Well, that's pretty much it goes nowadays in most Western countries at least. Both the US and UK have had lawsuits to establish that just having an open WiFi access point is no defence in CP downloads, for example.
The summary is basically right, the wording just muddles the content. You are right in that having an open WLAN access point is and has been legal, any unauthorized use has been illegal, and the latter is about tho change.
Exactly the point of TFA. The summary translation is not too good, but basically it's going to be: if you don't encrypt -> you are offering a free service.
There's no ban on *having* an unsecured WiFi access point in Finland. The bad wording in TFS muddles it a bit, but the point is that *unauthorized* use of an open WiFi access point is illegal currently. The new law is supposed to allow any use of open WiFi networks, as it can easily happen accidentally, the user often doesn't know whether there's a permission to use the network, and encrypting the network is pretty damn easy.
"Life in jail" in Finland means life in jail. Most prisoners get out by a presidential pardon, and the mean time to get the pardon is 12 years currently, but our law can truly hold you in prison for life.
It isn't illegal in Finland, *unauthorized* use of unsecured WiFi connections is currently. The lawmakers are trying to clear the situation, as the user can't know whether he has a permission or not to use the open connection. The current law defaults to no permission, the new should default to open -> permission.
Did you not know that you do have explicit permission to use those public municipal networks? They publish ToU online on their site, and that's fine by the law. Using your neighbour's network accidentally or not is a criminal offence, unless the neighbour really is providing a public service. As the Finnish article says, there was a guy (IIRC, in Salo), who did some hacking and "accidentally" used his neighbour's connections for it; he got caught and got sentenced for the unauthorized use. All in all, the translation is quite accurate.
Seriously, I can't remember the last time I've actually visited bare google.com before today, when on a forum people complained about this new feature. I do all my searches from the address bar in Opera, and I really can't think of a reason for actually visiting google.com without any query already in progress.
I don't see any requirement for an app to tell me when to take breaks. If I'd care, I'd read what's written on the keyboard, telling me to take regular breaks every two hours; I don't care, and I take breaks when I'm done with whatever was at hand.
Looks like it's 16+4. The +4 is channeled out of the PCH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_P55). Therefore when you're using anything on the PCH (like USB and SATA), you're stealing bandwidth from the non-video PCIe slots, because it shares the same connection to the CPU. So he was a little off on his point about other interfaces stealing bandwidth from the video card. Turns out it only steals bandwidth from whatever you have in the third x16 slot or the x1 slot.
The Asus M4N98TD EVO can do 16+16+2 with an AMD chip. I think the point was that for the segment that this chip is targeting, it is severely hobbled in terms of PCIe bandwidth. These chips can only do x8/x8 SLI and AMD chips can do x16/x16 SLI.
I'd like to see a board that disputes that the 1156 socket can only handle 16+4 lanes.
And there's the board that disputes what you are asking for. Not to mention that if you know what you are talking about, true X16/X16 does not really make a difference in most common situations.
And how is this relevant to the GP claim of only 16 PCI(-E) lanes available to Intel CPUs? I don't mean to be disrespectful*, but your post is completely irrelevant: I can show LGA 1156 boards with a total of at least 34 PCI-E lanes in use, which just decimates the original argument. The "step-down" of PCI-E lanes in dual/triple card usage bears no meaning, as there are boards with more than 16 lanes in use, contrary to the original bogus argument.
*16+4 is still more than the original argument claims, even if you aren't paying attention to the other PCI-E slots.
To do what? If you use a card for USB 3.0 or SATA-600 on the board, it definitely does nothing. You still have no clue of what you are talking about. If you are talking about asymmetric CrossFire / SLI (X16/X4) or scaling down the bus in those setups symmetrically (X8/X8), I'd suggest doing more research on real-world performance figures, and as the link I've given shows, it's true X16/X16 for a two-card setup. You might show a counter-example of your $200 890FX board doing X16/X16/X16 tri-card bandwidth then, or just admit (including all of the above text) that you still have no clue of what you are talking about.
There's plenty of room for those USB 3.0 and SATA-600 cards with the extra 4 expansion slots, even if the parent seems to suggest that just having them integrated would eat up the PCI-E lanes.
Do you have any idea of what you are talking about here? If your theory of USB 3.0 eating up PCI-E lanes was correct, how would that not apply to AMD boards too?
Based on what? There are plenty of good LGA 1156 mobos available in $100-150 range. I'd guess you have no idea of what you are talking about on the PCI-E lanes.
Try Coolermaster Hyper 212 Plus, or if you want something cheaper, Arctic Cooling Freezer series has been quite good.
You are wrong about the $200 price point: The chart has put the hexacore AMD above Intel's i5-750, which comes from some synthetic benchmark results and a few real-life apps, and it doesn't reflect the overall real-world results, where i5-750 is still the better choice (this comes again from higher clock speed and better architecture vs. more cores). However I agree that in the cheap end AMD is probably the better choice.
Having been part of PC building community for a long time with a lot of experience in everything from low-end as-cheap-as-possible builds to ridiculously expensive gaming builds, your comment is not based on reality. Unless you have a very short memory, about 4 years ago you had to spend at least $200 to get any dual core CPU (Pentium D or AMD Athlon X2), so I very much doubt your "ages" comment on a CPU suitable for your uses. And especially vid encoding benefits a lot from quad core CPUs with suitable architectures, so were you seriously informed about these things, you would have put the limit to that $200, so that Intel's i5-750 (good at gaming, excellent bang for the buck in other desktop task, like video encoding) would have fitted into the budget. Of course, if your time isn't worth anything, you might as well get the cheapest CPU out there, but that doesn't mean that for a lot of people the $100 extra would make their computing experience a lot less time-consuming.
Slashdot Mirror
"K-drive" works just fine for me.
Well, that's pretty much it goes nowadays in most Western countries at least. Both the US and UK have had lawsuits to establish that just having an open WiFi access point is no defence in CP downloads, for example.
The summary is basically right, the wording just muddles the content. You are right in that having an open WLAN access point is and has been legal, any unauthorized use has been illegal, and the latter is about tho change.
Yeah, the legislation was mostly sane (not counting firearms laws), but after Lex Karpela it has gone downhill very fast.
Exactly the point of TFA. The summary translation is not too good, but basically it's going to be: if you don't encrypt -> you are offering a free service.
There's no ban on *having* an unsecured WiFi access point in Finland. The bad wording in TFS muddles it a bit, but the point is that *unauthorized* use of an open WiFi access point is illegal currently. The new law is supposed to allow any use of open WiFi networks, as it can easily happen accidentally, the user often doesn't know whether there's a permission to use the network, and encrypting the network is pretty damn easy.
"Life in jail" in Finland means life in jail. Most prisoners get out by a presidential pardon, and the mean time to get the pardon is 12 years currently, but our law can truly hold you in prison for life.
It isn't illegal in Finland, *unauthorized* use of unsecured WiFi connections is currently. The lawmakers are trying to clear the situation, as the user can't know whether he has a permission or not to use the open connection. The current law defaults to no permission, the new should default to open -> permission.
Did you not know that you do have explicit permission to use those public municipal networks? They publish ToU online on their site, and that's fine by the law. Using your neighbour's network accidentally or not is a criminal offence, unless the neighbour really is providing a public service. As the Finnish article says, there was a guy (IIRC, in Salo), who did some hacking and "accidentally" used his neighbour's connections for it; he got caught and got sentenced for the unauthorized use. All in all, the translation is quite accurate.
- Another Finnish citizen
Seriously, I can't remember the last time I've actually visited bare google.com before today, when on a forum people complained about this new feature. I do all my searches from the address bar in Opera, and I really can't think of a reason for actually visiting google.com without any query already in progress.
I don't see any requirement for an app to tell me when to take breaks. If I'd care, I'd read what's written on the keyboard, telling me to take regular breaks every two hours; I don't care, and I take breaks when I'm done with whatever was at hand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_1156
Looks like it's 16+4. The +4 is channeled out of the PCH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_P55). Therefore when you're using anything on the PCH (like USB and SATA), you're stealing bandwidth from the non-video PCIe slots, because it shares the same connection to the CPU. So he was a little off on his point about other interfaces stealing bandwidth from the video card. Turns out it only steals bandwidth from whatever you have in the third x16 slot or the x1 slot.
The Asus M4N98TD EVO can do 16+16+2 with an AMD chip. I think the point was that for the segment that this chip is targeting, it is severely hobbled in terms of PCIe bandwidth. These chips can only do x8/x8 SLI and AMD chips can do x16/x16 SLI.
I'd like to see a board that disputes that the 1156 socket can only handle 16+4 lanes.
Yes, looks like 16+4 or whatever, it's still more than the 16 claimed by original poster. As you did not bother reading the whole discussion, here's X16/X16 SLI: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130258
And there's the board that disputes what you are asking for. Not to mention that if you know what you are talking about, true X16/X16 does not really make a difference in most common situations.
And how is this relevant to the GP claim of only 16 PCI(-E) lanes available to Intel CPUs? I don't mean to be disrespectful*, but your post is completely irrelevant: I can show LGA 1156 boards with a total of at least 34 PCI-E lanes in use, which just decimates the original argument. The "step-down" of PCI-E lanes in dual/triple card usage bears no meaning, as there are boards with more than 16 lanes in use, contrary to the original bogus argument.
*16+4 is still more than the original argument claims, even if you aren't paying attention to the other PCI-E slots.
Any references? I didn't think so. Do you even know what DMI is? Would DMI be relevant, how would you think it would be relevant to PCI-E lanes?
To do what? If you use a card for USB 3.0 or SATA-600 on the board, it definitely does nothing. You still have no clue of what you are talking about. If you are talking about asymmetric CrossFire / SLI (X16/X4) or scaling down the bus in those setups symmetrically (X8/X8), I'd suggest doing more research on real-world performance figures, and as the link I've given shows, it's true X16/X16 for a two-card setup. You might show a counter-example of your $200 890FX board doing X16/X16/X16 tri-card bandwidth then, or just admit (including all of the above text) that you still have no clue of what you are talking about.
*sigh* I thought this was a tech site. What does one have to do to counter this kind of junk?
Here's (an allegedly non-existent) LGA 1156 board with 3 x PCI-E X16 slots: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130238
There's plenty of room for those USB 3.0 and SATA-600 cards with the extra 4 expansion slots, even if the parent seems to suggest that just having them integrated would eat up the PCI-E lanes.
Do you have any idea of what you are talking about here? If your theory of USB 3.0 eating up PCI-E lanes was correct, how would that not apply to AMD boards too?
And here's a tri-SLI LGA 1156 board for you: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130258
Too bad you don't know how much or little the PCI-E lanes have to do with the CPU.
To show how much full of shit you are, see this for example: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131641
Triple SLI at X16/X8/X8, or dual SLI at full X16/X16. Seems to be somewhat more than your alleged 16 lanes.
I call bullshit. USB 3.0 doesn't use PCI-E lanes.
Based on what? There are plenty of good LGA 1156 mobos available in $100-150 range. I'd guess you have no idea of what you are talking about on the PCI-E lanes.
Try Coolermaster Hyper 212 Plus, or if you want something cheaper, Arctic Cooling Freezer series has been quite good.
You are wrong about the $200 price point: The chart has put the hexacore AMD above Intel's i5-750, which comes from some synthetic benchmark results and a few real-life apps, and it doesn't reflect the overall real-world results, where i5-750 is still the better choice (this comes again from higher clock speed and better architecture vs. more cores). However I agree that in the cheap end AMD is probably the better choice.
Having been part of PC building community for a long time with a lot of experience in everything from low-end as-cheap-as-possible builds to ridiculously expensive gaming builds, your comment is not based on reality. Unless you have a very short memory, about 4 years ago you had to spend at least $200 to get any dual core CPU (Pentium D or AMD Athlon X2), so I very much doubt your "ages" comment on a CPU suitable for your uses. And especially vid encoding benefits a lot from quad core CPUs with suitable architectures, so were you seriously informed about these things, you would have put the limit to that $200, so that Intel's i5-750 (good at gaming, excellent bang for the buck in other desktop task, like video encoding) would have fitted into the budget. Of course, if your time isn't worth anything, you might as well get the cheapest CPU out there, but that doesn't mean that for a lot of people the $100 extra would make their computing experience a lot less time-consuming.
KAMIKAZE! Worked fine earlier.