I can understand prioritizing some protocols, in the manner in which Wondershaper does on my own computer. Interactive web applications take priority - basically, browsing and gaming. Torrents and downloads are automagically throttled JUST ENOUGH to allow the interactive stuff to go through first.
The ISP's practice of throttling torrents to some arbitrary value that might be as low as 1% of capacity is BS.
The customer who starts a torrent early in the morning sees that his download rate should finish the torrent in 6 hours expects to see the torrent completed when he gets home. If it takes 6.5 or 7 hours, no big deal. 10 hours might be mildly annoying. But, if he gets home, and the client says that ETA is 1 week and 19 hours, there is a serious problem. Such arbitrary throttling should never take place.
This installation of Ubuntu was a clean install of Intrepid - I just created a new partition on the largest physical hard drive, then imported files needed from pre-existing installations.
Anyway - I'm using the generic kernel. My few attempts at optimizing the kernel for my specific hardware have been failures.;)
The manufacturer's comparisons, and the explanation of those comparisons, do not seem to support your statement. Both operating systems are shutting down background services, including WIFI, dimming the display, etc, in a similar manner. The battery life charts don't show that XP gets as much extra battery life as suggested in TFA.
Apparently, ASUS is failing to configure something properly. One of the GP posts asks if the OS is using a tickless kernel. It's not clear to me yet whether ASUS is doing so. This is an issue to be taken up with the manufacturer, not with Linux.
Nice find. It would seem to me that the vendor has failed to configure Linux properly. As shown in above posts, there is nothing inherent to Linux that mandates a high power drain. I also note that the difference in battery life, while significant, doesn't approach the difference stated in TFA. It could be that Asus is NOT using the "tickless" optimization mentioned in posts above.
So - it is probably safe to say that Linux comes out on the short end of the stick due to lack of hardware (vendor) support.
I have no good working solution for compensating today's working artists. A lot of people are thinking about that, and some people are actually testing solutions to the problem. I will agree that the three weird kids in the basement down the street deserve something for their work, and bit-torrents don't give them a damned thing.
On the other hand - $22.50 ??? For what? Good group, good music, and well worth listening to - but it should be in the public domain by now.
As for the big-time commercial pirates - keelhaul them. I have no sympathy for the parasites. Do as you will with them. Copyright law, in it's original form, was aimed at people like that. P2P, on the other hand, profits no one. The "distibution" is incidental to downloading, and people are being raped in court over that obscure technicality. Torrenting has nothing in common with commercial piracy of content.
You're on your own, after this one. Bottom line, the corporate heads are thieves and sharks. Don't expect me to sympathize if some of their broadcast content is stolen.
Thanks for the info, Dave. Meanwhile, back to the claim I made, which got you so riled up.
Did DTV send not gain access to sales records of card programming machines, and then send extortion notices to everyone who had ever bought such a machine? Wasn't their assumption that anyone with said machine pirating DTV's shows? Extortion. I can find references, or you can look them up yourself.
In fact, the division in charge of extortion was more profitable for awhile than any other part of the company.
"1) Maybe its real user-base is not what it seems to be. As in Apple's iPhone userbase is not the guy with the shiny terminal but the telco subsidizing it. And"
And, who subsidizes the telco? Not the customers and taxpayers? This is a case of smoke and mirrors, because all of that money comes from the little people. What you are really exposing is the fact that multiple corporate heads are involved in manipulating the public, without regard for what the public wants.
Ohhhh-kay. It costs a couple million to put a satellite in orbit. And, all the rest of the infrastructure cost tremendous amounts of money, as well.
Are you trying to convince us that money all came from investors?
Aren't we forgetting that much of the infrastructure was subsidized by the government - that is, by our tax money? Aren't we forgetting that the job of connecting America still isn't finished? Instead, of putting internet into communities that might not be profitable, other more profitable communities have been criss-crossed multiple times with cable, DSL, wireless, and ever new-fangled technology that comes out.
A couple million dollars. Big deal. But, you're really off subject. Paying for music doesn't pay for infrastructure. RIAA doesn't pay for infrastructure, nor do any of the companies which they represent. So, if everyone on the planet suddenly stopped downloading "illegally", that wouldn't put one dime into the infrastructure.
Yes, I am perfectly serious. Let us compare a downloaded game or movie to sneaking into a theatre to watch a movie. Let us compare the Sony rootkit to wiretapping a huge segment of the population, chosen at random. Which is the greater crime? If you have to think for more than a second to answer that, then there is no point in discussing morality with you. A fitting punishment for the former would be a week of community service. A fitting punishment for the latter would be a decade in prison, and millions of dollars in fines.
Perhaps you object to my claims of extortion? What else can we call it? How about we look at DirectTV's tactics first. Anyone who purchased a doo-diddy to program a card was sent a notice that they were liable for hacking DTV's broadcast content. DTV collected MILLIONS of dollars from people who couldn't afford to a: hire legal representation b: travel to court c: take time off of work to travel to court d: spend significant time in court
RIAA used the exact same tactics to extort money from people who may or may not have been "guilty" of copyright infringement.
I am quite serious, in that the current laws are skewed, and that those skewed laws are being atrociously abused by corporate bigshots. That doesn't even address the fact that current copyright laws were bought and paid for with campaign contributions.
Fraud and corruption drives the profitability of a huge portion of the media providers. As long as that fraud and corruption is winked at by the government (all three branches of government) then I can justify Joe Sixpack stealing movies, music, or whatever the hell else he wants to steal.
If/when the laws are made just and rational, THEN I may get a little bit excited that some kid downloads (and uploads) some recording of yet another mediocre pair of mammary glands moaning about unrequited love.
You won't object if City Hall mandates that all entrances and exits are monitored, 24/7 then? Why stop there? Great Britain is going to install cameras into some targeted homes, to see that children go to bed on time, do their homework, etc.
Personally, I object to the concept of a police state.....
I think that it's important to point out that "rights holders" are perfectly willing to break the law. Sony rootkits, RIAA's illegal "investigations", and more. Worse, the "rights holders" are intent on bending, folding, mutilating, and spindling the law. Today's copyright law is a horrid mutilation of the spirit of the law. I dare say that if the law were fair and equitable, there would be very few people actually ripping off the content found on the web. In fact, if the law were truly "just", I suspect that thieves would be turned in by parents, freinds, and associates. People actually respond to crimestoppers requests for information, after all.
You've got to admire any small group of people (short of murderers or terrorists) who have managed to thumb their noses at the powers that be, for so long, and so effectively. They might be geeky little bastards, but they are BALLSY geeky little bastards!!
Seriously? I am not real sure. It seems to me, on the one hand, that if someone is abusing me, I SHOULD be able to discover who the hell they are. Often enough, merely exposing the libelous bastard amounts to embarassment, which is a sort of punishment in and of itself. Using the courts in this manner doesn't seem terribly wrong.
But - we see how RIAA abuses the system. "We have 250 John Does using these addresses, and we want details on all of them"
Somewhere, a line must be drawn - but where? I'm not qualified to make that call - sorry.
"stockholder's investment is not covered by the customers but by the trade market which may or may not be related to the commercial success of a company."
I take it that this is a passing reference to the financial meltdown on Wall Street? Yes - I can see that the value of a corporation might be based on paper, rather than the commercial success of that company. That was exposed for all of us to see, quite clearly.
Bottom line, when the smoke and mirrors fail, every sumbitch in the company, from the floor sweeper to the high and mighty CEO depends on the customer base. The day you can't drag a customer through the front door (or, virtual front door in the information age) the company is failing.
While some of us are pointing at the various entities that manipulate public opinion, it is STILL the consumer's dollar that is at stake. So, once again - if the consumer prefers Google, let him have Google. Apple puts themselves into danger of anti-trust scrutiny when they start blocking competitors. Do they want to be the next Microsoft?
I came here to say the very same thing. I've read several articles on the case now. (Oddly, I've not yet read TFA, LOL)
Both Apple and Google ultimately work for the CUSTOMER. If the customer wants such and such, then the customer should get such and such - not what Jobs thinks is best for the customer, and not what Google thinks the customer wants. (Someone is going to pop off with the idea that Apple works for it's stockholders - allow me to quickly point out that the customer's dollars pay the stockholder's investment returns)
In this particular case, I think that the customer wants what Google is offering. It should be made available, so that the customer can vote with his dollars. I don't have any Mac products, but I do get tired of reading about Mac acting like a martinette, telling the world what is acceptable on their phones and computers.
Everyone should jailbreak their damned phones, and use them as they see fit. Everyone who paid for a phone has paid for that right.
"my use of the term "fiduciary duty" is still 100% fine in this situation, since the use of term is not beholden to a purely legalistic interpretation."
TBH, I had to look the word up. Was looking for an argument, really. But, it seems that you are right, especially considering the fact that./ is an international community. Having expanded my understanding of the English language, I gotta give you points for making a good point.
Of course, that doesn't preclude any skanky ho comments!;^)
Actually, she had a lawyer. Apparently, neither she nor the lawyer thought to make a motion that would protect her anonymity. Or, if they did think of it, the motion was thrown out.
The fact of the matter is, the skanky ho shouldn't have made the blog posts if she wasn't willing to stand behind them. The skanky ho that she attacked was entirely within her rights to expose the blogger, and she was entirely within her rights to drop the case after she attained her goal.
I'm all for anyonymity, but a moron who doesn't know how to protect their own anonymity, and expects some corporation to do so for them, is just a moronic skanky ho. Charles Darwin would have something to say on the matter, I"m sure.
Sarcasm on: Good idea. Ayatollah Khameini should be able to look at a post that denigrates his government, and KNOW where to send the morality storm troopers. No way should he have to waste time with an IP lookup, or any silly court orders.
Anonymity may be abused, but it is still a necessity of life.
Metering system required, please read requirements carefully before submitting bid:
1. Must frustrate 100% users to level one (annoyance, moderate cursing) 2. Must frustrate 30% of users to level two (loud abusive cursing, and/or banging on meter device) 3. Must frustrate 10% of users to level three (violent behaviour and abuse chargeable as a misdemeanor) 4. Must frustrate at least.1% of users to level four (homicidal rage, preferably directed at passerby, but homicide of meter maids is acceptable)
Yep. In the US, the more you earn, the higher your tax bracket. Believe me, the first time I got a smaller paycheck after working more hours, I asked. My boss was happy to sit me down in front of his desk, to show me the charts published by the IRS, and how the payroll lady actually used them. If we were willing to work even MORE hours, I could have come out ahead again. After all these years, I can't remember exactly what those numbers were, but no one on the crew was willing to work that many hours.
Go into any payroll office. Create a fake account. Give him hourly wages that are at or just above the poverty level, make him single, tax him at the highest rates. Make this fake guy work 40 hours one week, 50 the next week, then 60 - just keep diddling with him to see how much he takes home.
Now, start all over again, and give him a raise instead of extra hours. He takes more home with a $1.00 raise than he does with 10 hours of overtime, because he isn't bumped from one tax bracket to another.
Slashdot Mirror
I can understand prioritizing some protocols, in the manner in which Wondershaper does on my own computer. Interactive web applications take priority - basically, browsing and gaming. Torrents and downloads are automagically throttled JUST ENOUGH to allow the interactive stuff to go through first.
The ISP's practice of throttling torrents to some arbitrary value that might be as low as 1% of capacity is BS.
The customer who starts a torrent early in the morning sees that his download rate should finish the torrent in 6 hours expects to see the torrent completed when he gets home. If it takes 6.5 or 7 hours, no big deal. 10 hours might be mildly annoying. But, if he gets home, and the client says that ETA is 1 week and 19 hours, there is a serious problem. Such arbitrary throttling should never take place.
Domatic's answer. ^
This installation of Ubuntu was a clean install of Intrepid - I just created a new partition on the largest physical hard drive, then imported files needed from pre-existing installations.
Anyway - I'm using the generic kernel. My few attempts at optimizing the kernel for my specific hardware have been failures. ;)
http://eeepc.asus.com/global/computing.html
http://event.asus.com/eeepc/comparison/eeepc_comparison.htm
The manufacturer's comparisons, and the explanation of those comparisons, do not seem to support your statement. Both operating systems are shutting down background services, including WIFI, dimming the display, etc, in a similar manner. The battery life charts don't show that XP gets as much extra battery life as suggested in TFA.
Apparently, ASUS is failing to configure something properly. One of the GP posts asks if the OS is using a tickless kernel. It's not clear to me yet whether ASUS is doing so. This is an issue to be taken up with the manufacturer, not with Linux.
Nice find. It would seem to me that the vendor has failed to configure Linux properly. As shown in above posts, there is nothing inherent to Linux that mandates a high power drain. I also note that the difference in battery life, while significant, doesn't approach the difference stated in TFA. It could be that Asus is NOT using the "tickless" optimization mentioned in posts above.
So - it is probably safe to say that Linux comes out on the short end of the stick due to lack of hardware (vendor) support.
guy@guy-desktop:~$ grep CONFIG_NO_HZ /boot/config-`uname -r`
CONFIG_NO_HZ=y
guy@guy-desktop:~$
That's Intrepid on a desktop. We're tickless by default, laptop or desktop.
The GP who asked if the kernel is tickless asked a valid question, but it's been turned into a FUD campaign by the Linux bashers.
I have no good working solution for compensating today's working artists. A lot of people are thinking about that, and some people are actually testing solutions to the problem. I will agree that the three weird kids in the basement down the street deserve something for their work, and bit-torrents don't give them a damned thing.
On the other hand - $22.50 ??? For what? Good group, good music, and well worth listening to - but it should be in the public domain by now.
As for the big-time commercial pirates - keelhaul them. I have no sympathy for the parasites. Do as you will with them. Copyright law, in it's original form, was aimed at people like that. P2P, on the other hand, profits no one. The "distibution" is incidental to downloading, and people are being raped in court over that obscure technicality. Torrenting has nothing in common with commercial piracy of content.
Oh, here, I'll be nice and supply you with the first link: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/8472
You're on your own, after this one. Bottom line, the corporate heads are thieves and sharks. Don't expect me to sympathize if some of their broadcast content is stolen.
Thanks for the info, Dave. Meanwhile, back to the claim I made, which got you so riled up.
Did DTV send not gain access to sales records of card programming machines, and then send extortion notices to everyone who had ever bought such a machine? Wasn't their assumption that anyone with said machine pirating DTV's shows? Extortion. I can find references, or you can look them up yourself.
In fact, the division in charge of extortion was more profitable for awhile than any other part of the company.
"1) Maybe its real user-base is not what it seems to be. As in Apple's iPhone userbase is not the guy with the shiny terminal but the telco subsidizing it. And"
And, who subsidizes the telco? Not the customers and taxpayers? This is a case of smoke and mirrors, because all of that money comes from the little people. What you are really exposing is the fact that multiple corporate heads are involved in manipulating the public, without regard for what the public wants.
Ohhhh-kay. It costs a couple million to put a satellite in orbit. And, all the rest of the infrastructure cost tremendous amounts of money, as well.
Are you trying to convince us that money all came from investors?
Aren't we forgetting that much of the infrastructure was subsidized by the government - that is, by our tax money? Aren't we forgetting that the job of connecting America still isn't finished? Instead, of putting internet into communities that might not be profitable, other more profitable communities have been criss-crossed multiple times with cable, DSL, wireless, and ever new-fangled technology that comes out.
A couple million dollars. Big deal. But, you're really off subject. Paying for music doesn't pay for infrastructure. RIAA doesn't pay for infrastructure, nor do any of the companies which they represent. So, if everyone on the planet suddenly stopped downloading "illegally", that wouldn't put one dime into the infrastructure.
Nice red herring, though.
Yes, I am perfectly serious. Let us compare a downloaded game or movie to sneaking into a theatre to watch a movie. Let us compare the Sony rootkit to wiretapping a huge segment of the population, chosen at random. Which is the greater crime? If you have to think for more than a second to answer that, then there is no point in discussing morality with you. A fitting punishment for the former would be a week of community service. A fitting punishment for the latter would be a decade in prison, and millions of dollars in fines.
Perhaps you object to my claims of extortion? What else can we call it? How about we look at DirectTV's tactics first. Anyone who purchased a doo-diddy to program a card was sent a notice that they were liable for hacking DTV's broadcast content. DTV collected MILLIONS of dollars from people who couldn't afford to a: hire legal representation b: travel to court c: take time off of work to travel to court d: spend significant time in court
RIAA used the exact same tactics to extort money from people who may or may not have been "guilty" of copyright infringement.
I am quite serious, in that the current laws are skewed, and that those skewed laws are being atrociously abused by corporate bigshots. That doesn't even address the fact that current copyright laws were bought and paid for with campaign contributions.
Fraud and corruption drives the profitability of a huge portion of the media providers. As long as that fraud and corruption is winked at by the government (all three branches of government) then I can justify Joe Sixpack stealing movies, music, or whatever the hell else he wants to steal.
If/when the laws are made just and rational, THEN I may get a little bit excited that some kid downloads (and uploads) some recording of yet another mediocre pair of mammary glands moaning about unrequited love.
You won't object if City Hall mandates that all entrances and exits are monitored, 24/7 then? Why stop there? Great Britain is going to install cameras into some targeted homes, to see that children go to bed on time, do their homework, etc.
Personally, I object to the concept of a police state.....
But - obnoxious teenagers will likely carry you to your grave, then divvy up the spoils afterward. ;^)
Hear them singing
I think that it's important to point out that "rights holders" are perfectly willing to break the law. Sony rootkits, RIAA's illegal "investigations", and more. Worse, the "rights holders" are intent on bending, folding, mutilating, and spindling the law. Today's copyright law is a horrid mutilation of the spirit of the law. I dare say that if the law were fair and equitable, there would be very few people actually ripping off the content found on the web. In fact, if the law were truly "just", I suspect that thieves would be turned in by parents, freinds, and associates. People actually respond to crimestoppers requests for information, after all.
You've got to admire any small group of people (short of murderers or terrorists) who have managed to thumb their noses at the powers that be, for so long, and so effectively. They might be geeky little bastards, but they are BALLSY geeky little bastards!!
Seriously? I am not real sure. It seems to me, on the one hand, that if someone is abusing me, I SHOULD be able to discover who the hell they are. Often enough, merely exposing the libelous bastard amounts to embarassment, which is a sort of punishment in and of itself. Using the courts in this manner doesn't seem terribly wrong.
But - we see how RIAA abuses the system. "We have 250 John Does using these addresses, and we want details on all of them"
Somewhere, a line must be drawn - but where? I'm not qualified to make that call - sorry.
"stockholder's investment is not covered by the customers but by the trade market which may or may not be related to the commercial success of a company."
I take it that this is a passing reference to the financial meltdown on Wall Street? Yes - I can see that the value of a corporation might be based on paper, rather than the commercial success of that company. That was exposed for all of us to see, quite clearly.
Bottom line, when the smoke and mirrors fail, every sumbitch in the company, from the floor sweeper to the high and mighty CEO depends on the customer base. The day you can't drag a customer through the front door (or, virtual front door in the information age) the company is failing.
While some of us are pointing at the various entities that manipulate public opinion, it is STILL the consumer's dollar that is at stake. So, once again - if the consumer prefers Google, let him have Google. Apple puts themselves into danger of anti-trust scrutiny when they start blocking competitors. Do they want to be the next Microsoft?
"falsely inflating the stock" and "outright fraud".
Seems to me that the former is a subset of the latter, no? Aren't all falsifications just fraud, when you cut through the legalese?
I came here to say the very same thing. I've read several articles on the case now. (Oddly, I've not yet read TFA, LOL)
Both Apple and Google ultimately work for the CUSTOMER. If the customer wants such and such, then the customer should get such and such - not what Jobs thinks is best for the customer, and not what Google thinks the customer wants. (Someone is going to pop off with the idea that Apple works for it's stockholders - allow me to quickly point out that the customer's dollars pay the stockholder's investment returns)
In this particular case, I think that the customer wants what Google is offering. It should be made available, so that the customer can vote with his dollars. I don't have any Mac products, but I do get tired of reading about Mac acting like a martinette, telling the world what is acceptable on their phones and computers.
Everyone should jailbreak their damned phones, and use them as they see fit. Everyone who paid for a phone has paid for that right.
"my use of the term "fiduciary duty" is still 100% fine in this situation, since the use of term is not beholden to a purely legalistic interpretation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary
TBH, I had to look the word up. Was looking for an argument, really. But, it seems that you are right, especially considering the fact that ./ is an international community. Having expanded my understanding of the English language, I gotta give you points for making a good point.
Of course, that doesn't preclude any skanky ho comments! ;^)
Actually, she had a lawyer. Apparently, neither she nor the lawyer thought to make a motion that would protect her anonymity. Or, if they did think of it, the motion was thrown out.
The fact of the matter is, the skanky ho shouldn't have made the blog posts if she wasn't willing to stand behind them. The skanky ho that she attacked was entirely within her rights to expose the blogger, and she was entirely within her rights to drop the case after she attained her goal.
I'm all for anyonymity, but a moron who doesn't know how to protect their own anonymity, and expects some corporation to do so for them, is just a moronic skanky ho. Charles Darwin would have something to say on the matter, I"m sure.
Sarcasm on: Good idea. Ayatollah Khameini should be able to look at a post that denigrates his government, and KNOW where to send the morality storm troopers. No way should he have to waste time with an IP lookup, or any silly court orders.
Anonymity may be abused, but it is still a necessity of life.
Metering system required, please read requirements carefully before submitting bid:
1. Must frustrate 100% users to level one (annoyance, moderate cursing) .1% of users to level four (homicidal rage, preferably directed at passerby, but homicide of meter maids is acceptable)
2. Must frustrate 30% of users to level two (loud abusive cursing, and/or banging on meter device)
3. Must frustrate 10% of users to level three (violent behaviour and abuse chargeable as a misdemeanor)
4. Must frustrate at least
Yep. In the US, the more you earn, the higher your tax bracket. Believe me, the first time I got a smaller paycheck after working more hours, I asked. My boss was happy to sit me down in front of his desk, to show me the charts published by the IRS, and how the payroll lady actually used them. If we were willing to work even MORE hours, I could have come out ahead again. After all these years, I can't remember exactly what those numbers were, but no one on the crew was willing to work that many hours.
Go into any payroll office. Create a fake account. Give him hourly wages that are at or just above the poverty level, make him single, tax him at the highest rates. Make this fake guy work 40 hours one week, 50 the next week, then 60 - just keep diddling with him to see how much he takes home.
Now, start all over again, and give him a raise instead of extra hours. He takes more home with a $1.00 raise than he does with 10 hours of overtime, because he isn't bumped from one tax bracket to another.
SpaceX is moving forward, without asking the government for money. http://www.spacex.com/