https://buy.louisck.net/
Louis C.K. made a comedy special by himself for distribution entirely online with no DRM (aside from having a reasonable download limit to prevent bandwidth abuse), and he's asking $5 for it. I first torrented it. I liked it, and I support him as a comedian; so I bought it (And at that price? How can you not?), showed it to several of my friends, and they all bought it too. You might think he's made no profit, but in 12 days, he made over 1 million dollars. And that was over a month ago. Who knows how much more he's made since then. Sounds like he's got it figured out pretty well.
There should be an option to encrypt the Recovery images in a similar fashion to what TrueCrypt does. Then, when you go to "refresh" your system, you have to enter your encryption password.
For added security, Windows 8 could allow you to make a bootable recovery USB. Then you can just make your recovery USB stick, and throw it in a drawer somewhere. Then when your computer gets infected all to hell, just plug in your recovery stick, boot to it, and then let the USB reinstall the image you made. That way, there's no possible way that malware can still be present on your refreshed install unless it was already there when you made your image, or if you plugged the USB into a booted, infected machine.
It's nice to see more and more manufacturers providing the option for customers unlock the bootloaders for their Android devices, but does it really have to void the warranty? I mean, can't they determine if a failure was a direct result of unlocking the bootloader? If you unlock your phone's bootloader and then brick your phone trying to install some weird crap, then it's clearly your fault and shouldn't be covered by your warranty, but if your screen dies or your battery explodes, it probably has nothing to do with whether or not you unlocked the device's bootloader.
Exactly. And, WHY did it reduce piracy? Was it truly because of the highly restrictive DRM making it "harder" for pirates? Or was it because not even pirates decided the game was worth the trouble, let alone the average gamer? I know I certainly didn't (and won't) buy any Ubisoft games. And EA is next on my list of "publishers not to give money to."
Who said your router has to keep logs? I'm pretty sure I've disabled that lovely little gem.
Also, I find it good practice to spoof the MAC address of every computer that connects to the network.
In other news, scientists in Kansas have completed an experiment and determined that water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, is a liquid at room temperature, and that water is, in fact, wet. We can only ponder the implications this has for the human race and life on Earth.
I don't care about SYSmark telling me whether any given Intel CPU is better than any given AMD CPU or vice versa. What I really care about is finding out if the newly released Intel/AMD [insert arbitrary name here] CPU/GPU is truly better than the old Intel/AMD [insert arbitrary name here] CPU/GPU. By the time I get to the point of looking into concrete numbers from benchmarks, I've already decided whether I'm going to get an AMD or an Intel processor. The real problem that I have with all this benchmarking crap is why these manufacturers don't just provide us with coherent naming schemes for their CPU's (and GPU's too) so we as customers can fully understand the product they're trying to sell us.
Now if they could figure out how to let me take my phone anywhere, i.e. a cell phone, and keep the same service, features, and prices, we could finally have a cell phone carrier in the U.S. worth having.
I guess no one bothered to look in the options when they created their Google Profile and uncheck the "Make my profile visible to search" box. Don't blame Google for your own misdoings.
I would imagine that by 2015, the mining for bitcoin will have slowed quite a bit. But, by then it should have hopefully gained enough popularity that it can function as just a p2p economy.
Either the network strength has significantly increased in the past week, or one of those two sites shouldn't be trusted. Your source looks more reliable.
Ok, yes, but the difficulty would increase for everyone mining as well. Last I checked, the entire bitcoin network had a mining strength of 1,747 Ghash/s. The Kraken alone has about 367 Ghash/s. That's 21% of the entire network. With all that power coming into the network at once, you're still bound to make a TON of bitcoins, because you're essentially taking a substantially large portion of bitcoins from other miners. I did neglect to factor in the scaling of difficulty (and that's why I said it was a rough calculation. Maybe I should've emphasized "rough" more), so you may not make as much as 1,511.61 BTC/day, but you're still going to make quite a bit (no pun intended).
I did some rough calculations regarding NICS's Kraken Cray XT5 and bitcoin mining. FYI, The Kraken was the 8th fastest supercomputer in Novermber of 2010. I determined that if the supercomputer put forth all of it's resources to mine bitcoins, it could generate 1,511.61 per day (or about $8,450.53/day). Granted, the Kraken has just regular CPU's doing the calculations. I could only imagine what a Cray supercomputer with GPU's in it would be capable of...
won't (initially) be susceptible to viruses and malware
Well, now, I wouldn't speak too soon. There will undoubtedly be a beta release or a leak which will give malware authors ample time to develop zero-day viruses. And with Windows 8 exploring very different terrain this time around, there's bound to be a plethora of exploits just waiting for someone to coax them out of hiding (or plain sight).
Ok, I see those numbers. I can comprehend them. I understand that Firefox may be technically "faster," but at what cost? I'd like to see a benchmark that measures UI responsiveness. Because, I don't know about you, but I'm OK with sacrificing a few milliseconds of rendering speeds if it means that I get a faster, responsive UI.
As a test, I ran the Kraken javascript benchmark on Chrome 12.0.712.0 with extensions and about 10 tabs open and a clean install of Firefox 4.0 with a single tab open. I was still able to load new tabs and browse to other sites smoothly on Chrome, whereas Firefox began behaving extremely sluggishly. Because of this, Chrome felt like it was going faster even when Firefox completed the benchmark about 100ms faster. Isn't that all that really matters? If I feel like my browser is going faster than another, then I don't care that it's actually going slower, and I doubt that most other users would care either.
Firefox has better memory usage than Chrome? Yes, to an extent.
Firefox has better performance than Chrome? No, absolutely not.
Fact is, memory is cheap these days. I'd be willing to sacrifice an extra 500MB~1GB of memory to have a fast, smooth browsing experience. Chrome gives me that and with out memory leaks. I can keep an extension loaded Chrome open for about a week until I start noticing that it's leaking memory. I can't keep a clean install of Firefox open for more than a day without a memory leak.
Face it people. Firefox is like your grandmother's basement and Chrome is like a beach-side mansion.
Firefox might take up a smaller space, but it's dank and pipes are leaking everywhere.
Chrome is a bit more taxing, but your overall experience is going to be better.
Haha. Well, my demo isn't going to be anything too special. Sure, the songs mean stuff to me, but it's not the overall sound I'm looking for in the long run. It's just something to get some attention and maybe get my name out there so that I may progress further.
And referring to the "blank tapes," if I get my way, my band's stance on piracy will be lax. We'd probably even end up releasing a few free albums. In fact, I know how Waters feels about this whole just buying a single song thing. In my opinion, I'd rather someone pirate my whole album instead of buying just one song. They'd get a better experience that way, and that's what artists should want. Make music to make others happy, not to make money:P
I really hope that the labels haven't lost sight of the potential this kind of music has.
I really hope they haven't either. I play music and Pink Floyd is a HUGE influence to me. You just don't see albums like what they produced anymore. I was beginning to think that I was the only one that still saw potential in Pink Floyd's type of music/albums.
Now, I'm not saying that I can be the next Pink Floyd; but, after I finish my demo album, and if a record label gives me a chance, I believe I can at least push modern music in the right direction towards GOOD music again.
I was about to tell him to RTFA when I realized that it was actually in the summary. What is the world coming to when slashdotters don't even read the summary, much less RTFA?
Sorry, I misread your comment. I thought you said that Chrome was using all your memory. Chrome actually often does use more memory than Firefox (at least when Firefox isn't doing its memory leak thing it likes to do).
Honestly, in this day an age, if using a little more memory to make your browser run faster is an issue to you, then I can see you running into quite a few more problems down the road... Memory is cheap. Time and aggravation are not. There are plenty of applications that use a TON of memory and DON'T run as fast as they should. Consider yourself fortunate that at least a few people still know how to program in a reasonably efficient manner.
Slashdot Mirror
https://buy.louisck.net/
Louis C.K. made a comedy special by himself for distribution entirely online with no DRM (aside from having a reasonable download limit to prevent bandwidth abuse), and he's asking $5 for it. I first torrented it. I liked it, and I support him as a comedian; so I bought it (And at that price? How can you not?), showed it to several of my friends, and they all bought it too. You might think he's made no profit, but in 12 days, he made over 1 million dollars. And that was over a month ago. Who knows how much more he's made since then. Sounds like he's got it figured out pretty well.
There should be an option to encrypt the Recovery images in a similar fashion to what TrueCrypt does. Then, when you go to "refresh" your system, you have to enter your encryption password.
For added security, Windows 8 could allow you to make a bootable recovery USB. Then you can just make your recovery USB stick, and throw it in a drawer somewhere. Then when your computer gets infected all to hell, just plug in your recovery stick, boot to it, and then let the USB reinstall the image you made. That way, there's no possible way that malware can still be present on your refreshed install unless it was already there when you made your image, or if you plugged the USB into a booted, infected machine.
It's nice to see more and more manufacturers providing the option for customers unlock the bootloaders for their Android devices, but does it really have to void the warranty? I mean, can't they determine if a failure was a direct result of unlocking the bootloader? If you unlock your phone's bootloader and then brick your phone trying to install some weird crap, then it's clearly your fault and shouldn't be covered by your warranty, but if your screen dies or your battery explodes, it probably has nothing to do with whether or not you unlocked the device's bootloader.
It's not faster loading webpages that keeps me on Chrome. It's the faster, smoother UI.
Exactly. And, WHY did it reduce piracy? Was it truly because of the highly restrictive DRM making it "harder" for pirates? Or was it because not even pirates decided the game was worth the trouble, let alone the average gamer? I know I certainly didn't (and won't) buy any Ubisoft games. And EA is next on my list of "publishers not to give money to."
Who said your router has to keep logs? I'm pretty sure I've disabled that lovely little gem. Also, I find it good practice to spoof the MAC address of every computer that connects to the network.
In other news, scientists in Kansas have completed an experiment and determined that water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, is a liquid at room temperature, and that water is, in fact, wet. We can only ponder the implications this has for the human race and life on Earth.
I don't care about SYSmark telling me whether any given Intel CPU is better than any given AMD CPU or vice versa. What I really care about is finding out if the newly released Intel/AMD [insert arbitrary name here] CPU/GPU is truly better than the old Intel/AMD [insert arbitrary name here] CPU/GPU. By the time I get to the point of looking into concrete numbers from benchmarks, I've already decided whether I'm going to get an AMD or an Intel processor. The real problem that I have with all this benchmarking crap is why these manufacturers don't just provide us with coherent naming schemes for their CPU's (and GPU's too) so we as customers can fully understand the product they're trying to sell us.
Now if they could figure out how to let me take my phone anywhere, i.e. a cell phone, and keep the same service, features, and prices, we could finally have a cell phone carrier in the U.S. worth having.
I guess no one bothered to look in the options when they created their Google Profile and uncheck the "Make my profile visible to search" box. Don't blame Google for your own misdoings.
I would imagine that by 2015, the mining for bitcoin will have slowed quite a bit. But, by then it should have hopefully gained enough popularity that it can function as just a p2p economy.
Total network hashing: 1,747 Ghash/sec
Either the network strength has significantly increased in the past week, or one of those two sites shouldn't be trusted. Your source looks more reliable.
Ok, yes, but the difficulty would increase for everyone mining as well. Last I checked, the entire bitcoin network had a mining strength of 1,747 Ghash/s. The Kraken alone has about 367 Ghash/s. That's 21% of the entire network. With all that power coming into the network at once, you're still bound to make a TON of bitcoins, because you're essentially taking a substantially large portion of bitcoins from other miners. I did neglect to factor in the scaling of difficulty (and that's why I said it was a rough calculation. Maybe I should've emphasized "rough" more), so you may not make as much as 1,511.61 BTC/day, but you're still going to make quite a bit (no pun intended).
I did some rough calculations regarding NICS's Kraken Cray XT5 and bitcoin mining. FYI, The Kraken was the 8th fastest supercomputer in Novermber of 2010. I determined that if the supercomputer put forth all of it's resources to mine bitcoins, it could generate 1,511.61 per day (or about $8,450.53/day). Granted, the Kraken has just regular CPU's doing the calculations. I could only imagine what a Cray supercomputer with GPU's in it would be capable of...
won't (initially) be susceptible to viruses and malware
Well, now, I wouldn't speak too soon. There will undoubtedly be a beta release or a leak which will give malware authors ample time to develop zero-day viruses. And with Windows 8 exploring very different terrain this time around, there's bound to be a plethora of exploits just waiting for someone to coax them out of hiding (or plain sight).
Ok, I see those numbers. I can comprehend them. I understand that Firefox may be technically "faster," but at what cost? I'd like to see a benchmark that measures UI responsiveness. Because, I don't know about you, but I'm OK with sacrificing a few milliseconds of rendering speeds if it means that I get a faster, responsive UI.
As a test, I ran the Kraken javascript benchmark on Chrome 12.0.712.0 with extensions and about 10 tabs open and a clean install of Firefox 4.0 with a single tab open. I was still able to load new tabs and browse to other sites smoothly on Chrome, whereas Firefox began behaving extremely sluggishly. Because of this, Chrome felt like it was going faster even when Firefox completed the benchmark about 100ms faster. Isn't that all that really matters? If I feel like my browser is going faster than another, then I don't care that it's actually going slower, and I doubt that most other users would care either.
Firefox has better memory usage than Chrome? Yes, to an extent.
Firefox has better performance than Chrome? No, absolutely not.
Fact is, memory is cheap these days. I'd be willing to sacrifice an extra 500MB~1GB of memory to have a fast, smooth browsing experience. Chrome gives me that and with out memory leaks. I can keep an extension loaded Chrome open for about a week until I start noticing that it's leaking memory. I can't keep a clean install of Firefox open for more than a day without a memory leak.
Face it people. Firefox is like your grandmother's basement and Chrome is like a beach-side mansion.
Firefox might take up a smaller space, but it's dank and pipes are leaking everywhere.
Chrome is a bit more taxing, but your overall experience is going to be better.
Haha. Well, my demo isn't going to be anything too special. Sure, the songs mean stuff to me, but it's not the overall sound I'm looking for in the long run. It's just something to get some attention and maybe get my name out there so that I may progress further. And referring to the "blank tapes," if I get my way, my band's stance on piracy will be lax. We'd probably even end up releasing a few free albums. In fact, I know how Waters feels about this whole just buying a single song thing. In my opinion, I'd rather someone pirate my whole album instead of buying just one song. They'd get a better experience that way, and that's what artists should want. Make music to make others happy, not to make money :P
I really hope that the labels haven't lost sight of the potential this kind of music has.
I really hope they haven't either. I play music and Pink Floyd is a HUGE influence to me. You just don't see albums like what they produced anymore. I was beginning to think that I was the only one that still saw potential in Pink Floyd's type of music/albums. Now, I'm not saying that I can be the next Pink Floyd; but, after I finish my demo album, and if a record label gives me a chance, I believe I can at least push modern music in the right direction towards GOOD music again.
Chrome processes share memory.
Corporations are not people
Actually, economically speaking, they are.
I have 1GB of RAM in my netbook as well and I regularly use Chrome with 10+ tabs open without any problem at all.
I was about to tell him to RTFA when I realized that it was actually in the summary. What is the world coming to when slashdotters don't even read the summary, much less RTFA?
Sorry, I misread your comment. I thought you said that Chrome was using all your memory. Chrome actually often does use more memory than Firefox (at least when Firefox isn't doing its memory leak thing it likes to do).
Honestly, in this day an age, if using a little more memory to make your browser run faster is an issue to you, then I can see you running into quite a few more problems down the road... Memory is cheap. Time and aggravation are not. There are plenty of applications that use a TON of memory and DON'T run as fast as they should. Consider yourself fortunate that at least a few people still know how to program in a reasonably efficient manner.