>>>But, alas, the first car in front (for these fools) is always the one at fault. And they extend this stupid mentanility to all aspects of their life.
P.S. This is why, in additional to the front-facing horn, God also invented the rear-facing middle finger. It's almost become an automatic response with me:
>>>Your ute will be rolling long after the last Prius has begun to leach the toxic contents of its batteries into the water table.
The Prius uses NiMH batteries which are not toxic. You can dump them in your backyard if you want (not that I recommend that). They are no more harmful than dumping salt water plus a few nickles on the ground.
As for the 1970s truck:
Due to lack of a catalytic converter, it spews about 1000 times more NOx and CO than a modern ULEV car. If it is one of the later models with a 70s-era catalyst, then it's still emitting about 100 times more pollution than a modern 2009 car. That pollution is damaging your neighbors' lungs.
Since he says he only burns 2-3 gallons a week, he's not doing too much damage, but it's still equivalent to a 2009 car burning 200-300 gallons per week (in terms of NOx/CO emissions). THAT is why the environmental protection agencies say an old car is more polluting than a new car, and why some governments uses emission tests to remove these old cars from the road.
>>>Surprise, that's exactly why they're starting the buildout now. You build the electric grid once, and you're done, you don't keep building it again and again, as you do with cars. >>>
Your sentence make no sense. Once you've installed the "gasoline grid" (pipes/charging stations) you don't need to rebuild it again-and-again. It's done.
A hybrid has the best of both worlds - an electric motor with max torque from 0 rpm, and a gasoline engine that can be recharged in 2-3 minutes time, thereby giving the driver unlimited range.
I have an Insight, and even though it only has a 70hp engine, it can accelerate just fine. In fact I've had it up over 100 mph while cruising across the American continent. At no point have I ever felt the need for more power, and I drive the four-lane-wide I-95 every day with thousands of other cars and trucks.
The key is to learn how to go with the *merge* with the flow of traffic, rather than be an obstacle that jumps in front of massive trucks.
>>>I got wankers on their horns 'cause I did not go 110km/hr for the next 1.5km...
So the moral is Aussies are impatient drivers? (ducks a spitball). I deal with almost the same problem every day, due to bridge construction, and none of my American neighbors honk at me. They do have that same tendency to race to a stoplight, which makes no sense..... I think it has less to do with stupidity, and more to do with the desire to get home ASAP.
>>>the electrical grid is cheaper and cleaner than a half billion cars driving around burning hydrocarbons.
This is not true. ACEEE.org ranked the EV1 as no cleaner than a Prius or Civic Hybrid. That same ranking showed that the 66mpg Honda Insight was 10% cleaner than either of those EVs.
With electricity you have a 50% loss during the coal-to-current conversion. Then another 10% loss in transmission. 10% loss in the motor and almost 40% loss in the chemical battery. The end result is that the EV1's tailpipe (located at the central plant) spews out as much pollution as a gasoline-powered 50mpg Prius or Civic, and *more* pollution than a 66mpg Insight.
Well, I wasn't asking how I copy DRM. I was asking how HE (the original poster) copied Audible DRM files over to non-protected MP3s using patch cords. You can't find that answer on google; only the original poster can answer and explain how he does it.
I'll do it!!! I'd even be willing to clean toilets if they paid me engineering wages. Yes I'm a sellout. "I know Cobol, and I charge $90 an hour. When do you want me to start?"
I agree 100%. Which is why I think it's ridiculous that grandma downloads 1 gig of email, and Mr.Pirate downloads 200 gigs of movies, but they still pay the same $20 a month. The guy who downloads more should pay more. The grandma that downloads less should pay less.
As for cellphones, I have a "pay by the minute" plan with VirginMobile. It costs 18 cents per minute, and I only average ~$3 per month in calls, so that works best for me. Virgin also has $100 a month plans for rabid talkers. IMHO internet companies should emulate what Virgin does.
Correct. And the bill had earmarked the money for phoneline upgrades to digital* and ADSL. I did a quick review, and I could not find anything about fiber optics. Again, read the actual bill... don't just blindly believe what some blogger tells you. Go read the bill at congress.gov
* * Somebody else claimed phones were already digital since the 1980s. Not true. My house was analog until 2000. I couldn't get any faster speed than 24k, and then practically overnight it climbed to 50k. THAT was caused by the 1996 Telecommunications act. The money was spent as it had been earmarked by our representatives.
You already know the answer is "no". You can't download faster than your maximum connection speed.
However you can certainly download much slower than max. I'm trying to download a tv show that's five years old, and since there's only two seeds, it's moving across at a snail-like pace of 20 kilobit/s. And switching from Azureus to Blizzard is NOT going to make it download any faster.
>>>Think "oversell margins". I am suggesting the ISPs are fairly culpable in the problem, and I would not let them off the hook so easily by letting them punish customers >>>
I think we need to move past the idea of punishment. Yes the ISPs were wrong to oversubscribe more bandwidth than what they actually have. However capping everybody to 20 gigabytes (or whatever) is not the solution. Instead the ISPs should take a page from California road management:
- Due to excess cars on the highway, the government designated certain lanes to be "express". You pay an extra toll, you get to use the express lane. During certain time periods, there's no toll, which encourages people to travel before 6 a.m. or after 9 a.m. (before/after rush hour).
Back to ISPs:
A similar principle can be applied to solving the crowding problem. Start metering anybody who goes over the cap (say $0.50 per gigabyte). This extra "toll" would encourage people to NOT get the 20 gigabyte HD movies, but instead opt for smaller 1 gigabyte SD versions, because they reduce the montly bill. It would also encourage people to self-police themselves, similar to how California's express lane toll ecourages people to travel during non-rush hours.
And yes I think it's fair to charge more for more usage, if only because more electricity is being consumed (by the ISP's servers) to transfer 200 gigabytes than to transfer 1 gigabyte. People who are piggish about their internet usage should pay significantly more than those who just barely-use their connections.
(sigh). Like I said before, I judge the future by the past. Are we still stuck at 1.2 kbit/s connections like circa 1985? No. Why? Because the ________* corporations continued to upgrade to faster and faster speeds.
>>>It would be business suicide not to provide a service to your customers that another company is trying to provide.
You hit the nail on the head of why I'm not concerned, and neither should you be. Competition forces innovation, and that is why any excess dollars collected by the ISP will be invested back into faster networks. They have to. If they don't, they die ("business suicide").
>>>The ITIF says 4.8Mbps.
That's okay. Different studies have different results, because they don't all use the same methodology. The key is to use the same study when making comparisons. As it turns-out the European Union data from that study shows an average of 5.3 Mbit/s, and in my humble opinion as long as the U.S. remains approximately equal to the E.U., we will do just fine competitively.
* * *(You can insert whatever word you wish in the blank)
Then what? Japan's been ahead of the U.S. (and everybody else) for over two decades now.
They had HDTV in 1986! And yet my standard of living has not gone down; I still have a job. As long as keep-up with the European Union's average speed (10 megabit/s) we should be okay competitively. If we fall behind the E.U. average, then that's when we should worry.
Good story. An innocent headmaster buys PCs that are preinstalled, but did not realize the PC seller has used illegal copies. The headmaster gets in trouble with the law for piracy.
Eventually the headmaster gets cleared, but he immediately organizes to push for Free software.... the result being that now Russian Schools no longer want Microsoft products. Only free products.
Well I have CDs that are twenty years old, and nothing they can do will stop me from listening for another hundred years. That's what I mean by "ownership".
No it works on licensing. You can copy the song as many times as you want, including over the internet with friends, but you can't use the song until you obtain a license.
I hate licensing. It's too much like renting. I want to OWN the device, program, song, whatever; not rent it.
I visited their website. It appears to be based on the tried-and-true "license" model where you must buy a license in order to use a program... or in this case, play a song. The obvious flaw is that is the server goes down, no more license.
And of course licensing is typically an annual payment plan. I don't want to "rent" my purchased songs year-after-year-after-year.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>But, alas, the first car in front (for these fools) is always the one at fault. And they extend this stupid mentanility to all aspects of their life.
P.S. This is why, in additional to the front-facing horn, God also invented the rear-facing middle finger. It's almost become an automatic response with me:
Beeeeeeeeeeeeeep. Finger.
Beeep-beeep-beeep. Finger.
I want them to know that I think they are "#1".
>>>Your ute will be rolling long after the last Prius has begun to leach the toxic contents of its batteries into the water table.
The Prius uses NiMH batteries which are not toxic. You can dump them in your backyard if you want (not that I recommend that). They are no more harmful than dumping salt water plus a few nickles on the ground.
As for the 1970s truck:
Due to lack of a catalytic converter, it spews about 1000 times more NOx and CO than a modern ULEV car. If it is one of the later models with a 70s-era catalyst, then it's still emitting about 100 times more pollution than a modern 2009 car. That pollution is damaging your neighbors' lungs.
Since he says he only burns 2-3 gallons a week, he's not doing too much damage, but it's still equivalent to a 2009 car burning 200-300 gallons per week (in terms of NOx/CO emissions). THAT is why the environmental protection agencies say an old car is more polluting than a new car, and why some governments uses emission tests to remove these old cars from the road.
>>>Surprise, that's exactly why they're starting the buildout now. You build the electric grid once, and you're done, you don't keep building it again and again, as you do with cars.
>>>
Your sentence make no sense. Once you've installed the "gasoline grid" (pipes/charging stations) you don't need to rebuild it again-and-again. It's done.
A hybrid has the best of both worlds - an electric motor with max torque from 0 rpm, and a gasoline engine that can be recharged in 2-3 minutes time, thereby giving the driver unlimited range.
I have an Insight, and even though it only has a 70hp engine, it can accelerate just fine. In fact I've had it up over 100 mph while cruising across the American continent. At no point have I ever felt the need for more power, and I drive the four-lane-wide I-95 every day with thousands of other cars and trucks.
The key is to learn how to go with the *merge* with the flow of traffic, rather than be an obstacle that jumps in front of massive trucks.
>>>I got wankers on their horns 'cause I did not go 110km/hr for the next 1.5km...
So the moral is Aussies are impatient drivers? (ducks a spitball). I deal with almost the same problem every day, due to bridge construction, and none of my American neighbors honk at me. They do have that same tendency to race to a stoplight, which makes no sense..... I think it has less to do with stupidity, and more to do with the desire to get home ASAP.
>>>the electrical grid is cheaper and cleaner than a half billion cars driving around burning hydrocarbons.
This is not true. ACEEE.org ranked the EV1 as no cleaner than a Prius or Civic Hybrid. That same ranking showed that the 66mpg Honda Insight was 10% cleaner than either of those EVs.
With electricity you have a 50% loss during the coal-to-current conversion. Then another 10% loss in transmission. 10% loss in the motor and almost 40% loss in the chemical battery. The end result is that the EV1's tailpipe (located at the central plant) spews out as much pollution as a gasoline-powered 50mpg Prius or Civic, and *more* pollution than a 66mpg Insight.
>>>Honestly, did you even try to search?
Well, I wasn't asking how I copy DRM. I was asking how HE (the original poster) copied Audible DRM files over to non-protected MP3s using patch cords. You can't find that answer on google; only the original poster can answer and explain how he does it.
$120 an hour?!?!? If I can learn the mess that is 8502 assembly, I can surely learn the Cobol mess too.
(runs off to find tutorial)
I'll do it!!! I'd even be willing to clean toilets if they paid me engineering wages. Yes I'm a sellout. "I know Cobol, and I charge $90 an hour. When do you want me to start?"
I would never describe a woman like that, unless she's in heat. (Too much Viagra perhaps.)
>>>The issue is that one-size-does-not-fit-all.
I agree 100%. Which is why I think it's ridiculous that grandma downloads 1 gig of email, and Mr.Pirate downloads 200 gigs of movies, but they still pay the same $20 a month. The guy who downloads more should pay more. The grandma that downloads less should pay less.
As for cellphones, I have a "pay by the minute" plan with VirginMobile. It costs 18 cents per minute, and I only average ~$3 per month in calls, so that works best for me. Virgin also has $100 a month plans for rabid talkers. IMHO internet companies should emulate what Virgin does.
Correct. And the bill had earmarked the money for phoneline upgrades to digital* and ADSL. I did a quick review, and I could not find anything about fiber optics. Again, read the actual bill... don't just blindly believe what some blogger tells you. Go read the bill at congress.gov
*
* Somebody else claimed phones were already digital since the 1980s. Not true. My house was analog until 2000. I couldn't get any faster speed than 24k, and then practically overnight it climbed to 50k. THAT was caused by the 1996 Telecommunications act. The money was spent as it had been earmarked by our representatives.
You already know the answer is "no". You can't download faster than your maximum connection speed.
However you can certainly download much slower than max. I'm trying to download a tv show that's five years old, and since there's only two seeds, it's moving across at a snail-like pace of 20 kilobit/s. And switching from Azureus to Blizzard is NOT going to make it download any faster.
>>>Think "oversell margins". I am suggesting the ISPs are fairly culpable in the problem, and I would not let them off the hook so easily by letting them punish customers
>>>
I think we need to move past the idea of punishment. Yes the ISPs were wrong to oversubscribe more bandwidth than what they actually have. However capping everybody to 20 gigabytes (or whatever) is not the solution. Instead the ISPs should take a page from California road management:
- Due to excess cars on the highway, the government designated certain lanes to be "express". You pay an extra toll, you get to use the express lane. During certain time periods, there's no toll, which encourages people to travel before 6 a.m. or after 9 a.m. (before/after rush hour).
Back to ISPs:
A similar principle can be applied to solving the crowding problem. Start metering anybody who goes over the cap (say $0.50 per gigabyte). This extra "toll" would encourage people to NOT get the 20 gigabyte HD movies, but instead opt for smaller 1 gigabyte SD versions, because they reduce the montly bill. It would also encourage people to self-police themselves, similar to how California's express lane toll ecourages people to travel during non-rush hours.
And yes I think it's fair to charge more for more usage, if only because more electricity is being consumed (by the ISP's servers) to transfer 200 gigabytes than to transfer 1 gigabyte. People who are piggish about their internet usage should pay significantly more than those who just barely-use their connections.
(sigh). Like I said before, I judge the future by the past. Are we still stuck at 1.2 kbit/s connections like circa 1985? No. Why? Because the ________* corporations continued to upgrade to faster and faster speeds.
>>>It would be business suicide not to provide a service to your customers that another company is trying to provide.
You hit the nail on the head of why I'm not concerned, and neither should you be. Competition forces innovation, and that is why any excess dollars collected by the ISP will be invested back into faster networks. They have to. If they don't, they die ("business suicide").
>>>The ITIF says 4.8Mbps.
That's okay. Different studies have different results, because they don't all use the same methodology. The key is to use the same study when making comparisons. As it turns-out the European Union data from that study shows an average of 5.3 Mbit/s, and in my humble opinion as long as the U.S. remains approximately equal to the E.U., we will do just fine competitively.
*
*
*(You can insert whatever word you wish in the blank)
Then what? Japan's been ahead of the U.S. (and everybody else) for over two decades now.
They had HDTV in 1986! And yet my standard of living has not gone down; I still have a job. As long as keep-up with the European Union's average speed (10 megabit/s) we should be okay competitively. If we fall behind the E.U. average, then that's when we should worry.
Until then, please stop spreading FUD.
I have an old AMD K5 laptop, currently running Windows 98. Will Linux run on that? Which dark alley should I explore to locate it?
Good story. An innocent headmaster buys PCs that are preinstalled, but did not realize the PC seller has used illegal copies. The headmaster gets in trouble with the law for piracy.
Eventually the headmaster gets cleared, but he immediately organizes to push for Free software.... the result being that now Russian Schools no longer want Microsoft products. Only free products.
Karma's a _____, ain't it Microsoft?
Well I have CDs that are twenty years old, and nothing they can do will stop me from listening for another hundred years. That's what I mean by "ownership".
>>>Line-out, line-in, patch cord. What's so difficult?
If Microsoft or the DRM disables recording the Line In at the same time as audio playback, then this technique would not work.
>>>all my Audible books are converted to mp3 the second I buy them.
And how do you go-about doing that? You acquired some kind of DRM-cracking tool?
No it works on licensing. You can copy the song as many times as you want, including over the internet with friends, but you can't use the song until you obtain a license.
I hate licensing. It's too much like renting. I want to OWN the device, program, song, whatever; not rent it.
I visited their website. It appears to be based on the tried-and-true "license" model where you must buy a license in order to use a program... or in this case, play a song. The obvious flaw is that is the server goes down, no more license.
And of course licensing is typically an annual payment plan. I don't want to "rent" my purchased songs year-after-year-after-year.
http://www.marlin-community.com/technology/how_marlin_works
I thought Macs were supposed to be immune from viruses and malware? (cough)