If my grandmother rolls her eyes at the idea of internet petitions, what reason is there to think that Uwe would stop making movies from one? Just because someone name Soukin McCocksoff said he's a bad man and should go away on the internet means he'll do it. 1) He is NOT the worst movie producer ever. Obviously you have never heard of The Asylum (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Asylum)
2) If they're THAT horrible, simply don't watch them. Quite frankly, I can see people complaining about The Asylum, as they rob titles as other movies come out, but this guy doesn't lie to you, he just puts out his movies.
3) Again, have the sense to avoid what you don't like and let others judge if they do. If you want to complain, cool. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but is there really a reason to go out of the way to do it? Quite frankly it's a waste of everyone's time involved, both the readers and the complainers.
4) Signing a petition only empowers him into knowing how many people watch his movies. If you signed his petition, you're a fool and followed blindly along like the rest of the sheep. To be able to actually stop him....DON'T FUND HIM. If his movies don't sell, he can't put out more. As for the loophole, yes that's wrong, but how many of us exploit loopholes? We drive 10 miles above the speed limit to get to work every day because the police won't ticket us unless we're going 11...etc.
5) Some people actually like his movies. I, personally, own Blood Rayne and I enjoy watching it on occasion. It's a B movie and there's a certain novelty to it. That, and quite frankly if you don't her rack, you're probably queer (she has a topless scene). So, for the same reason Under Siege with Steven Segal got popular, so did Blood Rayne. Boobs.
Yes, I was. Was my statement incorrect? No.
However, you would still need 16 computers in that network with the setup I described just to be able to max out the bandwidth. I don't know of anyone who has an extended family who are ALL on 16 computers at the same time and ALL needing to max the bandwidth, let alone 16 computers with a SCSI array that an entire family is constantly using.
It's way overkill, and now they're going to 100 Gb? That's 40 computers maxed out with the setup I described. Insane. Some colleges don't have that many computers in their labs. This is supposedly for a home user? Let hardware technology catch up first.
Quite frankly, I am with many of the other posters in saying this is a publicity stunt. It would impress me more if ISPs would start registering their speeds in bytes instead of bits and stop conning the American people.
Just so we're clear...
This is a Gb connection. Gb is is short for Gigabit, emphasis on the bit.
Software and hardware are measured in bytes.
There are 8 bits in a byte and honestly I think ISPs put the bit rates in instead of the byte rates to confuse the average customer.
Currently we have 4 types of drives: IDE/ATA, SATA, SCSI and Solid State. Their standard transfer rates are as follows:
IDE/ATA: 133 MBps
SATA: 300 MBps
SCSI: 320 MBps
SSD: 12.5 MBps
Now, this connection was 40 Gbps. The actual speed is 5GBps.
With those numbers you can see the transfer speeds are too slow for the hard drives to keep up with the faster internet connection. Max speed (given that a person has a SCSI raid) is 320 MBps or 2.5 Gbps, OC-48 is about as close as it gets.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I was. Was my statement incorrect? No. However, you would still need 16 computers in that network with the setup I described just to be able to max out the bandwidth. I don't know of anyone who has an extended family who are ALL on 16 computers at the same time and ALL needing to max the bandwidth, let alone 16 computers with a SCSI array that an entire family is constantly using. It's way overkill, and now they're going to 100 Gb? That's 40 computers maxed out with the setup I described. Insane. Some colleges don't have that many computers in their labs. This is supposedly for a home user? Let hardware technology catch up first. Quite frankly, I am with many of the other posters in saying this is a publicity stunt. It would impress me more if ISPs would start registering their speeds in bytes instead of bits and stop conning the American people.
Just so we're clear... This is a Gb connection. Gb is is short for Gigabit, emphasis on the bit. Software and hardware are measured in bytes. There are 8 bits in a byte and honestly I think ISPs put the bit rates in instead of the byte rates to confuse the average customer. Currently we have 4 types of drives: IDE/ATA, SATA, SCSI and Solid State. Their standard transfer rates are as follows: IDE/ATA: 133 MBps SATA: 300 MBps SCSI: 320 MBps SSD: 12.5 MBps Now, this connection was 40 Gbps. The actual speed is 5GBps. With those numbers you can see the transfer speeds are too slow for the hard drives to keep up with the faster internet connection. Max speed (given that a person has a SCSI raid) is 320 MBps or 2.5 Gbps, OC-48 is about as close as it gets.