I'm not really sure why we need ddr4 over ddr3? I mean for the average geek, the cpu is never fast enough, and the hard drive is never fast enough. I don't think i've once thought, in the last 10 years: "hey, wow, my memory is so slow doing this task, I wish it was much faster".

I think I can happily live with ddr3 for the next several years, just keep giving me cheaper and fast cpu's and discs.

So whilst the global work force pay massive taxes (I pay 50% above a certain level), Corporations in America (and likely many other countries) only have to pay 35% in *theory*? And in effect, much much less due to these practices?

It's probably always been like this since people knew how to make money, and governments taxed the populace (but I wasn't alive them to be upset about it, and I am now).

I can't possibly imagine that this will ever change either. Really, there should be a thing against paying more tax than your employer has to pay.

me too. spent a lot of cash on midrange system. I am quite deaf in one ear and other one isnt perfect, _but_ I can still tell a difference in quality when playing CD's on my fantastic Pioneer DV-656 player DVD/sacd/dvd-audio that is 12 yrs old compared to the crappy (music wise) Sony BDP bluray player I bought 6 months ago.

Pioneer must have much better dac, and I use analogue cables to the receiver whereas Sony player is using hdmi cable.

But honestly, biggest problem i have is room acoustics. Got all this great gear, and it's probably reaching 20% of it's potential in my living room.

Whats the form called where the best people from each field are chosen to represent that field in government?

I am too intellectually limited to interpret the results from the Google, so Im asking here instead.

Heard all the "gnome3 gets in the way", "doesn't do what I want it to do", "pretty for prettys sake/copying Apple" comments.

I personally like gnome3, a lot, but I still appreciate that every one has their own opinion. But I had an eye-opener the other day...

My 6 yr old son has never really used computers, and when he does, it's playing flash games on the childrens tv website. It's very apparent that he doesn't yet _intuitively_ understand window management, double-clicking, mouse precision and other basic stuff. I haven't taught him, I think he can just as well wait a few years, and postpone the inevitable RSI that his daddy has developed after decades of IT jobs.

But now at the school my wife works at, as well as many other schools throughout Sweden, there is a massive drive to start using iPads as learning tools. Lets' for one second put aside my ire at taxpayer money being spent on ultra expensive high technology to "teach" 2yr olds and up...

One thing that is blindingly obvious, is that the interface of the iPad is _instictively intuitive_ even for very young toddlers. My son can use apps with the touch screen very very well, even after _minimal_ instruction from his teachers, he comes home and uses childrens maths applications for crying out loud!

This more than anything should indicate to naysayers that if a young child can use a UI with minimal instruction, then that UI has done it's job more or less correctly.

I'm not saying that Gnome3 is at that point, but I think it really is a step in the right direction, and I think that more people should give it more of a chance, and try to help the Gnome devs make it better. I really get the impression that the negativity comes from people who are a bit stuck in their ways. Quite normal, but you just need a bit of a shove to give it a chance.

IMHO

Hehehe... Im not nay saying that your words aren't the utter truth, but it sort of reminds me of a joke I heard about the AV cable industry, where a customer buys a ~$7000 HDMI cable (they do exist), and has it delivered by "a shining white van with trimmings made of sheer gold, that comes floating down from the heavens, and as the delivery guy approaches the door in his shining white garment he appears to be floating above the ground..."

Your account will become the stuff of Legends. Do you think these guys still exist in todays golbalised market? God I would love to be part of that world, because where im at, we are a loong way from that kind of reality (in the infrastructure hosting business).

another sane voice.

it doesn't diminish the value of your copy, but it does deny the author/seller that one sale.

One sale. What's that eh? They make enough money anyway don't they, it's not like they're going to go bankrupt or anything? Right?

Boil that down, and it's plain old jealousy of someone elses success. Or a desire to limit an entities success because of jealousy of their success and criticism of they way they operate. But those are _still_ separate issues!

And if you cannt see that the "owner" of something is irrelevant then you need to look harder. The person who wrote the code/filmed the film/sang the song, made a deal with a company or worked for a company purely because that enabled them to distribute their work as widely as possible. If the 'company' gave them a bad deal on that, then that was their choice, and is a separate matter. The fact is that the 'company' then had a legal stake in that work, and was entitled to profit from it.

You know, im just some IT support guy, have nothing to do with media whatsoever, and hate the current state of affairs as much as the next guy, but im constantly amazed at peoples inability to understand all this.

Forgot to add one small point:

Another common argument is that "hey man, the media companies are dinosaurs living in the technological past, and they just want to retain their monopoly and profits! They won't let us _download_ stuff, and they're forcing us to obtain our media in a non-convenient way, maaan".

All true.

And still, it doesn't give you the right to break the law does it? I just love those "all information should be free" clowns. Buy your own house, get a job and support a family, then come back when you've grown up.

"By using your car, there is the actual cost of repairing it, whereas by pirating software, there is no maintenance that must be done, and no damage caused to it.
And of course, this wear on the car is something that I need to pay for in order to keep using it, but if your software is being pirated, there are no costs involved. "

Im in total agreement with TheVelvetFlameBait on this one...

People seem to think that because they are making a copy of the digital media, they are not "stealing" anything, but rather denying the seller of a potential sale. They say "hey, but that sale could have been lost due to other factors like, it was just a poor product". But it wasn't was it? That sale was lost because you copied something and did not pay for it. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise.

You think copying without stealing has no effect? Lets say i'm a film maker and I invest a lot of my time, energy, and a large sum of my own personal money into making a film and I get a media company to distribute it. To make things extrmely simple, lets say every one pirates it and there are zero sales of the film. They didn't actually steal anything substantial or physical, but they denied me as a film maker a potential sale which I would have made a small profit on after the distributor to a large chunk. In this scenario, I may have gone into personal bankruptcy because I invested all I had into making a film, and I made nothing back. In this case, pirates really did ruin my life in a very personal way. In a scenario where pirating my film was very limited or non-existant, I may have made my fortune by making this film, and not simply recuperated my costs.

Now, im fully aware that copyright law sucks, that my scenario is uncommon (but not non-existant), that media companies operate on a whole other level, that media companies are greedy, and that they use morally wrong tactics to try to stop pirating, but the law is the frickin law, and every one of us voted for this by electing the people we did, and not reacting every time the law got changed and copyright got extended.

Copyright needs to change, to reflect common sense again. We need to demonstrate/vote/'vote' with our dollars to get this changed.
Copyright serves a valid purpose when used correctly.

But don't for one second think that because copyright law does suck so much in it's current form, that it makes it ok for you to pirate something. You're still breaking the law.

If copyright didn't exist, there would be no incentive for innovation. Most people would give up because as soon as they made something or invented something, their neighbour could make a copy of it (either physical thing or digital data).