It's not just Aero it's the way it hits the disk so much - it has processes in there that for example after writing to a directory it decides to scan the disk and cache the whole directory. Fine in theory but when you've got the disk thrashing for 5+ minutes at a stretch that eats battery on a laptop.
Switching all the search/cache crap off is really hard - there are several services you have to kill, and they're not all obvious.
I switched aero off after about a day. Non aero looks pretty identical to me and uses less memory/cpu.
In the UK even if you had to quit it comes under 'constructive dismissal' - ie. they didn't give you a choice. They don't have to fire you, just say something like 'do $illegal_act or we'll make your life hell/demote you/cut your pay/whatever'.
I sent such an email. Was then called into the managers office and told in no uncertain terms that if I sent an email like that again I'd be kicked out of the building. They don't like that stuff because it's tracable.
This company had one MSDN for 100 employees. An unlicensed exchange server, mostly unlicensed XP, unlicensed VS2003, unlicensed office, you name it, they didn't license it.
They also ran a single (pirated) vmware GSX server and rented the resulting virtual machines to customers not telling them they were virtual.
This is not uncommon - every company I've ever been with has had the same attitude.
Of course when they all but ordered me to hack into a rival companies servers and steal their data I put my foot down - stripping it from webservers and demo versions of their software is fair game... hacking? I wasn't going to do jail time for them and refused.
So if your employer orders you to kill someone you'd do it because you're convinced it falls under 'corporate immunity'?
Sorry, if you commit an illegal act you are held responsible, in any legal process. The company may *also* be held responsible, but that won't save you.
It's not as if we allowed them beforehand, except in exceptional circumstances.
Makes policing easier - someone commits a crime, possibly jail. Someone commits a crime and you find a gun (whether you used it or not) - 5 year minimum sentence. That's why it's basically lottery odds to be involved in a crime involving guns in this country... despite the media sending up the rare cases that they're used (a kid getting shot by another kid wouldn't even make a footnote in a local paper in the US.. here it's front page news for days).
To be fair, this guy also transferred our DSL from one phone line to another, something that the ISP denied was possible,
It *isn't* possible. Your DSL account is tied to your phone number (the entire order process is keyed on it). The only way to move it is to close the account and reopen a new one.
Whereas it's physically possible for an engineer to do the accounting nightmare you would create isn't worth it. Plus he'd lose his job.
Lots of people have tried.. you can't do it - DSL has in its contract a requirement for a voice line (and it even excludes you specifically from low user rebates).
Cable allows this apparently - NTL used to allow you to get a cable internet service without the voice, but you needed to get to second tier support to arrange it.. the first tier would flatly deny that it was possible.
P2P is *not* efficient. Instead of a of mirror serving a single file connected to a fat pipe, you now have *thousands* of mirrors, but they're all maxing out crappy DSL connections, causing other users of the network to get a slower connection, and generally being annoying... and at the download side you're typically going to get less than half the download speed that a properly configured ftp server would have given you anyway.
If p2p was that efficient the amount of network usage would have reduced as the load was taken off the network. In fact the opposite has happened, and on some ISPs you can't get better than dialup rates during the evening due to the amount of bandwidth being used by p2p - estimated at between 80% and 90% of peak bandwidth.
A university will already have a fileserver with the required linux ISOs on it, for download internally. The same with all other required software. No bittorrent needed (and it's far from the most common way to get it.. it's still much faster to go to the ftp site and download it directly).
The Linux ISO excuse has been used so much now that it's used as code for Warez/Porn, as in 'I went over my bandwidth cap downloading Linux ISOs'.
Bittorrent has legitimate uses in the same way an Uzi does. Sure, I could use it to shoot ducks, but...
No you wouldn't because you just publish and it's valid prior art.
Except in the US under the present system prior art has to be published for 12 months before it's valid.. which is what needs fixing first. Hopefully the new rules will fix this as well.
In most of the world publishing is valid prior art on the day it happens. You can try to file a patent on something like that but it'll be struck down on the first challenge.
In the use publishing is *not* prior art unless you've been published for at least a year. That means if you for example you release a program that does something cool you *must* patent prior to release or lose it - hence you end up with the clusterfuck that is the US patent system, because damn obvious stuff gets patented *after* it's been on the market.
Actually there isn't a lot of spin on their original release from what I can see. They're cannibalising the dev team on osx to work on the iphone. Admitting that is going to have an effect on their stock because once a company starts having to do that for a project it's in deep trouble (in fact the times I've seen it done have always seen the ultimate failure of one or both projects - it doesn't work and is an act of desparate mismanagement).
You make a good point with download limits. Nearly all ISPs now are getting conservative with their limits, and the masses are going for the cheapest DSL they can find - often with 1GB/month limits. Video aint gonna work in that bandwidth.
Of course downloading video off the ISP themselves isn't counted on the limits... vendor lockin, 21st century style!
Rumour has it Sony will be the one that offers movie downloads to Europe (Well they own studios, so it's not a surprise).
AppleTV is kinda pointless in Europe, but if it's really true that it requires a PC to stream of it's kinda pointless anywhere... the showcentre 200 can do the same thing for 1/3rd of the price and it's truly HD.
The issue the Utah legislators are against is (the following example is fictitious) Sony buying keyword advertisements for the "XBOX" keyword - in hopes of getting them to buy PS3s instead. The idea behind the law is that, in this example, Microsoft own the XBOX trademark, and by Sony buying ads for "XBOX", they are 'benefiting from another person's trademark'. Or something like that. To be more specific, it might be the case the Sony pay more, and people typing "XBOX" see ads for Sony, and not Microsoft. The legislators see that as "hijacking a trademark".
No. It's called 'advertising'.
Nothing wrong with it at all. In fact it happens already. Type 'xbox' and the first advertising link on the right I got was 'PS3 only £379 bargain'.
2 vista machines *and* an ipv6 capable router, unless you're suggesting connecting them via crossover & limiting yourself to a 2 machine network.
Oh and an ipv6 capable ISP... at least one that routes 192.88.99.1 (few do any more) or even one that does routed ipv6 (Don't know what the situation is in the US but there's only one in this country - most don't).
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just Aero it's the way it hits the disk so much - it has processes in there that for example after writing to a directory it decides to scan the disk and cache the whole directory. Fine in theory but when you've got the disk thrashing for 5+ minutes at a stretch that eats battery on a laptop.
Switching all the search/cache crap off is really hard - there are several services you have to kill, and they're not all obvious.
I switched aero off after about a day. Non aero looks pretty identical to me and uses less memory/cpu.
In the UK even if you had to quit it comes under 'constructive dismissal' - ie. they didn't give you a choice. They don't have to fire you, just say something like 'do $illegal_act or we'll make your life hell/demote you/cut your pay/whatever'.
Trust me, they will. Same thing happened to me.
I sent such an email. Was then called into the managers office and told in no uncertain terms that if I sent an email like that again I'd be kicked out of the building. They don't like that stuff because it's tracable.
This company had one MSDN for 100 employees. An unlicensed exchange server, mostly unlicensed XP, unlicensed VS2003, unlicensed office, you name it, they didn't license it.
They also ran a single (pirated) vmware GSX server and rented the resulting virtual machines to customers not telling them they were virtual.
This is not uncommon - every company I've ever been with has had the same attitude.
Of course when they all but ordered me to hack into a rival companies servers and steal their data I put my foot down - stripping it from webservers and demo versions of their software is fair game... hacking? I wasn't going to do jail time for them and refused.
So if your employer orders you to kill someone you'd do it because you're convinced it falls under 'corporate immunity'?
Sorry, if you commit an illegal act you are held responsible, in any legal process. The company may *also* be held responsible, but that won't save you.
It's not as if we allowed them beforehand, except in exceptional circumstances.
Makes policing easier - someone commits a crime, possibly jail. Someone commits a crime and you find a gun (whether you used it or not) - 5 year minimum sentence. That's why it's basically lottery odds to be involved in a crime involving guns in this country... despite the media sending up the rare cases that they're used (a kid getting shot by another kid wouldn't even make a footnote in a local paper in the US.. here it's front page news for days).
The only problem is your modem has to be next to the master socket
You can get master socket splitters that bring the DSL signal out on a separate line, so you could run that anywhere.
To be fair, this guy also transferred our DSL from one phone line to another, something that the ISP denied was possible,
It *isn't* possible. Your DSL account is tied to your phone number (the entire order process is keyed on it). The only way to move it is to close the account and reopen a new one.
Whereas it's physically possible for an engineer to do the accounting nightmare you would create isn't worth it. Plus he'd lose his job.
Lots of people have tried.. you can't do it - DSL has in its contract a requirement for a voice line (and it even excludes you specifically from low user rebates).
Cable allows this apparently - NTL used to allow you to get a cable internet service without the voice, but you needed to get to second tier support to arrange it.. the first tier would flatly deny that it was possible.
New drinking game.
Every time someone justifies Bittorrent by saying they need to download Linux ISOs take a drink.
Every time someone posts that this is an infringement of their *right* to download Linux ISOs take a drink.
Non infringing filesharing? There's only so many linux ISOs you can download in a day, and you can get those faster by ftp anyway.
P2P is *not* efficient. Instead of a of mirror serving a single file connected to a fat pipe, you now have *thousands* of mirrors, but they're all maxing out crappy DSL connections, causing other users of the network to get a slower connection, and generally being annoying... and at the download side you're typically going to get less than half the download speed that a properly configured ftp server would have given you anyway.
If p2p was that efficient the amount of network usage would have reduced as the load was taken off the network. In fact the opposite has happened, and on some ISPs you can't get better than dialup rates during the evening due to the amount of bandwidth being used by p2p - estimated at between 80% and 90% of peak bandwidth.
A university will already have a fileserver with the required linux ISOs on it, for download internally. The same with all other required software. No bittorrent needed (and it's far from the most common way to get it.. it's still much faster to go to the ftp site and download it directly).
The Linux ISO excuse has been used so much now that it's used as code for Warez/Porn, as in 'I went over my bandwidth cap downloading Linux ISOs'.
Bittorrent has legitimate uses in the same way an Uzi does. Sure, I could use it to shoot ducks, but...
Wilful infringement is triple damages. Therefore that advice is given by all clueful companies, unless they want to head quickly into bankcruptcy.
No you wouldn't because you just publish and it's valid prior art.
Except in the US under the present system prior art has to be published for 12 months before it's valid.. which is what needs fixing first. Hopefully the new rules will fix this as well.
Actually you have that backwards.
In most of the world publishing is valid prior art on the day it happens. You can try to file a patent on something like that but it'll be struck down on the first challenge.
In the use publishing is *not* prior art unless you've been published for at least a year. That means if you for example you release a program that does something cool you *must* patent prior to release or lose it - hence you end up with the clusterfuck that is the US patent system, because damn obvious stuff gets patented *after* it's been on the market.
Both of those would be stopped by the hull anyway.
It's gamma radiation you want to watch for... and unless I'm reading it wrong this won't stop that.
No he didn't he said it was 'under discussion', which means nothing.
I bet discussion went something like:
Developers: "What about linux support?"
Microsoft: "ROTLMAO!!!"
Actually there isn't a lot of spin on their original release from what I can see. They're cannibalising the dev team on osx to work on the iphone. Admitting that is going to have an effect on their stock because once a company starts having to do that for a project it's in deep trouble (in fact the times I've seen it done have always seen the ultimate failure of one or both projects - it doesn't work and is an act of desparate mismanagement).
You make a good point with download limits. Nearly all ISPs now are getting conservative with their limits, and the masses are going for the cheapest DSL they can find - often with 1GB/month limits. Video aint gonna work in that bandwidth.
Of course downloading video off the ISP themselves isn't counted on the limits... vendor lockin, 21st century style!
Rumour has it Sony will be the one that offers movie downloads to Europe (Well they own studios, so it's not a surprise).
AppleTV is kinda pointless in Europe, but if it's really true that it requires a PC to stream of it's kinda pointless anywhere... the showcentre 200 can do the same thing for 1/3rd of the price and it's truly HD.
You're joking. They require a connection to a PC?
How is the AppleTV better than a ShowCentre 200 then?
Own up you were searching for 'Free Porn' weren't you ;)
Such problems are issues with the way google rates pages not something that needs legislation.
The issue the Utah legislators are against is (the following example is fictitious) Sony buying keyword advertisements for the "XBOX" keyword - in hopes of getting them to buy PS3s instead. The idea behind the law is that, in this example, Microsoft own the XBOX trademark, and by Sony buying ads for "XBOX", they are 'benefiting from another person's trademark'. Or something like that. To be more specific, it might be the case the Sony pay more, and people typing "XBOX" see ads for Sony, and not Microsoft. The legislators see that as "hijacking a trademark".
No. It's called 'advertising'.
Nothing wrong with it at all. In fact it happens already. Type 'xbox' and the first advertising link on the right I got was 'PS3 only £379 bargain'.
bought up all of the searches for your store on Google
How are they going to do that exactly? Bribe Google programmers to always return 'walmart' in a search for your store?
All google does is put a well marked advertising link at the top or right of the search. Your store will still be returned as normal by google.
If you don't like it, pay google for advertising.
2 vista machines *and* an ipv6 capable router, unless you're suggesting connecting them via crossover & limiting yourself to a 2 machine network.
Oh and an ipv6 capable ISP... at least one that routes 192.88.99.1 (few do any more) or even one that does routed ipv6 (Don't know what the situation is in the US but there's only one in this country - most don't).