Issues of latency aside:
1) I don't know the numbers, but it seems like there would be a very definite limit (given the technology at any particular time) to how much data can be broadcast to an area over the air on a finite RF band. Given that satellites tend to cover large areas I doubt they would come close to satisfying demand.
2) satellite links can be just down through interference (natural or manmade) or bad weather. Fiber actually has to be cut. In a lot of ways, going all satellite would make the Internet even more fragile. To say nothing of the potential for communications satellites to be shot down by other states.
So no, I don't think we are going to go to all sat links. The answer to this problem seems to be just adding more redundancy to the networks so that cutting a few lines doesn't cut off an area entirely.
Your list appears to be using market cap. If you look at total equity (a better metric of current richness) the numbers are even stronger. Just as examples:
Exxon (XOM): 112.9B (Q4 09)
walmart (WMT): 65.2B (Q1 09)
Procter & Gamble (PG): 62.4B (Q4 08)
MicroSoft(MSFT): 34.4B (Q4 08)
AT&T (AT): 96.3B(Q4 08--higher equity dispite lower cap)
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ): 42.5B (Q4 08-ditto)
General Electric (GE): 104.6B (Q4 08 ditto)
Numbers from Google finance, most recent Q available.
it also conclusively shows that the Kenyians and Canadians are thoroughly confused people, particularly when discussing dates between the first and twelfth of the month.
You don't really have a good enough point on general use computers. If you have a box that only does one thing, sure, you get whatever program running on it, and there is no need to ever change it. But on a general use computer odds are at some point you are going to want to use something that relies on some fancy new tech that isn't supported on the old machine. I stuck with 2k for a long time, but eventually it stopped being good enough, not because it stopped doing whet it used to do, but because my expectations were a moving target. And you can't really predict ahead of time what your expectations will be in 5 or 10 years, because the killer app that you will want then hasn't even been thought of yet. In early 90's no one would have thought that supporting CSS and XMLHttpRequest would be a prerequisite for a general use computer a decade later. Ditto USB.
Of course, the best thing would be for Google to simply not claim a new copyright on their scans
Very good point. I'm pretty sure they don't. Have a look at the first page of the PDF's they let you download of out of copyright works; they just have a request that the image not be put to commercial use. IIRC there is nothing that even sounds like a claim of copyright, just a request.
In the US, if I'm not mistaken, criminal charges (like fraud) are generally (or even exclusively) brought by a public prosecutor (state's attorney, DA, etc), not a private party. If it's an interstate crime, I think the jurisdiction for the investigation falls to the FBI. So FBI involvement alone doesn't really seem anomalous (although seizing the whole data center does). IANAL so feel free to correct me.
âoeThey broke into my safe and took the backups of my backups,â he said in a phone interview with Photography is Not a Crime on Wednesday.
Let us use this as an instructive moment: Always keep important backups at a seperate physical location. Especially if we are dealing with information that important, powerful, or underhanded people may want destroyed.
thank you. It did not form a hypothesis in any strong sense. The hypothesis (broadly taken) was programed in (e.g., there is a correlation between x, y, and z factors, which can be tested with method a: now analyze the data to find likely values, and test them). Not to diminish their accomplishment (I do hope this tech will lead to some significant scientific discoveries) but the summary sounds like typical AI-enthusiasts' overstating the significance of the results.
It is an interesting argument. Although I'm not sure how relevant it would be to most of the RIAA cases. I was under the impression they generally target the older style of network, where the default is to seed a downloaded file indefinitely, and where any node will send a list of all the files it's sharing to any other node (although I would love to get some confirmation of this).
I'm pretty sure, taking out the protocol overhead, the mean ratio for any given swarm is exactly 1. Adding in the overhead, it will be higher. I, however, have no idea what the distribution of that is. As to the ratio/liability relation, you make an interesting point.
I'd bet that there's no US town that such a low burglary rate even though you guys have guns.
are you serious? Let me play that back to make sure I got it: You are willing to bet, that there is no town in the US that has fewer than 2 burglaries a month? I kind of hope this was a kneejerk reaction.
It's beside the point. The RIAA isn't going after people for downloading, they are going after them for uploading. That's how they catch people. And that is why they are claiming such high damages. Even if you have a license to own a copy of the work, downloading it on P2P means that you are offering to distribute it. And you are doing so without even attempting to find out whether the people downloading have a license. Your defense would be, in some ways, like standing on a street corner handing out burnt copies of $NEWLY_RELEASED_ALBUM to anyone who asked, and when apprehended, claiming that you assumed that only people who owned a license for it would take copies. It might work if you made the people sign an affidativt that they do own a license before giving it to them, or even just made a general announcement that your service is only to be used for legal means by people who have a license to own a copy. But short of something like that I don't see how you can claim you aren't just handing out unlicensed copies.
(For the record, I don't like the music industry or current copyright law any more than the next guy. I just don't like strawmen.)
I decided halfway through to just read the comments to get the salient points. Unfortunately, with everyone bitching, I still don't know what they were.
Maybe there tends to be a correlation, but it is pretty loose (think of satelite 100's of mss latency but huge capacity, great for downloads useless for voip) and I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that if you can watch streaming video (i.e., you have modestly high average bandwidth) then you can use a service like this (which will require very low latency and a consistently high bandwidth). The kind of network reliability and performance needed to make sure that your input get to the server and the next frame gets back soon enough to allow for useable gameplay is several orders above what is required to watch streaming video: Streaming video doesn't care if your connections drops to 1/4 of what it needs to keep up for a few seconds, or if your latency temporarily spikes: it has a buffer. But a live game that is being rendered on the server would basically freeze until network got back up to the required minimum. And that's assuming the latency is low enough to keep the delay between input and display bearable.
I disagree. The mentality of backwards compatibility, even if the old app doesn't follow spec, is what keeps systems from moving forward. I mean, just think of how much further behind webstandards would be if FF, Opera, and Safari thought it was paramount to emulate every quirk or IE6 for the sake of backward compatibility. The right way to do it is more or less what they are doing, implement the new system to the spec, roll it out as an option or beta, and give all the app developers a chance to realise and correct their mistakes and flawed assumptions before the new tech gets widely adopted.
Well, I don't know whether they count but there are an aweful lot of "web developers" out there who love IE because it renders their pages "correctly", while everything else screws them up (read: renders their stinking pile of jumbled crap as what it is).
Slashdot Mirror
Issues of latency aside:
1) I don't know the numbers, but it seems like there would be a very definite limit (given the technology at any particular time) to how much data can be broadcast to an area over the air on a finite RF band. Given that satellites tend to cover large areas I doubt they would come close to satisfying demand.
2) satellite links can be just down through interference (natural or manmade) or bad weather. Fiber actually has to be cut. In a lot of ways, going all satellite would make the Internet even more fragile. To say nothing of the potential for communications satellites to be shot down by other states.
So no, I don't think we are going to go to all sat links. The answer to this problem seems to be just adding more redundancy to the networks so that cutting a few lines doesn't cut off an area entirely.
Your list appears to be using market cap. If you look at total equity (a better metric of current richness) the numbers are even stronger. Just as examples:
Exxon (XOM): 112.9B (Q4 09)
walmart (WMT): 65.2B (Q1 09)
Procter & Gamble (PG): 62.4B (Q4 08)
MicroSoft(MSFT): 34.4B (Q4 08)
AT&T (AT): 96.3B(Q4 08--higher equity dispite lower cap)
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ): 42.5B (Q4 08-ditto)
General Electric (GE): 104.6B (Q4 08 ditto)
Numbers from Google finance, most recent Q available.
it also conclusively shows that the Kenyians and Canadians are thoroughly confused people, particularly when discussing dates between the first and twelfth of the month.
You don't really have a good enough point on general use computers. If you have a box that only does one thing, sure, you get whatever program running on it, and there is no need to ever change it. But on a general use computer odds are at some point you are going to want to use something that relies on some fancy new tech that isn't supported on the old machine.
I stuck with 2k for a long time, but eventually it stopped being good enough, not because it stopped doing whet it used to do, but because my expectations were a moving target. And you can't really predict ahead of time what your expectations will be in 5 or 10 years, because the killer app that you will want then hasn't even been thought of yet. In early 90's no one would have thought that supporting CSS and XMLHttpRequest would be a prerequisite for a general use computer a decade later. Ditto USB.
. . . transatlantic cables to the USA
There are transatlantic cables from the US to Australia?
Of course, the best thing would be for Google to simply not claim a new copyright on their scans
Very good point. I'm pretty sure they don't. Have a look at the first page of the PDF's they let you download of out of copyright works; they just have a request that the image not be put to commercial use. IIRC there is nothing that even sounds like a claim of copyright, just a request.
ping www.protecttheking.net PING www.protecttheking.net (61.19.218.138) 56(84) bytes of data. ^C --- www.protecttheking.net ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 2999ms www?
In the US, if I'm not mistaken, criminal charges (like fraud) are generally (or even exclusively) brought by a public prosecutor (state's attorney, DA, etc), not a private party. If it's an interstate crime, I think the jurisdiction for the investigation falls to the FBI. So FBI involvement alone doesn't really seem anomalous (although seizing the whole data center does). IANAL so feel free to correct me.
âoeThey broke into my safe and took the backups of my backups,â he said in a phone interview with Photography is Not a Crime on Wednesday.
Let us use this as an instructive moment: Always keep important backups at a seperate physical location.
Especially if we are dealing with information that important, powerful, or underhanded people may want destroyed.
"This is a ridiculous rule, as game companies can simply arreter creating French versions of games to bypass the restriction."
there fixed that for you
thank you. It did not form a hypothesis in any strong sense. The hypothesis (broadly taken) was programed in (e.g., there is a correlation between x, y, and z factors, which can be tested with method a: now analyze the data to find likely values, and test them).
Not to diminish their accomplishment (I do hope this tech will lead to some significant scientific discoveries) but the summary sounds like typical AI-enthusiasts' overstating the significance of the results.
It is an interesting argument. Although I'm not sure how relevant it would be to most of the RIAA cases. I was under the impression they generally target the older style of network, where the default is to seed a downloaded file indefinitely, and where any node will send a list of all the files it's sharing to any other node (although I would love to get some confirmation of this).
I'm pretty sure, taking out the protocol overhead, the mean ratio for any given swarm is exactly 1. Adding in the overhead, it will be higher.
I, however, have no idea what the distribution of that is.
As to the ratio/liability relation, you make an interesting point.
I'd bet that there's no US town that such a low burglary rate even though you guys have guns.
are you serious? Let me play that back to make sure I got it:
You are willing to bet, that there is no town in the US that has fewer than 2 burglaries a month?
I kind of hope this was a kneejerk reaction.
It's beside the point. The RIAA isn't going after people for downloading, they are going after them for uploading.
That's how they catch people. And that is why they are claiming such high damages.
Even if you have a license to own a copy of the work, downloading it on P2P means that you are offering to distribute it. And you are doing so without even attempting to find out whether the people downloading have a license.
Your defense would be, in some ways, like standing on a street corner handing out burnt copies of $NEWLY_RELEASED_ALBUM to anyone who asked, and when apprehended, claiming that you assumed that only people who owned a license for it would take copies. It might work if you made the people sign an affidativt that they do own a license before giving it to them, or even just made a general announcement that your service is only to be used for legal means by people who have a license to own a copy. But short of something like that I don't see how you can claim you aren't just handing out unlicensed copies.
(For the record, I don't like the music industry or current copyright law any more than the next guy. I just don't like strawmen.)
I decided halfway through to just read the comments to get the salient points.
Unfortunately, with everyone bitching, I still don't know what they were.
Maybe there tends to be a correlation, but it is pretty loose (think of satelite 100's of mss latency but huge capacity, great for downloads useless for voip) and I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that if you can watch streaming video (i.e., you have modestly high average bandwidth) then you can use a service like this (which will require very low latency and a consistently high bandwidth). The kind of network reliability and performance needed to make sure that your input get to the server and the next frame gets back soon enough to allow for useable gameplay is several orders above what is required to watch streaming video: Streaming video doesn't care if your connections drops to 1/4 of what it needs to keep up for a few seconds, or if your latency temporarily spikes: it has a buffer. But a live game that is being rendered on the server would basically freeze until network got back up to the required minimum. And that's assuming the latency is low enough to keep the delay between input and display bearable.
As for latency, if you have a connection thats fast enough to stream Netflix video, it should be also good enough to play the game.
You do understand the distinction between latency and bandwidth right?
IIRC, MS did offer to license some time before bringing suit, and TomTom didn't bite.
I disagree. The mentality of backwards compatibility, even if the old app doesn't follow spec, is what keeps systems from moving forward. I mean, just think of how much further behind webstandards would be if FF, Opera, and Safari thought it was paramount to emulate every quirk or IE6 for the sake of backward compatibility.
The right way to do it is more or less what they are doing, implement the new system to the spec, roll it out as an option or beta, and give all the app developers a chance to realise and correct their mistakes and flawed assumptions before the new tech gets widely adopted.
Well, I don't know whether they count but there are an aweful lot of "web developers" out there who love IE because it renders their pages "correctly", while everything else screws them up (read: renders their stinking pile of jumbled crap as what it is).
why must dba's always shout?
In its submission
about its proposed
Both are possessive. Both are correct. Did they change TFS? Or did OP screw up?
first. the first week of latin. damn.
a long standing tradition among those who didn't make it past the week of Latin.