Realistically, if DLC didn't exist then that day-one DLC just would never have been developed at all. It's a myth that the developers would have made the game better or longer if not for DLC. Developers/publishers get to choose how much development effort to put into a game and if their revenue is capped at $60 for all time then they'll just develop less content.
What good does terminating the contract do you? Then you have no Internet access. Also, the old version of the TOS from ten years ago probably still says they can do anything to you, so avoiding new versions of the TOS doesn't seem to help much either.
There are costs on both sides. The *AA are paying DtecNet to send the strikes in the first place, and if you appeal it will cost them more than $35 to put together the paperwork to argue with you.
Sooner or later, the ISPs will be obliged to use the same 'state of the art' as Google and others.
That's a decent argument, although I am skeptical that anyone will be willing to pay for it. My complaint is just that your comment wasn't labeled as speculation and thus is likely to mislead people into thinking that six strikes already works that way.
Fortunately or unfortunately, only agents of the *AA can report infringement. The system cannot be turned against itself. Arguably this is unfair to all copyright holders who are not part of the *AA, but the flip side is that you can pirate non-AA content with impunity.
Fortunately DtecNet can't see what Usenet providers you're connecting to. Oh wait, you don't have any idea how the six strikes system works and even if you did you'd just spout conspiracy theories anyway.
Counting bytes is just as easy as counting packets, so I don't know why you assume they can do one but not the other. When counting bytes there's no need to consider packet size at all.
If ISPs refused to implement six strikes, the MPAA probably would have bought a new super-DMCA law that was even worse. Industries generally prefer self-regulation over government regulation because Congress is a bit of a wild card.
The ATCA demands to know why you want yet another blade server standard.
I demand to know why every ATCA blade is crazy expensive. Oh yeah, because they're telco and Facebook can't afford to overpay for carrier-grade reliability they don't need.
I think the 42U rack height comes from the standard 7-foot door/elevator height. Some datacenters definitely have custom tall racks already, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more of that in the future.
The only thing that makes sense is that everything is on the daughterboard and the "motherboard" is basically a passive PCIe backplane (with very little bandwidth). This kind of architecture has been used in telco and embedded systems for decades.
You're allowed to use the open wifi defense one time. (And you have to pay $35 to defend yourself, which pirates are too cheap to do.) After that it's assumed that you learned how to secure it.
Fortunately there are specific laws saying that your money is still yours when you store it in a bank. But apparently the DOJ thinks that the same principle doesn't apply to data unless there's a law specifically saying so.
I'm not familiar with phone technology, but codecs (which came up in the Moto-MS case) are indeed licensed as a fixed fee per unit. AFAIK this is considered FRAND.
you shouldn't need to "possess" a "real" Bitcoin in order to spend one.
Bitcoin is for crypto-goldbugs who don't believe in fractional reserve, so yeah, you need to have BTC before you can spend it. There's also no point in putting BTC in a bank since the "banks" aren't insured and don't pay interest (the ones that claim to pay interest are scams).
Slashdot Mirror
Realistically, if DLC didn't exist then that day-one DLC just would never have been developed at all. It's a myth that the developers would have made the game better or longer if not for DLC. Developers/publishers get to choose how much development effort to put into a game and if their revenue is capped at $60 for all time then they'll just develop less content.
What good does terminating the contract do you? Then you have no Internet access. Also, the old version of the TOS from ten years ago probably still says they can do anything to you, so avoiding new versions of the TOS doesn't seem to help much either.
The burden of proof lies with you to prove that you didn't download it, 'cause it sure looks to them like you did.
In the courts I think the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
It's not like they're going to confiscate your computer to do a forensics investigation on it to prove you're guilty...
AFAIK that is exactly what they tend to do.
Your ISP's TOS says they can do anything to you.
There are costs on both sides. The *AA are paying DtecNet to send the strikes in the first place, and if you appeal it will cost them more than $35 to put together the paperwork to argue with you.
Sooner or later, the ISPs will be obliged to use the same 'state of the art' as Google and others.
That's a decent argument, although I am skeptical that anyone will be willing to pay for it. My complaint is just that your comment wasn't labeled as speculation and thus is likely to mislead people into thinking that six strikes already works that way.
Fortunately or unfortunately, only agents of the *AA can report infringement. The system cannot be turned against itself. Arguably this is unfair to all copyright holders who are not part of the *AA, but the flip side is that you can pirate non-AA content with impunity.
Six strikes doesn't use DPI, but I'm sure you enjoyed coming up with that elaborate fantasy about how to evade DPI.
Fortunately DtecNet can't see what Usenet providers you're connecting to. Oh wait, you don't have any idea how the six strikes system works and even if you did you'd just spout conspiracy theories anyway.
Why would they bust you for downloading Linux? Do you have any idea how the system works?
Counting bytes is just as easy as counting packets, so I don't know why you assume they can do one but not the other. When counting bytes there's no need to consider packet size at all.
If ISPs refused to implement six strikes, the MPAA probably would have bought a new super-DMCA law that was even worse. Industries generally prefer self-regulation over government regulation because Congress is a bit of a wild card.
Time Warner Cable actually split from Time Warner recently, so they're not related.
It's not any different from blades. Actually group hug is not hotswap, so it's worse than blades but probably cheaper.
The ATCA demands to know why you want yet another blade server standard.
I demand to know why every ATCA blade is crazy expensive. Oh yeah, because they're telco and Facebook can't afford to overpay for carrier-grade reliability they don't need.
though ARM has video as SoC as a matter of course, Intel and AMD server chips do not have Video on package... yet....
Then what are these AMD APU's?
APUs are not server chips. And the server ARMs don't have video either.
I think the 42U rack height comes from the standard 7-foot door/elevator height. Some datacenters definitely have custom tall racks already, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more of that in the future.
Nah, they just put the BIOS on the same daughterboard as the CPU.
The only thing that makes sense is that everything is on the daughterboard and the "motherboard" is basically a passive PCIe backplane (with very little bandwidth). This kind of architecture has been used in telco and embedded systems for decades.
You're allowed to use the open wifi defense one time. (And you have to pay $35 to defend yourself, which pirates are too cheap to do.) After that it's assumed that you learned how to secure it.
Fortunately there are specific laws saying that your money is still yours when you store it in a bank. But apparently the DOJ thinks that the same principle doesn't apply to data unless there's a law specifically saying so.
I'm not familiar with phone technology, but codecs (which came up in the Moto-MS case) are indeed licensed as a fixed fee per unit. AFAIK this is considered FRAND.
Moto's patents may be legit, but they're asking a very high price for them. If 50 companies each ask for 2.25% royalties, it doesn't leave much...
TI has no modern fabs; they decided to get out of the fab business a few years ago.
you shouldn't need to "possess" a "real" Bitcoin in order to spend one.
Bitcoin is for crypto-goldbugs who don't believe in fractional reserve, so yeah, you need to have BTC before you can spend it. There's also no point in putting BTC in a bank since the "banks" aren't insured and don't pay interest (the ones that claim to pay interest are scams).