I find it pretty surprising that you will even be able to play DVD's at all. It seemed one of the most effective anti-piracy efforts of the Game Cube was the proprietary drive (media size, as well as reading the media from the outside track in). There just wasn't the ability to read standard media, pretty much gutting the piracy market.
We saw this same mistake with the dreamcast, sure they had their gigabyte disks, but their system was able to read standard CDs. In the end, people just burned their games to standard CDs.
I'm guessing there's no good reason for you to pay for it.
However, we live in a society, and if a majority of the people in that society decide that we should help people who need help then you don't have much of a choice. Just as I don't approve of MANY of the things our government spends money on.
I'm working under the assumption that we should help people who are unable to help themselves; and then trying to find efficient ways of doing that without wasting money or allowing people to cheat the system. If a majority of people in the society decide they don't want to help those who need it, then that's a whole different problem (in my mind).
So that should cover the "somebody think of the children" crowd. Beyond that, if you don't like what they are showing, don't watch their show/network. Last I checked, "having what you want on T.V" wasn't one of those inalienable rights from the constitution.
How about giving them opportunities to help themselves? A single parent has very little hope of ever working up the economic ladder.
I've recently become a parent myself, my wife goes to school (only one class a week, but it's a Doctorate program) and I work 40-45 hours a week; and it's nearly impossible to find the time between us to buy groceries, or clean, or do anything but care for the child and work.
I can't even imagine what it must be like for a single parent, but I'm sure they don't have any time for job training or education.
Helping out those in poverty doesn't have to mean writing them checks, or paying them to do nothing, despite what many politicians would have you believe. Programs that provide them with childcare or time to go to school can be far more valuable both to them and to society.
Or how about a program where you do write people checks, but only on the condition that they find a job, if they don't find a job within a certain amount of time, you are placed into a job, perhaps one partially subsidized by the government to encourage businesses to participate.
One of the (many) problems with our government is there are only two ideas to every issue, both of them bad. (i.e. screw the poor/just give the poor money)
Like I said, the article was pretty sparse on details. I was simply speculating. From what I can tell though, a Pennsylvania safety inspection isn't exactly a high standard, and seems to mostly check that the vehicle isn't falling apart, not that it passes any sort of front or side impact tests.
That's an interesting point! I know you can do low power transmissions without any license, but I don't have any idea how far these low power transmissions will carry a cell phone signal. I would think that it's enough to cover a concert hall, but really I have no idea.
The "On Demand" portion seems to be a hack. The paint does block the wireless signals. For you to "turn off" the paint though requires that you capture the wireless signals outside the protected area and then rebroadcast them inside.
One of the main reasons for the huge cost of traditional automobile prototypes is that they are nearly entirely custom. The side panels are made only for that car, as is the frame, and many other things. (Sure the big auto makers try to reuse many components, but that's another point)
This is not the case here. Here they are using off the shelf components to assemble a custom car. Most of these components are produced in enough quantities that you won't see the same cost savings when moving from prototype to production. Sure there will still be some, but in this case it would be nowhere near a factor of ten.
Once again, are we seeing the fabled instance of revolutionary technology coming not from the big corporations, but from some unlikely garage.
No. While this is an amazing thing for these kids to do, I'm sure it's far from revolutionary. The article is pretty sparse on details, but it sounds like they just pieced it together. So probably the reason for the great acceleration and fuel mileage is that it's super light from missing a bunch of important things, such as safety.
Those solar powered vehicles are great, infinite mpg, but if you turn too sharply you're sure to splatter yourself on the pavement which is one of the reasons everybody isn't driving one, not because the big oil companies won't let you (although I'm sure they prefer that you don't)
"The [submitted arguments in favor of granting exemptions to the DMCA] provide no arguments or legal authority that making back up copies of CDs is a noninfringing use. In addition, the submissions provide no evidence that access controls are currently preventing them from making back up copies of CDs or that they are likely to do so in the future."
Not that I'm a fan of the RIAA, but is what they are saying true? Do the arguments in favor of granting exemptions to the DMCA not list the legal precedents for making back up copies? And do they fail to provide evidence that access controls are preventing people from making back up copies?
Note that they are not saying that "there is no law that gives you permission to make back up copies" they are just saying that the arguments made by the other side don't list any laws.
If what the RIAA says is true then I support them, you can't just go in and make blanket claims in an argument to change a law, you have to back those claims up, with like evidence and stuff.
Peering is typically done when both parties will be dumping about the same amount of traffic onto each other's network. Since Google probably sends a lot more data than it receives, it doesn't seem likely that anybody would peer with them for free.
Sure there might be some business sense in it for Verizon since their customers would get faster access to Google, but I highly doubt this outweighs the huge bill they could be giving to Google each month instead.
Could you explain that further? All of our machines have both a computer and a user certificate, but we still don't get wireless access until the user logs in.
Is what you're talking about done automatically by Windows XP SP2? That is my only guess, since all of our clients use the Intel Pro Set software to connect through WPA, I'm guessing it would be impossible to have them connect before the user logs in, since the Intel util won't be loaded.
If they charged a flat price, they'd need to charge a lot more to make the same amount of revenue. So somebody using it with 5 clients would pay $10,000 as would the person using it with 500 clients.
Does that seem like a better system to you? Well, probably if you're the guy using the 500 clients.
An important point to note about Microsoft Server CAL's, as long as each user (or device) has a CAL, you can add as many servers as you want (for the base cost of a server). So if you have one server and 20 CAL's, and you need to purchase a second server, you only need to pay the ~$600 for the Server software, all the clients are covered by CAL's already.
The tools may be good; the huge problem preventing me from moving to PostgreSQL is the last of Master/Master replication. I looked about a month ago and the best I could find were a few projects that look like they had been abandoned.
Registry Keys have ACL's. But they have the same exact problem as file system ACL's; everybody's running as administrator so it doesn't matter how the ACL's are set.
HKEY_CURRENT_USER is a hive loaded from the NTUSER.DAT file in the user's profile directory. Copy that and you can copy all the settings, probably more settings than you want though. It works for the most part, but it's not a good solution.
The whole idea of charging more for people just to utilize the hardware they bought is outrageous. It's like charging someone more for gas, just because they are driving a Porsche.
Those situations are actually very dissimilar. Analogies should be used to take a complicated situation and make it understandable, not to take an understandable situation and make it a slightly different situation.
With a gas purchase you are buying a tangible product, it makes sense to charge what it costs to produce it.
With a processor license, it's easy to determine the cost to produce it. But you're not selling just one, so you've got to guess how many people are going to buy it and what its worth to different groups of people. Obviously the same piece of software is worth more to somebody using it in a large cluster environment than it is to somebody with a single processor.
So the best way to make back your costs is to charge each group what its worth to them.
I didn't say I disagree with processor licensing on a whole, just one part of Microsoft's wording.
Per Processor licensing is a valid way of charging more from people who are going to be using the product in situation where the product is likely worth more to them.
It would be far more unfair if they charged one base price for the software and you could run it on as many processors as you want because then the base price would have to be higher to make up that revenue. This would hurt small businesses that may need some of the more advanced features, but are not going to be using the product in a high volume environment.
This is true, but so is the opposite situation (which is probably more likely a situation).
If you have a four CPU server running 6 virtual OS's, if you only want SQL Server on one of those OS's you only need one copy, where as before if you wanted it on 1 you had to buy four copies.
Just a side note that although you can set SQL Server to run on only one processor, if the machine has two processors you are required to buy two processor licenses. At least under the old system. I'm not sure if this new system covers that situation or not. I don't think any of our SQL Server boxes have dual processors, but I certainly wouldn't pay for two licenses unless I was running it on both processors.
I somehow doubt this licensing applies to "virtual" processors in a standard server (not a virtual machine), at least that was the stance they had taken previously.
The proper use of an analogy is to take a complicated situation and make it understandable, not to take an understandable situation and make it a slightly different (but better suited to your purpose) situation.
Unfortunately this distinction is frequently lost in Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it pretty surprising that you will even be able to play DVD's at all. It seemed one of the most effective anti-piracy efforts of the Game Cube was the proprietary drive (media size, as well as reading the media from the outside track in). There just wasn't the ability to read standard media, pretty much gutting the piracy market.
We saw this same mistake with the dreamcast, sure they had their gigabyte disks, but their system was able to read standard CDs. In the end, people just burned their games to standard CDs.
I'm guessing there's no good reason for you to pay for it.
However, we live in a society, and if a majority of the people in that society decide that we should help people who need help then you don't have much of a choice. Just as I don't approve of MANY of the things our government spends money on.
I'm working under the assumption that we should help people who are unable to help themselves; and then trying to find efficient ways of doing that without wasting money or allowing people to cheat the system. If a majority of people in the society decide they don't want to help those who need it, then that's a whole different problem (in my mind).
Isn't this why we have the damned V-chip?
So that should cover the "somebody think of the children" crowd. Beyond that, if you don't like what they are showing, don't watch their show/network. Last I checked, "having what you want on T.V" wasn't one of those inalienable rights from the constitution.
How about giving them opportunities to help themselves? A single parent has very little hope of ever working up the economic ladder.
I've recently become a parent myself, my wife goes to school (only one class a week, but it's a Doctorate program) and I work 40-45 hours a week; and it's nearly impossible to find the time between us to buy groceries, or clean, or do anything but care for the child and work.
I can't even imagine what it must be like for a single parent, but I'm sure they don't have any time for job training or education.
Helping out those in poverty doesn't have to mean writing them checks, or paying them to do nothing, despite what many politicians would have you believe. Programs that provide them with childcare or time to go to school can be far more valuable both to them and to society.
Or how about a program where you do write people checks, but only on the condition that they find a job, if they don't find a job within a certain amount of time, you are placed into a job, perhaps one partially subsidized by the government to encourage businesses to participate.
One of the (many) problems with our government is there are only two ideas to every issue, both of them bad. (i.e. screw the poor/just give the poor money)
Ok, if it's not wrong then it's extremely speculative, you can't assume all markets will move the same amount.
Come on, it's in the first sentence of the article. 40 percent of the 23 billion dollars in total sales was in the US, not 40 percent of the decline.
A misleading summary, here on slashdot, I'm as shocked as the rest of you...
Like I said, the article was pretty sparse on details. I was simply speculating. From what I can tell though, a Pennsylvania safety inspection isn't exactly a high standard, and seems to mostly check that the vehicle isn't falling apart, not that it passes any sort of front or side impact tests.
That's an interesting point! I know you can do low power transmissions without any license, but I don't have any idea how far these low power transmissions will carry a cell phone signal. I would think that it's enough to cover a concert hall, but really I have no idea.
The "On Demand" portion seems to be a hack. The paint does block the wireless signals. For you to "turn off" the paint though requires that you capture the wireless signals outside the protected area and then rebroadcast them inside.
Not exactly "On Demand".
One of the main reasons for the huge cost of traditional automobile prototypes is that they are nearly entirely custom. The side panels are made only for that car, as is the frame, and many other things. (Sure the big auto makers try to reuse many components, but that's another point)
This is not the case here. Here they are using off the shelf components to assemble a custom car. Most of these components are produced in enough quantities that you won't see the same cost savings when moving from prototype to production. Sure there will still be some, but in this case it would be nowhere near a factor of ten.
No. While this is an amazing thing for these kids to do, I'm sure it's far from revolutionary. The article is pretty sparse on details, but it sounds like they just pieced it together. So probably the reason for the great acceleration and fuel mileage is that it's super light from missing a bunch of important things, such as safety.
Those solar powered vehicles are great, infinite mpg, but if you turn too sharply you're sure to splatter yourself on the pavement which is one of the reasons everybody isn't driving one, not because the big oil companies won't let you (although I'm sure they prefer that you don't)
Not that I'm a fan of the RIAA, but is what they are saying true? Do the arguments in favor of granting exemptions to the DMCA not list the legal precedents for making back up copies? And do they fail to provide evidence that access controls are preventing people from making back up copies?
Note that they are not saying that "there is no law that gives you permission to make back up copies" they are just saying that the arguments made by the other side don't list any laws.
If what the RIAA says is true then I support them, you can't just go in and make blanket claims in an argument to change a law, you have to back those claims up, with like evidence and stuff.
Peering is typically done when both parties will be dumping about the same amount of traffic onto each other's network. Since Google probably sends a lot more data than it receives, it doesn't seem likely that anybody would peer with them for free.
Sure there might be some business sense in it for Verizon since their customers would get faster access to Google, but I highly doubt this outweighs the huge bill they could be giving to Google each month instead.
Could you explain that further? All of our machines have both a computer and a user certificate, but we still don't get wireless access until the user logs in.
Is what you're talking about done automatically by Windows XP SP2? That is my only guess, since all of our clients use the Intel Pro Set software to connect through WPA, I'm guessing it would be impossible to have them connect before the user logs in, since the Intel util won't be loaded.
Better yet... Why would she be getting rounded if she were bulimic?
I'm guessing that would be rounding *down*
If they charged a flat price, they'd need to charge a lot more to make the same amount of revenue. So somebody using it with 5 clients would pay $10,000 as would the person using it with 500 clients.
Does that seem like a better system to you? Well, probably if you're the guy using the 500 clients.
An important point to note about Microsoft Server CAL's, as long as each user (or device) has a CAL, you can add as many servers as you want (for the base cost of a server). So if you have one server and 20 CAL's, and you need to purchase a second server, you only need to pay the ~$600 for the Server software, all the clients are covered by CAL's already.
So here's my question, since the device is a big dish that looks to be external, how difficult is it just to shoot the damn thing?
The tools may be good; the huge problem preventing me from moving to PostgreSQL is the last of Master/Master replication. I looked about a month ago and the best I could find were a few projects that look like they had been abandoned.
Registry Keys have ACL's. But they have the same exact problem as file system ACL's; everybody's running as administrator so it doesn't matter how the ACL's are set.
HKEY_CURRENT_USER is a hive loaded from the NTUSER.DAT file in the user's profile directory. Copy that and you can copy all the settings, probably more settings than you want though. It works for the most part, but it's not a good solution.
The whole idea of charging more for people just to utilize the hardware they bought is outrageous. It's like charging someone more for gas, just because they are driving a Porsche.
Those situations are actually very dissimilar. Analogies should be used to take a complicated situation and make it understandable, not to take an understandable situation and make it a slightly different situation.
With a gas purchase you are buying a tangible product, it makes sense to charge what it costs to produce it.
With a processor license, it's easy to determine the cost to produce it. But you're not selling just one, so you've got to guess how many people are going to buy it and what its worth to different groups of people. Obviously the same piece of software is worth more to somebody using it in a large cluster environment than it is to somebody with a single processor.
So the best way to make back your costs is to charge each group what its worth to them.
I didn't say I disagree with processor licensing on a whole, just one part of Microsoft's wording.
Per Processor licensing is a valid way of charging more from people who are going to be using the product in situation where the product is likely worth more to them.
It would be far more unfair if they charged one base price for the software and you could run it on as many processors as you want because then the base price would have to be higher to make up that revenue. This would hurt small businesses that may need some of the more advanced features, but are not going to be using the product in a high volume environment.
This is true, but so is the opposite situation (which is probably more likely a situation).
If you have a four CPU server running 6 virtual OS's, if you only want SQL Server on one of those OS's you only need one copy, where as before if you wanted it on 1 you had to buy four copies.
Just a side note that although you can set SQL Server to run on only one processor, if the machine has two processors you are required to buy two processor licenses. At least under the old system. I'm not sure if this new system covers that situation or not. I don't think any of our SQL Server boxes have dual processors, but I certainly wouldn't pay for two licenses unless I was running it on both processors.
I somehow doubt this licensing applies to "virtual" processors in a standard server (not a virtual machine), at least that was the stance they had taken previously.
The proper use of an analogy is to take a complicated situation and make it understandable, not to take an understandable situation and make it a slightly different (but better suited to your purpose) situation.
Unfortunately this distinction is frequently lost in Slashdot.