, I'm going to say one more thing: I'm not defending Microsoft, here. I've followed gaming news since the Super NES was announced. There was a good noisy bunch of BS floating around with every system that has been announced since. (Blast Processing comes to mind... or the rumor that the 'Ultra 64' had a processor that was too expensive so they scrapped it in favor of a CD-based 32-bit system, or even the out-of-context quote that made it sound like Nintendo was anti-on-line.) I wouldn't have called that tame until 2006 came around. It started with the launch of the 360. Lots of people had abrasive opinions on that. Then.. wow... Nintendo comes along, and despite the success of the DS, lots of silliness orbited that machine. And then... *BOOOOOM* Sony comes along and does a P.R. song and dance that put the image in my head of Laurel and Hardy competing on the Apprentice. We hit 2007, and the internet is alive with all kinds of noise, mostly aimed at Sony. Towards the latter half, the Sony side starts to pick up, and lots of BS comes spewing from them, too. Basically what I'm saying is that we're getting bombarded with an unprecedented amount of sensationalist bullshit. In all these years of following video game news, I've NEVER seen so much noise. It's crazy.
I'm not particularly biased towards MS, Apple, Linux, X-Box, PS, Wii. I just don't care about that any more. Whatever floats my boat is what I'll use;)
I've gotten to a point where I can't read a negative story about any of the systems and treat them without anything but skepticism. There is so much controversy flying around out there that anybody'll take juicy 'story' and run with it. It is important to know where a story came from. It is also important to not instantly believe a story just because it sounds true. If a story cannot hold up to scrutiny, toss it. That said, I wouldn't blame anybody on the planet for being cautious about buying a 360 due to concerns about its build quality. I'm urging caution, not turning of a blind eye.
Of course. But there's a tradeoff here. Either you get juicy confidential inside-info anonymously, or you don't get the info at all. Verifying that he's an MS employee that knows these details is hard without risking his identity.
Mm hmm. So are you saying he did this interview anonymously, then?
From the article:
This past week I met and interviewed an individual who has worked on the Xbox 360 project for many years and they had some things that they wanted to get out into the public. I have the fullest confidence in the integrity of this confidential source.
Now... How the interview was performed I don't know, since the article doesn't mention it. But nevertheless, there are ways to be anonymous on the internet, as long as you don't divulge any information that can be tracked to you in particular.
If you read the thread from the beginning again, you yourself bring up the point about being anonymous on the internet. And you are wrong, there are lots of ways. He wants to be anon, and the blogger apparently respects that. The interviewee might not be anonymous to the blogger, but he's definitely anonymous (in the sense of "missing a name" without further investigation) to the rest of us.
It is just as relevant as the braindead post I replied to, which happens to be yours. You're plain wrong, and it's easy to be anonymous on the intarwebs if you want to... Which is relevant since this is a topic on a "corporate leak"...
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, the moderators are in a very bad mood today. Especially if one makes comments about "football" in this case being "American Football" (otherwise known as rugby for girls). That's guaranteed a -1 Troll or -1 Flamebait mod ;)
Exactly the same as with handball. Bit more skills needed there ;)
Awww, mods, have you no (dirty) humor?
Well, what about just using "regular" DDR ram as cache? That'll still be way faster than using flash.
There is persistant storage on the video card (They still have a flashable BIOS, or has advancements passed me completely?) for the BIOS. Increasing the readspeed of the BIOS would decrease the time required for the video card to initialize and cache the BIOS to RAM. But that is afaik a once-off improvement, and not anything to shout really loud about.
I don't see any need for persistant storage on a video card, and volatile "storage" is way faster and a lot more durable.
Yes, video cards need fast RAM. If you haven't noticed, this article is about flash memory, not RAM. If you shove this crap into a video card, you'll be going a helluvalot slower than you are today ;)
Wtf does this have to do with video cards?
Anyway, that's one case, and they won because they pulled technical tricks...
You are harming the environment and thus harming the rest of us ;)
I kinda wanted to say the same to you when you replied...
You completely misunderstood my post. If you want do discuss, atleast try to read the post first.
No. Read what I said a few more times until you get it. Reselling copied software is obviously illegal, and I have in no way claimed that it wasn't.
And, another reason for you to read my post again is that you completely missed the RIAA point. It wasn't whether or not they were civil. Try guessing what the point was, and why I made it...
Copyright law restricts the distribution of works by limiting peoples ability to copy/share it. It does NOT, however, restrict anyone from recieving a copy. Remember this! You have no idea whether or not the person sharing a file has recieved permission from the copyright holder to share it or not (It is possible to LEGALLY SHARE a copyrighted work you know, eg. by viral advertising). I don't know any countries where it is illegal to download copyrighted work (except possibly France?), but I know a hell of a lot of countries prohibiting the sharing of said works.
Another "sharing-is-legal" point:
Have you noticed that the RIAA has sued an insanely huge number of people? Do you notice a common trait in these cases? Are they sued for DOWNloading (There's the hard word again!) copyrighted works? No... They're sued for UPloading copyrighted works...
There.. My rant is done.
(I have to my knowledge 0 infringing bits on my PC/iPod/HTPC, I buy/rent(!) music/videos, support artists and so on. I'm "supporting" TPB's "crusade" as a way of getting RIAA/MPAA/Hollywood/Artists to "get" this new digital age and its possibilities, and hopefully some distant time in the future stop treating me as a criminal by default)
It looks like a publisher, it "quacks" like a publisher. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is a publisher. YouTube has NO WAY of checking the rights of the uploaded material! If I make a school project and someone rips a copy and uploads to YouTube, how can they know? They can't. It is the persons that are uploading content that have the necessary info to judge whether or not it is LEGAL to upload it to YouTube. Also, screening every single video uploaded to YouTube would take an incredible amount of manpower. Are you saying that YouTube should be legally responsible for the actions of millions of users?
In fact, I would say that the users uploading the content are the publishers, and youtube is purely the medium on which this content is displayed. To me, that makes a whole lot more sense than suing YouTube every time an idiot tries to upload a clip of Dr. Phil or whatever.
And, by the way... Aren't the ones sending you links then responsible for the content by your reasoning? Have you reported any of your contacts to RIAA/MPAA?
Heh, your logic is flawed. Kill the hub, and two new ones show up easily found on google. Go after content hosts, and you catch the "criminals".
If you break copyright law, you can go to court and face a fine/jailtime. Whether or not you're calling anyone a criminal is semantics. Which btw. RIAA does not seem to understand. They are comparing pirating with stealing a car/purse/statue of liberty, which I believe are all criminal matters?
I don't live in the US fortunately. Over here we don't prohibit tools because they may be used for a crime. If I made myself a set of lockpicks to open my car when I lost the key, so frigging what? That doesn't make me a criminal! If I use the tools to steal a car, I would be a criminal.
What defines a lockpick btw? I've got plenty of tools that I may easily use to pick a lock, are they prohibited too, or are only factory-made lockpicks prohibited?
Your choice of tool is interesting though. When I was younger I routinely picked locks for fun. Not to gain entry anywhere, but to learn how to do it.
The lack of "huge outcry" isn't surprising. Besides slashdotters, it doesn't seem to be much outcry about removing US citizens rights. It would appear that few americans notice rights being taken away, and even fewer cares about the slippery slope.
SeeqPod/YouTube/ThePirateBay aren't doing anything illegal. The persons uploading/sharing copyrighted material are. Don't destroy a perfectly good tool because some people use it to find copyrighted material. You can use Google to find CP too. Google ain't doing anything illegal. Stop being scared of the internet, use the fricking tools and go after the ones actually breaking copyright law!
(BTW, can you document that SeeqPod/YouTube are mostly used for illegal purposes as you claim in your OP, or is that just scaretactics?)
It is nothing but a tool. If the tool was specifically designed to *only* find infringing copies OTOH, it shouldn't be covered by safe harbor.
You're doing the same mistake as the RIAA is doing. You are assuming that people are criminal by default, and you blame the tools instead of the user.
A hammer *can* be used to break windows, therefore it should be illegal and not under "safe harbor" provisions.
I've used g2p.org, but there's still not a single "unlicenced"/"pirated" bit on my harddrive (I used it to find an obscure and FREE electronica collection where I only remembered part of the name).
Regarding YouTube.. Do you have any basis to claim that the most popular content on YouTube is infringing? Where do you find all this content? All the links people send me are LOLCATS, people staring into the camera and such.
A tool is a tool is a tool. Don't forget that. You, my friend, are a Tool of the RIAA
My financial information? Hah! I don't have finances :-P
But really, if paypal is hacked, they can get a list of my transactions (which is really boring) and possibly my CC#. They can use the CC# to buy a car for all I care, I won't be the one paying for it. I'll just get another card, and hey, Presto!...
This does *not* mean that I give away my CC# to anyone... But I "trust" paypal enough.
(And if my mailserver is hacked, I'm the one to blame since I administer that server myself)
Look, I'm all for privacy and shit. But if some details are leaked, it's not that big of a deal. If I'm monitored 24/7 it's an entirely different matter.
When (if) PayPal gets hacked, I really don't care much. There's rarely any cash there, and if they grab my CC info my CC company covers any loss from fraud... Been there, done that.
PETA vs. Ballmer!
It's freaking annoying though. It should start as a low delay and grow instead. That way they can prevent crapflooding *and* annoy less users...
Crap! "Captain", not "Admiral". Time for me to hand over my geek badge I guess...
Apology accepted, Admiral
(And I'm sorry for sniping and stuff. Just woke up and I'm not in a good mood when that happens)
Somehow I got the impression that the blogger doesn't exactly know who this person is, but has confirmed details via another contact at MS? Anyway, that's another alternative.
I'm not particularly biased towards MS, Apple, Linux, X-Box, PS, Wii. I just don't care about that any more. Whatever floats my boat is what I'll use
Of course. But there's a tradeoff here. Either you get juicy confidential inside-info anonymously, or you don't get the info at all. Verifying that he's an MS employee that knows these details is hard without risking his identity.
Now... How the interview was performed I don't know, since the article doesn't mention it. But nevertheless, there are ways to be anonymous on the internet, as long as you don't divulge any information that can be tracked to you in particular. If you read the thread from the beginning again, you yourself bring up the point about being anonymous on the internet. And you are wrong, there are lots of ways. He wants to be anon, and the blogger apparently respects that. The interviewee might not be anonymous to the blogger, but he's definitely anonymous (in the sense of "missing a name" without further investigation) to the rest of us.
It is just as relevant as the braindead post I replied to, which happens to be yours. You're plain wrong, and it's easy to be anonymous on the intarwebs if you want to... Which is relevant since this is a topic on a "corporate leak"...
- No, it doesn't
- You've heard of anonymous networks, TOR, public access points and such? There are heaps of ways to be anon online.