It's different to HBO in that you don't get HBO unless you specifically request it. It's also different to a lot of networks, local and educational programming in that the FCC doesn't require ESPN to be carried as it does with many channels.
You shouldn't. However, to contrast with my other posts, larger channels and networks with enough sway to do such things have actively resisted being placed in an a la carte situation in order to make sure that people who don't want it are still paying for it. "You either put is in the standard package that reaches 95% of your subscribers or you don't get us at all".
So I'm not sure how this idea will actually go anywhere.
And this is no doubt the driving force. Most people have a select few channels they would actually watch and pay for. Now that there are alternatives to subscribing to ridiculous $100/mo. bundles just to get the few channels you want, cable operators are going to have to subdivide their offerings to regain those customers who are leaving for more attractive alternatives.
Yeah, 2TB would take too long to read/write at even at USB 3.0 speeds, so we should even bother being excited about the idea of a high-capacity, fast, small form factor removable storage device. Because everyone who will use it will always read or write a full 2TB at a time.
These drives were likely part of various RAID volumes. Doesn't that mean they're pretty well useless outside their hosts? Is someone really going to go to the level of forensic data recovery to elevate from property theft to identity theft? That stuff isn't cheap, so the ROI is probably going to be really low.
Instead of instructing BT to block traffic to a site which doesn't actually provide any copyrighted materials, why would they not instruct BT to instead block the sites which DO? If "A" provides links to "Z", and Z is the offender, blocking traffic to A will only inevitably result in "B" being created, which also points to Z. And then they have to come back and block B. And so the cycle goes, when they could go right to the source.
It'll be a bit before relative performance numbers are out, but I can tell you that, unless you've go the world's only MXM desktop motherboard, you're not going to be putting this mobile GPU into your desktop.
There are people that buy stuff like this just to say they have it, so they can go around on interwebforums posting their synthetic benchmark results and bragging about it.
Some of them will probably never actually play a game with it.
To exacerbate your innate frustration with only being able to hear one side of the conversation. That's right - the fault is yours for listening in the first place.:)
Maybe not quite as modular and able to be disassembled as what the they're going for in the article, there is at least one manufacturer called Clevo out there making barebones, totally upgradable laptops at the premium level. Granted they use mobile components, but CPU and GPU are discrete, up to 3 hdds and 4 sticks of ram in some cases, a mini pcie slot, etc.
They actually offer one that allows you to use desktop i7 processors.
"How would you know? His/her price for entertainment might be a lot lower than yours."
Of course - that's why I prefaced my comment by saying it's entirely subjective. The fact that he complains about the price caused me to infer that he values it to be quite low. I can understand that - if he believes its entertainment value is low, he wouldn't want to pay much for it. But that seems to be at odds with his desire to pirate it. If he's already, by my assumption, classified it as being of low entertainment value due to his desire to pay a low price for it (or just not pay a higher price for it), why would he waste his time with pirating it? If he's willing to go to the effort (albeit very low these days due to how easy it is to pirate things) to pirate it, obviously it's worth a little more to him than he's letting on. I know I don't "waste my precious time" engaging in activities I believe to be of low entertainment value.
So my final assessment was that it's of a greater entertainment value than he leads on, but that he's simply not willing to pay the higher price that he is unknowing placing on it by bothering to pirate it. That's where the bit about the fair price came from - the higher price that he unknowingly placed on it which he's not willing to pay.
This is, of course, entirely subjective. Either that, or entirely inaccurate.
Why would would want to waste your time watching something which, according to you, is only $5 worth of entertainment? Maybe because you're actually getting more than $5 worth of enjoyment out of it? And if that's the case, what do you have against paying a fair price for something?
I just want to see my PS3 play PS3 games, connect to netflix, and play any movies/music I have on my Windows network without having to setup a DLNA server and transcode (i.e.: let me install the codecs).
People seem to be saying "big whoop - they just invalidate the private key for use with anything but list of titles which which they know it was signed". But did I hear him say in that video that it's possible also to calculate more private keys that are totally indistinguishable from original? Meaning that would do nothing at all to resolve that problem?
Slashdot Mirror
It's different to HBO in that you don't get HBO unless you specifically request it. It's also different to a lot of networks, local and educational programming in that the FCC doesn't require ESPN to be carried as it does with many channels.
You shouldn't. However, to contrast with my other posts, larger channels and networks with enough sway to do such things have actively resisted being placed in an a la carte situation in order to make sure that people who don't want it are still paying for it. "You either put is in the standard package that reaches 95% of your subscribers or you don't get us at all".
So I'm not sure how this idea will actually go anywhere.
And this is no doubt the driving force. Most people have a select few channels they would actually watch and pay for. Now that there are alternatives to subscribing to ridiculous $100/mo. bundles just to get the few channels you want, cable operators are going to have to subdivide their offerings to regain those customers who are leaving for more attractive alternatives.
ESPN, for example, is watched by 10%-15% of subscribers in any market. Yet every last customer pays for it.
When you can read, digest and comprehend the same thing in a time much quicker than 1 minute and 24 seconds, why would you want to?
A transcript doesn't really do any harm when you already understand that the context of the conversation was two bots talking to each other.
But does Cleverbot work by putting two monitors side-by-side to somehow allow them to interact with one another?
Doesn't seem entirely cromulent to me.
Yeah, 2TB would take too long to read/write at even at USB 3.0 speeds, so we should even bother being excited about the idea of a high-capacity, fast, small form factor removable storage device. Because everyone who will use it will always read or write a full 2TB at a time.
I'm just going to format it and reinstall the OS anyway. OEM probably puts as much, if not more, junk on there than Best Buy.
These drives were likely part of various RAID volumes. Doesn't that mean they're pretty well useless outside their hosts? Is someone really going to go to the level of forensic data recovery to elevate from property theft to identity theft? That stuff isn't cheap, so the ROI is probably going to be really low.
Instead of instructing BT to block traffic to a site which doesn't actually provide any copyrighted materials, why would they not instruct BT to instead block the sites which DO? If "A" provides links to "Z", and Z is the offender, blocking traffic to A will only inevitably result in "B" being created, which also points to Z. And then they have to come back and block B. And so the cycle goes, when they could go right to the source.
It'll be a bit before relative performance numbers are out, but I can tell you that, unless you've go the world's only MXM desktop motherboard, you're not going to be putting this mobile GPU into your desktop.
Donald Trump is hard at work on this.
My bet is they're not contracting with a detection agency whose aim is to "appear to detect ghosts". So it's still possible for them to be scammed.
There are people that buy stuff like this just to say they have it, so they can go around on interwebforums posting their synthetic benchmark results and bragging about it.
Some of them will probably never actually play a game with it.
Not only that, it will probably get a die shrink and only require 250w
Or, he'll still have it in 5 years because his needs didn't require a $700 video card in the first place.
Sorry, but a GPS jammer won't help you with 66% of those problems.
To exacerbate your innate frustration with only being able to hear one side of the conversation. That's right - the fault is yours for listening in the first place. :)
Maybe not quite as modular and able to be disassembled as what the they're going for in the article, there is at least one manufacturer called Clevo out there making barebones, totally upgradable laptops at the premium level. Granted they use mobile components, but CPU and GPU are discrete, up to 3 hdds and 4 sticks of ram in some cases, a mini pcie slot, etc.
They actually offer one that allows you to use desktop i7 processors.
"How would you know? His/her price for entertainment might be a lot lower than yours."
Of course - that's why I prefaced my comment by saying it's entirely subjective. The fact that he complains about the price caused me to infer that he values it to be quite low. I can understand that - if he believes its entertainment value is low, he wouldn't want to pay much for it. But that seems to be at odds with his desire to pirate it. If he's already, by my assumption, classified it as being of low entertainment value due to his desire to pay a low price for it (or just not pay a higher price for it), why would he waste his time with pirating it? If he's willing to go to the effort (albeit very low these days due to how easy it is to pirate things) to pirate it, obviously it's worth a little more to him than he's letting on. I know I don't "waste my precious time" engaging in activities I believe to be of low entertainment value.
So my final assessment was that it's of a greater entertainment value than he leads on, but that he's simply not willing to pay the higher price that he is unknowing placing on it by bothering to pirate it. That's where the bit about the fair price came from - the higher price that he unknowingly placed on it which he's not willing to pay.
This is, of course, entirely subjective. Either that, or entirely inaccurate.
Why would would want to waste your time watching something which, according to you, is only $5 worth of entertainment? Maybe because you're actually getting more than $5 worth of enjoyment out of it? And if that's the case, what do you have against paying a fair price for something?
I just want to see my PS3 play PS3 games, connect to netflix, and play any movies/music I have on my Windows network without having to setup a DLNA server and transcode (i.e.: let me install the codecs).
People seem to be saying "big whoop - they just invalidate the private key for use with anything but list of titles which which they know it was signed". But did I hear him say in that video that it's possible also to calculate more private keys that are totally indistinguishable from original? Meaning that would do nothing at all to resolve that problem?
Keep looking. You're bound to eventually find someone who can appreciate a 2 1/2" Wang.
Oh, yeah. I guess you can tell that my math scores might have been better than my reading comprehension scores.
Disregard.