If you would have paid full price for the mp3 file which you copied, you are depriving me of certain amount of money which would go toward hiring another (or a better) musician or producer, or purchasing more (or higher quality) recording equipment or studio time.
There is a scarcity of musical talent, top grade recording equipment and studios, and professional producers. The cost of recorded music pays these factors, not for the physical media cost.
Which means the ones who are (still) local are the ones who didn't make it, i.e. the process weeded them out.
Just because a musician is popular doesn't mean he/she is good. (ie: britney spears)
But the best musicians are more likely to gravitate toward the national level, e.g. the Boston Symphony Orchestra rather than the Springfield USA City Philharmonic.
I'll even concede that an install of Win98 is quicker and easier than an install of Mandrake
Eh, why don't you compare Mandrake to a modern Windows OS -- such as Windows XP? The XP install is much easier and quicker than Windows 98 (and of course Mandrake).
The same reason why they don't make 100MHz CPU's any more. Hard drive companies, like any other company, want to maximize their prices and won't be able to do that by selling smaller drives than their competition. Besides, don't most hard drives have one platter these days? Then, there wouldn't be any cost savings to go to a smaller disk size.
last time I checked, diamond producers were very very wealthy, and so are record labels. If the recording industry wasn't making an ass load of money, it wouldn't be the recording industry....it would the recording company because no one would want to do it.
Sony Music makes something like $50 million dollars a year in profit. Not sure if that is 'typical' for the big music company, but that is absolute peanut shells compared to oil companies, software companies, semiconductor companies, tobacco companies, etc., who generally net about 100-400x that per year. In short, the music industry is tiny and not even in the same ballpark as the industries generally considered to be lucrative.
To give a concrete example, a virtual machine like Python or Java can offer complete control over what an application can do with your identity and information and guarantee the integrity of your PC.
Um, no. Python and Java are themselves applications running in an unsercured environment, so the application (running on Python/Java) is only as secure as any other application.
If they did business in the U.S. (i.e. had people in the U.S. connecting to their servers), then they would have to abide by U.S. laws for those customers. There are many, many precedents for this. Sure, they could set up shop in Sealand and serve up anything at all to the locals, but most people don't want to move to Sealand to get around free music.
memory bandwidth/latency is the reason AMD killed the P4 in benchmarks
There's definitely some confusion here. P4 (with Rambus) has much better bandwith than Athlon. On any memory bandwidth benchmark (e.g. Sisfot Sandra) the slowest P4 is faster than the fastest Athlon. The 533 MHz bus version of P4 does 4.26 GB/s, while the Athlon only does up to 2.4 GB/s or 2.7 GB/s. Latency-wise they're pretty much equivalent. They're the same using DDR, and 400 MHz Rambus is slower than DDR, and 533 MHz Rambus is faster than Rambus. Of course, for most applications, latency is more important than bandwidth which is why they're closer in overall performance than in memory bandwidth performance.
You can get an absolutely top of the line dual Pentium 4 workstation for $4000. Compare to the top of the line Sun Blade 2000 - which costs $23,000. And has half the performance (if even).
Considering people buy Sun Workstations, which (vs. a Pentium 4 workstation) give you a -50% speedup for a 500% markup, it seems that RDRAM, which gives about 5% speedup for 25% extra cost, is quite well worth it.
No, it's a Linux bug not a P4 bug. The kernel was freeing page table memory before invalidating the TLB entries, so another processor was able to modify the entries which the originating processor then picked up. It affects all architectures, but was discovered only on P4, I would guess because the processor does more aggressive speculative page walks than other architectures.
If this happened then it would be the ultimate commercial dilution of music. The songs would have embedded advertising in them. Britney would sing about how great Pepsi tastes, Metallica would jam to the McDonald's jingle, and the Boston Symphony would have "public service announcements" between Mahler symphony movements.
That is interesting once, for some time now, it's known that, contrary to popular belief, fingerprints are not unique. If I can use an analogy, the same applies for network card MAC addresses. Btw, the chances of finding similar fingerprints are greater then MAC addresses.
So you'd rather trust your life savings to a minimum wage clerk's handwriting interpretation (and that's if she even bothers to compare your receipt to your credit card) than to a sophisticated computer system which has a remote chance of error?
Interesting concept. Since it's difficult to forge fingerprints, it may be a viable idea. Still, someone other than you could use their fingerprint tied to your money, which isn't a good idea.
That should require the same amount of difficulty as getting a credit card in somebody else's name. So, in that sense (setting up the account), this fingerprint system has no advantage or disadantage over a credit/debit card.
However, it has a huge advantage in accuracy of authenticating the owner of the account. I will submit that it is far more difficult to forge a fingerprint than it is to forge a signature (usually the only authentication system used to validate a credit card purchase).
If you are an individual with extra equipment it is VERY hard to get rid of stuff. You have to advertise the items and then wait for people to come. Or you can deal with the hassle of eBay where you'll get a nominal amount but have to go through the pain of packing it all up. Meanwhile, you've paid for the item in the first place, and storage since then. It's ten times easier and cheaper just to load this stuff up and bring it to the landfill than to try to save the stuff. Unless you can get at least $100 for it (which for 99% of the old computers you can't), it's just not worth the hassle.
You are such a moron. $7 for a sandwich is a luxury. $1000 for 600 sq ft apartment means your living in an area which is way too expensive. $600k buys a luxuroius mansion not a house.
When I was in college (a couple years ago), my rent was less than $200/month (including utlities), and I spent just over $30/month for food.
Now, I could easily survive comfortably on $1000/month. Though it wouldn't be nearly as nice as my current salary, it'd be comfortable.
Sure it can hurt. If increasing the size of the cache causes your access time to increase, then it can hurt very badly, because you're overall latency could increase if the benefit from a lower miss rate if offset by the higher hit time. Although it's true that the latency of second and third level caches affect performance much less than the first level.
Cache size is one of the most misleading processor benchmarks, more misleading than frequency, yet big caches command huge price premiums.
What's the difference between the two bills? The first proposes massive government regulation and controls on makers of technology in order to enforce copyright protection. The second nill also proposes massive government regulation and controls on makers of technology in order to force privacy.
Why should the government support massive regulation dictating how companies build internet products, all in the name of protecting piracy? That's just as patently riduclous as forcing hardware makers to include copyright controls on their products.
The government should keep its hands out of technology, period.
Slashdot Mirror
"Legislating against copying" isn't a sufficiently different business model for you?
If you would have paid full price for the mp3 file which you copied, you are depriving me of certain amount of money which would go toward hiring another (or a better) musician or producer, or purchasing more (or higher quality) recording equipment or studio time.
There is a scarcity of musical talent, top grade recording equipment and studios, and professional producers. The cost of recorded music pays these factors, not for the physical media cost.
All musicians started out as local bands.
Which means the ones who are (still) local are the ones who didn't make it, i.e. the process weeded them out.
Just because a musician is popular doesn't mean he/she is good. (ie: britney spears)
But the best musicians are more likely to gravitate toward the national level, e.g. the Boston Symphony Orchestra rather than the Springfield USA City Philharmonic.
I'll even concede that an install of Win98 is quicker and easier than an install of Mandrake
Eh, why don't you compare Mandrake to a modern Windows OS -- such as Windows XP? The XP install is much easier and quicker than Windows 98 (and of course Mandrake).
The same reason why they don't make 100MHz CPU's any more. Hard drive companies, like any other company, want to maximize their prices and won't be able to do that by selling smaller drives than their competition. Besides, don't most hard drives have one platter these days? Then, there wouldn't be any cost savings to go to a smaller disk size.
last time I checked, diamond producers were very very wealthy, and so are record labels. If the recording industry wasn't making an ass load of money, it wouldn't be the recording industry....it would the recording company because no one would want to do it.
Sony Music makes something like $50 million dollars a year in profit. Not sure if that is 'typical' for the big music company, but that is absolute peanut shells compared to oil companies, software companies, semiconductor companies, tobacco companies, etc., who generally net about 100-400x that per year. In short, the music industry is tiny and not even in the same ballpark as the industries generally considered to be lucrative.
To give a concrete example, a virtual machine like Python or Java can offer complete control over what an application can do with your identity and information and guarantee the integrity of your PC.
Um, no. Python and Java are themselves applications running in an unsercured environment, so the application (running on Python/Java) is only as secure as any other application.
What's so satisying about putting a computer together from parts? Congratulations, you just did the work of a $0.50/hour factory worker in Taiwan.
If they did business in the U.S. (i.e. had people in the U.S. connecting to their servers), then they would have to abide by U.S. laws for those customers. There are many, many precedents for this. Sure, they could set up shop in Sealand and serve up anything at all to the locals, but most people don't want to move to Sealand to get around free music.
memory bandwidth/latency is the reason AMD killed the P4 in benchmarks
There's definitely some confusion here. P4 (with Rambus) has much better bandwith than Athlon. On any memory bandwidth benchmark (e.g. Sisfot Sandra) the slowest P4 is faster than the fastest Athlon. The 533 MHz bus version of P4 does 4.26 GB/s, while the Athlon only does up to 2.4 GB/s or 2.7 GB/s. Latency-wise they're pretty much equivalent. They're the same using DDR, and 400 MHz Rambus is slower than DDR, and 533 MHz Rambus is faster than Rambus. Of course, for most applications, latency is more important than bandwidth which is why they're closer in overall performance than in memory bandwidth performance.
You can get an absolutely top of the line dual Pentium 4 workstation for $4000. Compare to the top of the line Sun Blade 2000 - which costs $23,000. And has half the performance (if even).
Considering people buy Sun Workstations, which (vs. a Pentium 4 workstation) give you a -50% speedup for a 500% markup, it seems that RDRAM, which gives about 5% speedup for 25% extra cost, is quite well worth it.
No, it's a Linux bug not a P4 bug. The kernel was freeing page table memory before invalidating the TLB entries, so another processor was able to modify the entries which the originating processor then picked up. It affects all architectures, but was discovered only on P4, I would guess because the processor does more aggressive speculative page walks than other architectures.
Speed doesn't kill. It's the sudden deceleration in a crash that kills.
Um, where do you think the sudden deceleration comes from? You think crashing into a brick wall at 55 MPH is just as bad as 85 MPH?
So if everyone was going fast...
It would make collisions a lot worse. A head on collision with both vehicles travelling 85 MPH would be instantly fatal.
1) Doesn't she do this already?
No idea. I don't listen to her.
2) You actually listen to Britney Spears?
No. Since you know what she sings about, I guess you do?
If this happened then it would be the ultimate commercial dilution of music. The songs would have embedded advertising in them. Britney would sing about how great Pepsi tastes, Metallica would jam to the McDonald's jingle, and the Boston Symphony would have "public service announcements" between Mahler symphony movements.
No thanks.
The real problem will be, that people trust technology blindly.
Or, as in your case, they are terrified to death of technology they don't understand, and will do everything in their power to suppress to it.
That is interesting once, for some time now, it's known that, contrary to popular belief, fingerprints are not unique. If I can use an analogy, the same applies for network card MAC addresses. Btw, the chances of finding similar fingerprints are greater then MAC addresses.
So you'd rather trust your life savings to a minimum wage clerk's handwriting interpretation (and that's if she even bothers to compare your receipt to your credit card) than to a sophisticated computer system which has a remote chance of error?
Interesting concept. Since it's difficult to forge fingerprints, it may be a viable idea. Still, someone other than you could use their fingerprint tied to your money, which isn't a good idea.
That should require the same amount of difficulty as getting a credit card in somebody else's name. So, in that sense (setting up the account), this fingerprint system has no advantage or disadantage over a credit/debit card.
However, it has a huge advantage in accuracy of authenticating the owner of the account. I will submit that it is far more difficult to forge a fingerprint than it is to forge a signature (usually the only authentication system used to validate a credit card purchase).
If you are an individual with extra equipment it is VERY hard to get rid of stuff. You have to advertise the items and then wait for people to come. Or you can deal with the hassle of eBay where you'll get a nominal amount but have to go through the pain of packing it all up. Meanwhile, you've paid for the item in the first place, and storage since then. It's ten times easier and cheaper just to load this stuff up and bring it to the landfill than to try to save the stuff. Unless you can get at least $100 for it (which for 99% of the old computers you can't), it's just not worth the hassle.
You are such a moron. $7 for a sandwich is a luxury. $1000 for 600 sq ft apartment means your living in an area which is way too expensive. $600k buys a luxuroius mansion not a house.
When I was in college (a couple years ago), my rent was less than $200/month (including utlities), and I spent just over $30/month for food.
Now, I could easily survive comfortably on $1000/month. Though it wouldn't be nearly as nice as my current salary, it'd be comfortable.
Sure it can hurt. If increasing the size of the cache causes your access time to increase, then it can hurt very badly, because you're overall latency could increase if the benefit from a lower miss rate if offset by the higher hit time. Although it's true that the latency of second and third level caches affect performance much less than the first level.
Cache size is one of the most misleading processor benchmarks, more misleading than frequency, yet big caches command huge price premiums.
What's the difference between the two bills? The first proposes massive government regulation and controls on makers of technology in order to enforce copyright protection. The second nill also proposes massive government regulation and controls on makers of technology in order to force privacy.
Why should the government support massive regulation dictating how companies build internet products, all in the name of protecting piracy? That's just as patently riduclous as forcing hardware makers to include copyright controls on their products.
The government should keep its hands out of technology, period.
If they can price their CPU's low enough and still make money then they might even hurt intel a little more.
In the just announced Q1 results, Intel made almost one billion dollars in profit, and AMD lost several million dollars. So who's hurting who?