I'm actually talking about a high quality video feed produced by professionals that would play on my IP-TV capable television.
Youtube and its competitors can support such feeds. The problem - at least in this case - isn't infrastructure or capacity; you can tell because Netflix has no trouble dumping Hollywood flicks to you in realtime. The problem you're describing is that the kind of content you're describing is hard to make, and that most of it is too expensive to do without the support of television commercial payments.
This problem isn't about the internet at all. If you don't believe me, go sign up a Vongo account. The internet can handle high quality video feeds.
We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable. Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing.
Then you'd better start hiring people that already know the difference. Ignorance is not an acceptable reason to treat a person in that fashion, and a 20 second clip is well covered under fair use. Granted, it was a bit stupid of her to bring a camcorder into a theater; nonetheless, once the theater manager saw a 20 second clip that was terminated long before the employees entered, s/he should have apologized and sent them on their way.
Let's be clear: if they can't be educated in what is acceptable, they cannot enforce what is acceptable.
Our customer relations number is 877-TELLREGAL or 1-877-835-5734. Our investor hotline is 1-866-REGALEG or 1-866-734-2534.
Tell them what you think. Be polite, be firm, and remind them that their behavior costs them business.
Or which query in which Web search engine should I use?
Stop asking me idiotic questions, and spend more than three minutes researching. You have this tremendously ugly habit of insisting something that's relatively simple isn't true, then nagging people over and over after they've already made it clear that they're not going to look it up for you to please look it up for you.
I told you RTFM last time. That is not an invitation for you to ask me what chapter, what query, what page, any of it. I figured out how to drop the size that far in under 15 minutes. Do something without help, for once in your life, you lazy sack.
Thank you. But why are Green Hills products sold on a "call for price" basis?
What am I, their sales team? Call them and fucking ask. Jesus.
"Every single person working in the media today who experienced the dot-com bubble in 1999 to 2000 believes that we are going through the exact same process and can expect the exact same results -- a bust.
Not all of us. The last dot com bust was characterized by two things: plans to recreate markets based on stupid ideas and observations of the size of said markets (mail order pet food being my personal favorite,) and investors who should have known better throwing immense amounts of money at these stupid ideas.
Last time, anyone who called for examples would get literally hundreds of them. This time, it's hard to come up with half a dozen. It's not that big a deal to invest $50k in a weird little idea. The problem happened because people were throwing multiple millions at stuff that didn't even really make sense. If you had a frisbee that checked email, you would have walked away with a twelve million dollar starter. Match that with a culture that demanded $100k introduction parties and that was buying posh cars by the transport truck, and you're looking at a disaster just waiting to happen.
This "bust" is things returning to normal - small-ish investments in tech companies that are expected, on the whole as a group, to fail. People like Dvorak, whose entire exposure to business is through tech sites, see normal investment and fear that it'll all collapse. What people like Dvorak don't understand is that failure in invested companies is normal. Before the Dot Com bust, failure in invested tech companies was way over ninety percent. What Dvorak doesn't understand - what none of these tech writers seem to understand - is that from their vantage, they cannot tell the difference between a bubble and normal investment.
The characteristic difference that converts normal investment into a bubble has to do with how much money is going into these firms, and what rate of failure the investors are aiming at. Aim too low, and you don't grow fast enough to keep up. Aim too high, and you bust.
Aim too high as a group, and you get a bubble. That's what the 1980s S&L scandal was - banks taking risks they shouldn't, in order to get business. "Well, we shouldn't loan to this guy, but if we don't, Second National will." That's the mindset that creates a bubble, and that isn't happening today. You take an investor aside, you ask them how much they can afford to lose, and you ask them how much they have invested. If you can get those two questions answered by several hundred well-distributed investors, then you can get a small cross section of the people who're actually involved in this.
But, given that this is the same press who crowed a brave new world at the peak of last bubble, I don't really care if they think we're in a bubble now; it's clear they have approximately fuck all clue what they're talking about, not that this should be surprising, considering it's Dvorak, The Man Who Admitted He Trolls Professionally.
Call me when the people preaching gloom and doom are the ones without a track record of miserable, total market grokkage failure.
He's right, Tepples. Calm down. What you're seeing is a result of the way DKP handles embedded calls. Mute and I had this out in channel a few months ago; you can push a GBA binary using streams down to about 51k using newlib, down to about 14k using MSVS, and down to about 6.1k using GHOC. Once again, you've gone off on a single example and assumed it was a fault in C++ rather than in the GCC libraries that are all you seem to have any experience with.
Oh, I may have misunderstood. When I responded, I thought you were taking the line that some people take with regards to commonly misunderstood words - my personal pet peeve example being irony, wherein one is somehow excused from being correct with regards to the meaning of the word, on basis that the communicated value - expecting the other side to misunderstand the word in a specific fashion - would be superior. Given that it now seems that you are advocating eschewing large words except when nessecary, I tend actually to agree with you strongly.
There are times when it is more elegant to use the word that has the exact nuance of meaning that you're trying to convey, but for the most part it's a lot more effective to use a word that everyone will understand.
Yeah, because if there's one thing that makes language easier to understand, it's changing your usage of a word depending on to whom you speak. Did it occur to you that the root of the problem is your fix? The only reason these people don't know these words is because other people around them are wrapped up in the fantasy that language is defined by usage, and that therefore it is somehow correct to be incorrect.
If you'd just speak formally _all_ the time, that'd be one less source of confusion for the unwashed masses. It turns out these things aren't inbuilt; they have to be learned from exposure. By denying exposure in the desperation to be understandable, you rob them of the chance of understanding in the long term.
Yeah, I'm sure you want evidence, which is why you haven't yet called ICANN, who wouldn't lie for me. People like you believe whatever they want, regardless of what's right in front of their faces. I'm done talking to you.
You don't think any random Joe can setup a DNS server? Really? I think we'd better tell all those damn Linux users they are breaking stonecypher's law by running rogue DNS servers!
Only the ones selling service on them with misrepresented data. If you can't focus on the main speaking points, and need instead to look at small fractions of what was said in ignorance of their foundation, then of course you're not going to grasp what's said to you. Yes, I'm badly misinformed by my lawyer. Surely a slashdot amateur is a far better source of information.
I suspect you actually believe you understand the law better than my lawyer.
You have this impression that DNS itself belongs to someone or that there is a correct way to do it.
Uh, yeah. Didn't you know that Time Warner signs contracts with ICANN to run DNS servers? Did you think any random joe could just set one up and go?
Internet service can be sold in a number of different ways, and with restrictions is a fine way of doing it. There's no law regulating what the Internet is
Yeah, well, I own a network service provider, and I have an attorney. Both my experience and my professional disagree with you. That I've seen and signed the contracts one has to sign with ICANN probably has something to do with it.
You are free to use IP addresses that don't belong to you, there are no IANA police that will come after you.
Huhuhuhuh. Yeah, you're obviously a network guru.
Unless time Warner has a contract with you promising to provide an accurate record per ICANN
Which they do. Also, they have contracts like that with ICANN, with ARIN, with their peers and with their backbone providers. If service providers could do this whenever they wanted to, the internet would devolve into biggest hill gets control. This is long since accounted for. You really ought to spend less time arguing on the basis of "unless this obvious business need was fulfilled;" all you're doing is displaying what you don't know.
It's all a matter of perspective. I get 1.5/768 for about two thirds the price I paid for dialup five years ago. That seems pretty cheap to me. There's a very real cost involved in rolling out these networks, and because of our physical size and population density, it's a hell of a lot higher for Americans per person than it is for the other nations listed.
My DSL is cheaper than some of the dialup being advertised on TV right now. I get it from the phone company. Remind me why that's tragically expensive?
Er. The entire reason they're undertaking the effort in the first place is because of the cost issue associated with those spambots, the bandwidth they consume, the customer service cost they invoke, the viruses they spread, the dissatisfaction they cause, the management overhead they invoke and so forth.
If it didn't benefit Time Warner, why would they be doing it?
Actually, DNS record information does not belong to Time Warner. It is not the case that Time Warner may sell you DNS service then lie - you paid for the actual DNS records, not to have names resolved however TW wants to. That record information belongs to ICANN, and is ICANN's sole source of income. Time Warner is very clearly stealing from ICANN. These issues are very clearly settled under American law from right after the telephone networks were unified, which was the first time in America that anyone thought to perform routing nonsense as a competitive behavior.
When you pay someone for internet service, you're not buying responses, you're buying correct responses. They are breaking their sales promise to their customers and they are doing direct economic damage to ICANN. Ask any lawyer - this isn't a matter of how a person sees it, this is a matter of well established precedent. This has been illegal in the US since the early 1940s.
Yeah, they're entitled to do whatever they want with their DNS servers. You're the one asking them for information.
Yeah, the problem with things like that is that you're making personal judgements on complex issues of identity as if they were issues of ownership - they most certainly are not. This was settled in America in the 1940s, when Bell Telephone started rerouting calls on the newly unified phone network meant for their competitors to their own sales offices.
No, we're not asking them for information, we're paying them for it. Under American law, they may not lie. What about this surprises you? Do you believe that other utilities may lie to you for their financial profit too? Perhaps you believe that those meters can just read out whatever they want to? Or, maybe when you call the local movie theater, Verizon could re-route you to a competing theater who's paid a fee?
Just because you don't understand what's illegal about the situation doesn't mean it's not illegal.
Containerization is nothing new. In fact, application isolation (that being the proper name) was a primary selling point for Win95, for MacOS5, for OS/2, for OS/2 Warp, for NeXTstep,.NET, for Java, and Geos. This is nothing new. The "consensus belief," if it really did forget about this aspect of things - about which I retain intense doubts - is just forgetting history.
The law doesn't seem to agree with you. From the thing you didn't read: (b) Diversion of services.--A person is guilty of theft if, having control over the disposition of services of others to which he is not entitled, he knowingly diverts such services to his own benefit or to the benefit of another not entitled thereto. Whether that benefit is monetary doesn't seem to matter.
It turns out that when you're a telecommunications provider, there are a whole bunch of laws to the effect of "you can't divert or compromise the telecommunications you're selling."
Yeah, hi, settle down, zealot. Great grandparent asked who was opposing. Grandparent gave one very large example of someone who used to be a GPL fanatic. Don't get all huffy just because that one example doesn't happen to apply to GPL. It is still germane that one of the biggest GPL zealots in history now sees the enormous problems that v3 is prepared to cause, and is ducking as fast as he can.
Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?
on
GCC 4.2.1 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
How does making a license freely available for software authors to use translate into "shoveling [sic] GPL3 down our throats"?
Maybe you missed it, but this story is about them forcing a lot of people to use a tool under v3 by moving the license of one of GNU's most important tools. That, I think, is the shoveling to which grandparent refers. Y'know, the blatantly obvious one that people in post are also very angry about. Try taking the blinders off long enough to at least understand what your fellow man is saying.
The idea that casinos operate under "minimal government regulation" is so ridiculous as to be completely laughable.
No, it isn't. You should see the regulations other companies have for gambling machines - they specify the entire payout structures, the hit likelihoods, the amount of noise the machines are amount to make, the volume of brightness allowed to be put out in lumens, all sorts of stuff. All the American gaming services do is require regular random testing of the machines, honest posting of stats, no rigged machines, and a cap on expected draw. America has about the most open and liberal market possible while still intending to verify the honesty of a proprietor.
Just because it's hard to regulate gambling honesty doesn't mean that we're doing a particularly overbearing job of it. In general, it's not appropriate even as a professional to suggest that one country's regulations are or are not strict until you have experience with the regulations of other countries (as usual, Canada doesn't count.)
Casino gambling is one of the most highly regulated industries in our nation.
Nonsense. Again you are confusing your lack of personal experience with something more strict with that there is nothing more strict. Neighborhood banks go through regulations that make casinos look positively lax. The local UPS hub has an on-site police force (and no, your 20-dude goon squad in casino floor 3 isn't a police force, I mean an actual went to the real police acadamy people with badges that mean something in court type police force;) that's there for a reason. Your local airport guys are rolling their eyes right now. Any place that sells chemical fertilizer (not dirt) is pretty pissed at you right now. A gas station goes through more verifications per-machine than a casino does, though given how many more machines a casino has than a gas station, the validity of that point is... curious.
Then you get down to places with real security - prisons, power plants, dams, stock exchanges, CDC Level 3+ quarantine sites (there's at least one in almost every major city and one at most strong medical schools,) ports of call, military bases, missile silos - you say gambling's securer than those places around the people who keep them secure, you're likely to get a punch in the mouth.
'Course, if by "regulated" you meant investigated by the government, well, then you obviously have no experience in finance, transportation, the fuel sector, alcohol, tobacco, pornography, television decency, abortion, cosmetic surgery, car sales or cell phone region mapping. Indeed, if you take a good solid look at it, casino regulation is pretty much on par with other industries making that amount of money. You want something better regulated, you move up the dollar chain, you get religious ethics involved or you make a genuine stab at the public health.
Frankly, prostitution is a better regulated Nevada state industry than gambling is; that's why they can spot disease trends across small brothels but not theft trends across major casinos on the same street. You seem to think that any enforcement in a casino is government enforcement. The vast bulk of it isn't. No government agency says that a casino has to look for cheaters. They're doing that themselves because it's in their financial best interest. Gambling regulation is just a set of rules saying how far they're allowed to set the statistics, how long they're allowed to milk a given customer, and a lot of random sampling to make sure people are telling the truth.
You want real regulation, you look at the drug war. That's regulation that works better than casino regulation, and everybody being regulated is fighting it as hard as they can, unlike casinos, who cooperate quite openly.
Just like a real slot machine, we found that the online simulator had a very high frequency of "near misses."
I work for a company that makes video and mechanical slot machines. This quote is just plain wrong. In fact, intentionally displaying "near misses" is illegal in pretty much every single gaming jurisdiction.
... no, what's illegal is rigging the machine to control the distribution of its end results. Carefully arranging the faces on the dials such that nearly every wheel combination walks across an almost-win on its way to stopping is actually quite easy - it's a simple mathematical distribution when you remember that the wheels aren't moving at the same speed.
The problem with talking to professionals is that if you say something that's similar to something illegal, they assume that's what you mean, and tell you it's not possible. Believe it or not, some people do understand that you can't rig gaming machines. That does *not* mean that you can't build the gaming machines to have all of the perceptually important parts of a rigged machine.
it creates the illusion that you have "almost" won.
Slashdot Mirror
This problem isn't about the internet at all. If you don't believe me, go sign up a Vongo account. The internet can handle high quality video feeds.
Let's be clear: if they can't be educated in what is acceptable, they cannot enforce what is acceptable.Tell them what you think. Be polite, be firm, and remind them that their behavior costs them business.
I told you RTFM last time. That is not an invitation for you to ask me what chapter, what query, what page, any of it. I figured out how to drop the size that far in under 15 minutes. Do something without help, for once in your life, you lazy sack.What am I, their sales team? Call them and fucking ask. Jesus.
Last time, anyone who called for examples would get literally hundreds of them. This time, it's hard to come up with half a dozen. It's not that big a deal to invest $50k in a weird little idea. The problem happened because people were throwing multiple millions at stuff that didn't even really make sense. If you had a frisbee that checked email, you would have walked away with a twelve million dollar starter. Match that with a culture that demanded $100k introduction parties and that was buying posh cars by the transport truck, and you're looking at a disaster just waiting to happen.
This "bust" is things returning to normal - small-ish investments in tech companies that are expected, on the whole as a group, to fail. People like Dvorak, whose entire exposure to business is through tech sites, see normal investment and fear that it'll all collapse. What people like Dvorak don't understand is that failure in invested companies is normal. Before the Dot Com bust, failure in invested tech companies was way over ninety percent. What Dvorak doesn't understand - what none of these tech writers seem to understand - is that from their vantage, they cannot tell the difference between a bubble and normal investment .
The characteristic difference that converts normal investment into a bubble has to do with how much money is going into these firms, and what rate of failure the investors are aiming at. Aim too low, and you don't grow fast enough to keep up. Aim too high, and you bust.
Aim too high as a group, and you get a bubble. That's what the 1980s S&L scandal was - banks taking risks they shouldn't, in order to get business. "Well, we shouldn't loan to this guy, but if we don't, Second National will." That's the mindset that creates a bubble, and that isn't happening today. You take an investor aside, you ask them how much they can afford to lose, and you ask them how much they have invested. If you can get those two questions answered by several hundred well-distributed investors, then you can get a small cross section of the people who're actually involved in this.
But, given that this is the same press who crowed a brave new world at the peak of last bubble, I don't really care if they think we're in a bubble now; it's clear they have approximately fuck all clue what they're talking about, not that this should be surprising, considering it's Dvorak, The Man Who Admitted He Trolls Professionally.
Call me when the people preaching gloom and doom are the ones without a track record of miserable, total market grokkage failure.
He's right, Tepples. Calm down. What you're seeing is a result of the way DKP handles embedded calls. Mute and I had this out in channel a few months ago; you can push a GBA binary using streams down to about 51k using newlib, down to about 14k using MSVS, and down to about 6.1k using GHOC. Once again, you've gone off on a single example and assumed it was a fault in C++ rather than in the GCC libraries that are all you seem to have any experience with.
Oh, I may have misunderstood. When I responded, I thought you were taking the line that some people take with regards to commonly misunderstood words - my personal pet peeve example being irony, wherein one is somehow excused from being correct with regards to the meaning of the word, on basis that the communicated value - expecting the other side to misunderstand the word in a specific fashion - would be superior. Given that it now seems that you are advocating eschewing large words except when nessecary, I tend actually to agree with you strongly.
My apologies; I misread what you were saying.
If you'd just speak formally _all_ the time, that'd be one less source of confusion for the unwashed masses. It turns out these things aren't inbuilt; they have to be learned from exposure. By denying exposure in the desperation to be understandable, you rob them of the chance of understanding in the long term.
You realize you're quoting several different people, and attributing them all to me, right?
Yeah, I'm sure you want evidence, which is why you haven't yet called ICANN, who wouldn't lie for me. People like you believe whatever they want, regardless of what's right in front of their faces. I'm done talking to you.
I suspect you actually believe you understand the law better than my lawyer.
It's all a matter of perspective. I get 1.5/768 for about two thirds the price I paid for dialup five years ago. That seems pretty cheap to me. There's a very real cost involved in rolling out these networks, and because of our physical size and population density, it's a hell of a lot higher for Americans per person than it is for the other nations listed.
My DSL is cheaper than some of the dialup being advertised on TV right now. I get it from the phone company. Remind me why that's tragically expensive?
Er. The entire reason they're undertaking the effort in the first place is because of the cost issue associated with those spambots, the bandwidth they consume, the customer service cost they invoke, the viruses they spread, the dissatisfaction they cause, the management overhead they invoke and so forth.
If it didn't benefit Time Warner, why would they be doing it?
Actually, DNS record information does not belong to Time Warner. It is not the case that Time Warner may sell you DNS service then lie - you paid for the actual DNS records, not to have names resolved however TW wants to. That record information belongs to ICANN, and is ICANN's sole source of income. Time Warner is very clearly stealing from ICANN. These issues are very clearly settled under American law from right after the telephone networks were unified, which was the first time in America that anyone thought to perform routing nonsense as a competitive behavior.
When you pay someone for internet service, you're not buying responses, you're buying correct responses. They are breaking their sales promise to their customers and they are doing direct economic damage to ICANN. Ask any lawyer - this isn't a matter of how a person sees it, this is a matter of well established precedent. This has been illegal in the US since the early 1940s.
No, we're not asking them for information, we're paying them for it. Under American law, they may not lie. What about this surprises you? Do you believe that other utilities may lie to you for their financial profit too? Perhaps you believe that those meters can just read out whatever they want to? Or, maybe when you call the local movie theater, Verizon could re-route you to a competing theater who's paid a fee?
Just because you don't understand what's illegal about the situation doesn't mean it's not illegal.
Containerization is nothing new. In fact, application isolation (that being the proper name) was a primary selling point for Win95, for MacOS5, for OS/2, for OS/2 Warp, for NeXTstep, .NET, for Java, and Geos. This is nothing new. The "consensus belief," if it really did forget about this aspect of things - about which I retain intense doubts - is just forgetting history.
The law doesn't seem to agree with you. From the thing you didn't read: (b) Diversion of services.--A person is guilty of theft if, having control over the disposition of services of others to which he is not entitled, he knowingly diverts such services to his own benefit or to the benefit of another not entitled thereto. Whether that benefit is monetary doesn't seem to matter.
It turns out that when you're a telecommunications provider, there are a whole bunch of laws to the effect of "you can't divert or compromise the telecommunications you're selling."
... to GCC*. Man, what I wouldn't give for an edit button. 's only been ten years.
Yeah, hi, settle down, zealot. Great grandparent asked who was opposing. Grandparent gave one very large example of someone who used to be a GPL fanatic. Don't get all huffy just because that one example doesn't happen to apply to GPL. It is still germane that one of the biggest GPL zealots in history now sees the enormous problems that v3 is prepared to cause, and is ducking as fast as he can.
Just because it's hard to regulate gambling honesty doesn't mean that we're doing a particularly overbearing job of it. In general, it's not appropriate even as a professional to suggest that one country's regulations are or are not strict until you have experience with the regulations of other countries (as usual, Canada doesn't count.)Nonsense. Again you are confusing your lack of personal experience with something more strict with that there is nothing more strict. Neighborhood banks go through regulations that make casinos look positively lax. The local UPS hub has an on-site police force (and no, your 20-dude goon squad in casino floor 3 isn't a police force, I mean an actual went to the real police acadamy people with badges that mean something in court type police force;) that's there for a reason. Your local airport guys are rolling their eyes right now. Any place that sells chemical fertilizer (not dirt) is pretty pissed at you right now. A gas station goes through more verifications per-machine than a casino does, though given how many more machines a casino has than a gas station, the validity of that point is
Then you get down to places with real security - prisons, power plants, dams, stock exchanges, CDC Level 3+ quarantine sites (there's at least one in almost every major city and one at most strong medical schools,) ports of call, military bases, missile silos - you say gambling's securer than those places around the people who keep them secure, you're likely to get a punch in the mouth.
'Course, if by "regulated" you meant investigated by the government, well, then you obviously have no experience in finance, transportation, the fuel sector, alcohol, tobacco, pornography, television decency, abortion, cosmetic surgery, car sales or cell phone region mapping. Indeed, if you take a good solid look at it, casino regulation is pretty much on par with other industries making that amount of money. You want something better regulated, you move up the dollar chain, you get religious ethics involved or you make a genuine stab at the public health.
Frankly, prostitution is a better regulated Nevada state industry than gambling is; that's why they can spot disease trends across small brothels but not theft trends across major casinos on the same street. You seem to think that any enforcement in a casino is government enforcement. The vast bulk of it isn't. No government agency says that a casino has to look for cheaters. They're doing that themselves because it's in their financial best interest. Gambling regulation is just a set of rules saying how far they're allowed to set the statistics, how long they're allowed to milk a given customer, and a lot of random sampling to make sure people are telling the truth.
You want real regulation, you look at the drug war. That's regulation that works better than casino regulation, and everybody being regulated is fighting it as hard as they can, unlike casinos, who cooperate quite openly.
The problem with talking to professionals is that if you say something that's similar to something illegal, they assume that's what you mean, and tell you it's not possible. Believe it or not, some people do understand that you can't rig gaming machines. That does *not* mean that you can't build the gaming machines to have all of the perceptually important parts of a rigged machine.Yes, that's what he said.
So, Active Desktop is making a comeback, is it?