photonic x86 CPU design

Keith wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 21:28:26 +0200, Andy Glew wrote:


Evgenij Barsukov writes:


The problem with this is - there is already state supported
copy-right protection, which makes existing system economicaly
viable (and is payed for by your taxes). However, remove or scale-back
the state sponsored copy-right protection, and than indeed you could
see undistorted picture how the alternative systems work and compete
with each other.

It is like just with any kinds of subsidies - the goverment
control over copy-right is a subsidy to one specific way of handling
content creators compensation, which happens to be conter-productive
because it punishes the users of knowledge instead of encouraging them.
This subsidy makes this method apear economicaly viable compared to
others. Remove this subsidy, and it might turn out that other ways of
handling are more efficient.

Here, Evgenij makes a valid point.

Traditionally, up until the 1990s, copyright and patents were not
really procatively enforced by the government. The government did not
seek to prevent copyright and patent violation. The copyright and
patent holder had to seek out such violations, and sue, or obtain an
injunction. The most active role that the government played was
putting a product that violated a patent on a proscribed list that
forbid import into the United States.

(OK... maybe the police involvement in stamping out (pun) the illegal
vinyl record copying rackets was proactive. But such proactivity was
rare.)


You forget the counterfeit Rolex watches and designer clothes. Perhaps
some will remember the confiscated watches being steam-rollered on 5th
Ave. in front of Tiffany's.


One thing that I do not like nowadays is that Microsoft et al are trying
to set things up so that OUR tax dollars are spent enforcing THEIR
copyrights and patents. Worse, distorting US foreign policy. Worse
still, enforcing their IP by making consumer electronics devices more
costly and less functional. (I am waiting for the day that my video
camera refuses to run because there is a digitally watermarked video
playing on a monitor, or a song playing in the background.)


Vote with your wallet. I won't buy such toys for fear of such nonsense.
You really don't *need* a video camera, you know. Twenty years ago the
message was delivered to the software community; NO MORE COPY PROTECTION.
They've apparently found a new generation of sheeple.


Libertarians might say that enforcing property rights is the role of
government - in their opinion, the only role of government.


You speak loudly, for others.


I say that all property rights are subject to economics. We might try
to establish property rights in the molecules of gas exhaled from our
lungs, or, perhaps emitted by an ionizing air cleaner.


If you had somethingto do with the invention of the molecules, maybe.


However, it is infeasible, and certainly uneconomic, to do so. We
choose to enforce property rights only where it is economic to enforce
them.


Well, duh! Did you really read what you wrote?


By increasing the government subsidies for enforcement of intellectual
property rights, we are allowing property rights to expand into areas
that they would not expand to under the old regime, where the IP holder
paid most of the expense.


Do tell...


Compare to an example in real property: the government (the police)
might subsidize (enforce) your right to prevent your neighbor dumping
garbage into your lot - IF they can clearly see where the property line
is, and IF they catch the neighbor in the act. But the police aren't
going to spend time and manpower staking out your lot just to catch your
neighbor in the act. You have to do that yourself. Hire a private
investigator, or install a video camera.


Not necessarily. If it goes on long enough and is important enough (toxic
waste) they will assist. The primary protection is yours though, just as
it is with IP.


Similarly, if your neighbor's fence intruded into your yard, the
government will not directly enforce your property rights. You will have
to pay for a survey, and take it to court. The courts will give you the
right to request the neighbor move the fence, or to forcibly remove it
if he refuses. The police *might* monitor you removing the disputed
fence, to prevent the possibility of a breach of the peace. They might
prevent the neighbour from assaulting you. But the police won't remove
it for you.


...and why should they? You don't think the police would be interested if
there was someone in the "recorder of deeds" office altering official
documents?


In general, the government enforces criminal law directly. For civil
matters you are given the right to obtain remedies, and the government
may protect your right.


Copyright infringement is both a civil and criminal offense. That's what
your diatribe misses. If you gleep a copy of my latest Brittney CD, the
cops aren't going to break down your door. If you go into business
printing them...


Seeking to have the government enforce intellectual property rights,
both directly, and indirectly by techniques such as copy-protection
chips, has created an unprecedented change in the balance between civil
and criminal law.


Nonsense. You have the option to say *NO* to anythign with copy
protection.

Gentleman, DVD vidiorecorders already refuse to record tv programs
with certain codes added to them. So what can you do about that?
You are not out trying to make an illegal copy , you just want to
see a program next day. Well maybe you can..........
But the salesman does not warn clients about that. And I do not
like to be treated as a criminal by my own vidio recorder.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 02:26:08 +0100, Sjouke Burry wrote:

Keith wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 21:28:26 +0200, Andy Glew wrote:


Nonsense. You have the option to say *NO* to anythign with copy
protection.

Gentleman, DVD vidiorecorders already refuse to record tv programs
with certain codes added to them. So what can you do about that?

Don't buy them if it offends your sensibilities.

You are not out trying to make an illegal copy , you just want to
see a program next day. Well maybe you can..........
But the salesman does not warn clients about that.

A used car salesman doesn't tell you that used cars may need a new
transmission either.

And I do not like to be treated as a criminal by my own vidio recorder.

I don't either, but there are those who have stolen enough property to
force others to put locks on their doors. That is a fact of life.

--
Keith

Andy Glew wrote:
Property rights also need to apply to produceables - to things that
require effort to produce. Even if, once produced, they are not
consumed; even if usage costs nothing thereafter, the initial
production costs.

Otherwise there is no incentive to produce - to make the investments
necessary to produce. (Or at least reduced incentive.)

For an interesting analysis of why this is NOT the case for products
that are not "consumable", at least in some cases, read _The Success of
Open Source_ by Steven Weber, Professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley,
published by Harvard University Press.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067...lance&n=283155

Seeking to have the government enforce intellectual property rights,
both directly, and indirectly by techniques such as copy-protection
chips, has created an unprecedented change in the balance between civil
and criminal law.

Nonsense. You have the option to say *NO* to anythign with copy
protection.

But you may not have the right to say YES to a device that does not
enforce copy protection. In the very near future, such devices will
be illegal in the US.

Dave Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:57:57 -0600 in comp.arch, "Del Cecchi"
wrote:

[...]


them provide their own connections and equipemnt. Nothing stopping
someone from running a fiber to your house and providing you a very fast
digital pipe. Or a piece of coax for that matter. You just want someone


Nothing? Have you ever heard of "right of way?" I have personal
experience, with electrical power rather than a comm line.

And of course that allows the telco to refuse to let the cable companies
run cable on those poles... well, fact gets in the way, for some reason
the telcos do exactly that in most places. Electric power is another
issue, and you generally don't run it on the telephone poles, although I
live where that does occur. But if you're talking high voltage, NiMo
certainly had no problems taking a line over our land and leaving 30
acres landlocked and useless.

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

Bill Davidsen wrote:

Rob Stow wrote:
Nate Edel wrote:

In comp.sys.intel Bill Davidsen wrote:

I would guess reusable media would need to be ~$100/TB, use once no
more than $25-35/TB so you can sell it into the home/SB environments.


Blank DVDs aren't practical for backing up a whole terabyte, but they're
down to about ~$100/TB in bulk ($40-50 per 100 disks/~450gb).


In the home and SOHO markets, however, DVD is a very common backup media
- when backups are done at all.

A large part of it is due to the fact that in such places there is no
one to do backups except ordinary users - many of whom are quite
comfortable with burning a DVD, yet intimidated all to hell by tape
drives.

Forget about the fact that tape backup has been around since JC and the
boys went out for pizza - to non-techies they are new and intimidating
gadgets.

Don't forget that tape backup is expensive, that tapes are not used for
anything else while DVD is used on many systems for data transfer, the
individual media are cheap, and the cost of a 2nd drive is minimal.
Having a 2nd tape drive (or a reasonable size) is very expensive, not
having a 2nd tape drive means you don't have a backup if the 1st one
fails. I've seend that twice in 30 years, and both times the manager's
career took a major hit for not having a backup drive.

There's no help in sight, DL DVDs are too expensive (thanks to DRM for
that), and 25-30GB Blueray or HD-DVD blanks are also unlikely to be
affordable. Any tape format large enough to be useful is expensive, both
drive and media. You can put a TB of disk in for $1k, but you can't do
a decent backup system for that.

What the world needs is a cheap four bay external usb drive case, put in
four big drives as RAID-5, take a backup and put it in the safe. Don't
know of any.

Anyway, DVD is used instead of tape because you have it anyway, tape has
no other use but backup in most cases.

usb is way too slow for that, not mention that the design of usb is one of
the worst kluges in history. external SATA would be a much faster and
better option, probably cheaper too.
Eric

Evgenij Barsukov wrote:

KR Williams wrote:
Security is one of the technical problems that have to be resolved
(one along many others). But we are not discussing here _how_ to make
it happen, but rather _should we_ make it happen.


However, you clearly don't believe in property rights. The
communist has spoken.

Property rights should apply to consumables. To something that disapears
if being used, and therefore society benefits from its _concervation_.



so, my house isnt a consumable, therefor in your view it should be donated?
you want to

"I say, donating unused resources for comunity purposes should be
mandated by law for everybody" ?

Thats a contradiction in terms.
You sound like a left wing communist liberal. I suppose the law you want so
much wont apply to you?
Eric






However, knowledge is non-consumable. Society benefits from its _usage_,
whereas non-users are lazy *******s who do harm to society. So _use of
knowledge_ has to be encouraged, and non-use punished.
Intellectual property and copyright concepts, that has been created
in the 18th century and has since many times artificialy modified and
expanded to non-suitable areas, do not follow above concept.
They punish use of knowledge by requiring those who use it to pay,
and encourage non-use (e.g. anti-social behaviour) by allowing non-users
to withold payment. So as oweral result we encourage anti-social
behaviour. This is absurd and has to end.

Of cause the creation of knowledge has to be encouraged monetary,
which so far have been implemented using above scheme, which is as I
have shown is absurd. So this encouragement has to be done differently.
The overal result should be that both users and non-users of
knowledge have to pay equaly, which punishes the anti-social non-users
(they get nothing which should make them think about using more
knowledge) and encourages the society friendly users of knowledge
because they get something for their money.
So far advertizement sponsored content creation is one
good example how this can work, because obviously everybody are paying
for advertizement inderectly through the price of goods, but only
users of sponsored content (e.g. knowledge) are benefiting.
But advertizement sponsoring has limits. The concept should extend
wider, to involve other types of tax money, while parallely eliminating
the concept of intellectual property and replacing it with concept of
"society payment for content creation".

Communists incorrectly extended the rejection of property rights to
consumables. Consumbles have to be protected because giving them
for free encourages anti-social wastful behaviour.

Regards,
Evgenij