Dumbass, sales tax is a CONSUMER tax. Collected by a retail business. They are not passing it to the consumer, they are just being held responsible for their consumers, just like every other retailer out there. This is not that difficult and more states need to adopt it. Online retailers are already responsible for consumer's in their home state, this just requires the logic be added for another. So don't go saying it hurts the business, it does nothing to them but make them do what every brick and mortar store already does. It adds responsibility, not the financial burden. I am honestly surprised it is taking state governments this long to enforce it.
Oh, and btw, we do tax highly profitable industries like, um, say OIL COMPANIES, those also have a state tax applied to them. Try filling up in South Carolina then in North Carolina, there is about a $0.10 difference per gallon due to NC having a higher tax on oil.
The file in the pic is not StarLogger. According to a Google search it is a Windows system file. I think the SL folder location is coincidental. It seems to be a driver file of some sort. CNET's removal information does not list that file as part of StarLogger
It seems like it was relatively easy to find, and both laptops were purchased at the same store so it could easily be the source, some kid in the stock room could have installed it thinking they could steal someones identity or that it made them 'leet' hackers. Taking the admittance from a customer support rep is not reliable, so I don't really count that one. Also, new computers come with various pieces of crapware installed that could also be the source without Samsung being aware(if that is the case, they need to screen the software better). I seriously doubt this was intentional on Samsung's side, if they are even responsible to begin with. It is even quite possible that the keylogger was part of debugging and QA that made it into the production image. Would like to see more data on this, at least try and capture it phoning home. That would tell you a lot about who the responsible party is.
Network World should have at least done the due diligence of purchasing the same model and verifying the existence of the logger, and considering they are networking magazine, I am surprised they didn't test to see where the data is going.
Mod up, just because a person thinks that it isn't stealing because it is not a physical property, doesn't mean it didn't cost money to make that needs to be recouped, and then some if they are going to be able to do it again. And any idiot who says "well I only download things that I wouldn't buy" makes me say that if you wouldn't buy it, why download it? I am completely against all DRM because I think it only hurts honest consumers, and the RIAA/MPAA because of their mafia like tactics and the fact that they are both effectively a monopoly; and I support the public domain and a limited lifetime for a copyright but anyone who says copyright in general is a bad thing needs to grow up. Nothing is free. There needs to be an incentive to continue producing new IP, whether in print, video, music, or software.
Man I wish I had mod points, I have been comparing this (and all other anti Islam movements) to McCarthyism for the last year or so. It is amazing how fast people who will be first to invoke their 1st amendment rights have no idea what it means.
I personally seem to remember an Apple 2 back in the day that had a few different versions. And Apple also named the latest generation of the IPhone, IPhone 4 as it was the fourth version. So logic about the 2 is very flawed IMHO.
WiFI is a trademark, and it describes a wireless network on specific frequencies, specifically 2.4Ghz, 3.6Ghz and 5Ghz using IEEE's 802.11x standards. Because it's wireless, and because it can carry a TCP/IP connection doesn't mean it's WiFI.
If you RTFA you will find that the owners of said trademark are the people unveiling this (CSIRO), meaning that they could apply the trademark to this new technology if they wish.
They are basically saying that the company that pays will have better quality of service. They are saying nothing of hurting those that don't pay. The sites that don't pay get the same service they always have, the companies that do will be treated differently. They may make optimize routes in their equipment, or ensure that in the event of some form of downtime that the paying customers will be brought online first if possible while troubleshooting the overall problem. This does not hurt the internet, and will most likely, help it. Imagine if Hulu and Netflix pay for better QOS, then you can be sure that the video you play from their end will be of higher quality with less problems.
The director of BT said specifically that they would offer QOS above best efforts. Best efforts is what everyone has now, routes are what they are and if there are problems, everyone is brought back at the same time. Anyone not wishing to participate will have the same QOS they always had.
This is no different than a utility company. If a bad storm downs the grid, the first places brought back online are the ones that affect the most people, or, as the power company is concerned, the most money.
It is not our, or Google's, responsibility to change that though, it is the responsibility of the people. The people of this country did not always live in a democracy. They got fed up with the way things were and revolted. If China's people hate the way things are, it is there responsibility to fight, no matter what the cost. If we start and even win the fight for them, there is nothing stopping it from going back to the way it was after we leave. I am not against us helping them if they start it, but they have to throw the first proverbial punch.
No, Internet vs Services. Not internal to their company umbrella, internal as in their cable/phone/internet. If all of these run on the same network and they throttle internet due to high usage and slow downs, their should not be reprisal for not throttling the cable/phone to maintain QoS.
All internet traffic, NOT BASED ON SPECIFIC PORT/APP/ADDRESS. I am saying that the services they bundle WITH their internet would not be throttled, while the internet would. If they throttle the entire internet connection to the point of killing anything, then they are no longer delivering the service offered, which creates an entirely different set of problems.
not totally true, if they use VOIP or IPTV then the connection is faster than the internet connection to accomodate, if they throttle, they will only throttle the internet, and not their internal services. This is how it should be to ensure reliability of the services their users pay for that require a certain speed.
I mean that they can throttle traffic that leaves their network, but leave their internal network services unthrottled. The requirement is that the throttling happens to the entire outgoing connection not to specific apps/ports.
Because Vonage is an external network and it is throttled just like the rest of the outgoing traffic, VZ VOIP is internal and not part of the throttling. It is only killing competition if they specifically target Vonage or similar VOIP, if they throttle equally it is not.
They need to stop tagging these as YRO, this has nothing to do with online. There needs to be a new section for copyright, considering how many articles relate to RIAA, MPAA.
Agreed, but as far as Verizon preferred partner's, I see no problem with Verizon offering faster connectivity to their internal services (Their VOIP vs Vonage, for instance) Throttling has to happen on an overall traffic situation, but they should still be allowed(I'd even argue required in the case of TV, phone, etc) to allow unthrottled traffic to their services without reprisal.
Seconded, I tend to leave my browser window open at all times on my machine, and every other day or so the mem usage hits over 1GB and slows my computer slows to a crawl. It would be wonderful if they fix that because I am seriously considering changing browsers because of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Dumbass, sales tax is a CONSUMER tax. Collected by a retail business. They are not passing it to the consumer, they are just being held responsible for their consumers, just like every other retailer out there. This is not that difficult and more states need to adopt it. Online retailers are already responsible for consumer's in their home state, this just requires the logic be added for another. So don't go saying it hurts the business, it does nothing to them but make them do what every brick and mortar store already does. It adds responsibility, not the financial burden. I am honestly surprised it is taking state governments this long to enforce it.
Oh, and btw, we do tax highly profitable industries like, um, say OIL COMPANIES, those also have a state tax applied to them. Try filling up in South Carolina then in North Carolina, there is about a $0.10 difference per gallon due to NC having a higher tax on oil.
The file in the pic is not StarLogger. According to a Google search it is a Windows system file. I think the SL folder location is coincidental. It seems to be a driver file of some sort. CNET's removal information does not list that file as part of StarLogger
It seems like it was relatively easy to find, and both laptops were purchased at the same store so it could easily be the source, some kid in the stock room could have installed it thinking they could steal someones identity or that it made them 'leet' hackers. Taking the admittance from a customer support rep is not reliable, so I don't really count that one. Also, new computers come with various pieces of crapware installed that could also be the source without Samsung being aware(if that is the case, they need to screen the software better). I seriously doubt this was intentional on Samsung's side, if they are even responsible to begin with. It is even quite possible that the keylogger was part of debugging and QA that made it into the production image. Would like to see more data on this, at least try and capture it phoning home. That would tell you a lot about who the responsible party is.
Network World should have at least done the due diligence of purchasing the same model and verifying the existence of the logger, and considering they are networking magazine, I am surprised they didn't test to see where the data is going.
Mod up, just because a person thinks that it isn't stealing because it is not a physical property, doesn't mean it didn't cost money to make that needs to be recouped, and then some if they are going to be able to do it again. And any idiot who says "well I only download things that I wouldn't buy" makes me say that if you wouldn't buy it, why download it? I am completely against all DRM because I think it only hurts honest consumers, and the RIAA/MPAA because of their mafia like tactics and the fact that they are both effectively a monopoly; and I support the public domain and a limited lifetime for a copyright but anyone who says copyright in general is a bad thing needs to grow up. Nothing is free. There needs to be an incentive to continue producing new IP, whether in print, video, music, or software.
Man I wish I had mod points, I have been comparing this (and all other anti Islam movements) to McCarthyism for the last year or so. It is amazing how fast people who will be first to invoke their 1st amendment rights have no idea what it means.
I personally seem to remember an Apple 2 back in the day that had a few different versions. And Apple also named the latest generation of the IPhone, IPhone 4 as it was the fourth version. So logic about the 2 is very flawed IMHO.
That reminds me of the speech Gary Oldman gave in the Fifth Element
WiFI is a trademark, and it describes a wireless network on specific frequencies, specifically 2.4Ghz, 3.6Ghz and 5Ghz using IEEE's 802.11x standards. Because it's wireless, and because it can carry a TCP/IP connection doesn't mean it's WiFI.
If you RTFA you will find that the owners of said trademark are the people unveiling this (CSIRO), meaning that they could apply the trademark to this new technology if they wish.
I want Windows for Workgroups 7.11, been waiting on a new version of WfW for a long time.
They are basically saying that the company that pays will have better quality of service. They are saying nothing of hurting those that don't pay. The sites that don't pay get the same service they always have, the companies that do will be treated differently. They may make optimize routes in their equipment, or ensure that in the event of some form of downtime that the paying customers will be brought online first if possible while troubleshooting the overall problem. This does not hurt the internet, and will most likely, help it. Imagine if Hulu and Netflix pay for better QOS, then you can be sure that the video you play from their end will be of higher quality with less problems.
The director of BT said specifically that they would offer QOS above best efforts. Best efforts is what everyone has now, routes are what they are and if there are problems, everyone is brought back at the same time. Anyone not wishing to participate will have the same QOS they always had.
This is no different than a utility company. If a bad storm downs the grid, the first places brought back online are the ones that affect the most people, or, as the power company is concerned, the most money.
Who better to welcome the aliens to Earf?
Does their GPU Acceleration bring all the boys to the yard?
It is not our, or Google's, responsibility to change that though, it is the responsibility of the people. The people of this country did not always live in a democracy. They got fed up with the way things were and revolted. If China's people hate the way things are, it is there responsibility to fight, no matter what the cost. If we start and even win the fight for them, there is nothing stopping it from going back to the way it was after we leave. I am not against us helping them if they start it, but they have to throw the first proverbial punch.
Google: Successful Capitalist American Company
Microsoft: Successful Capitalist American Company
No, Internet vs Services. Not internal to their company umbrella, internal as in their cable/phone/internet. If all of these run on the same network and they throttle internet due to high usage and slow downs, their should not be reprisal for not throttling the cable/phone to maintain QoS.
Can't believe I did that, thanks for the heads up.
All internet traffic, NOT BASED ON SPECIFIC PORT/APP/ADDRESS. I am saying that the services they bundle WITH their internet would not be throttled, while the internet would. If they throttle the entire internet connection to the point of killing anything, then they are no longer delivering the service offered, which creates an entirely different set of problems.
not totally true, if they use VOIP or IPTV then the connection is faster than the internet connection to accomodate, if they throttle, they will only throttle the internet, and not their internal services. This is how it should be to ensure reliability of the services their users pay for that require a certain speed.
I am a little thick headed :), thanks for the clarification.
I mean that they can throttle traffic that leaves their network, but leave their internal network services unthrottled. The requirement is that the throttling happens to the entire outgoing connection not to specific apps/ports.
Because Vonage is an external network and it is throttled just like the rest of the outgoing traffic, VZ VOIP is internal and not part of the throttling. It is only killing competition if they specifically target Vonage or similar VOIP, if they throttle equally it is not.
They need to stop tagging these as YRO, this has nothing to do with online. There needs to be a new section for copyright, considering how many articles relate to RIAA, MPAA.
Agreed, but as far as Verizon preferred partner's, I see no problem with Verizon offering faster connectivity to their internal services (Their VOIP vs Vonage, for instance) Throttling has to happen on an overall traffic situation, but they should still be allowed(I'd even argue required in the case of TV, phone, etc) to allow unthrottled traffic to their services without reprisal.
Seconded, I tend to leave my browser window open at all times on my machine, and every other day or so the mem usage hits over 1GB and slows my computer slows to a crawl. It would be wonderful if they fix that because I am seriously considering changing browsers because of it.
Seconded, I think Firefly needs a new show, based on the original with a bigger budget. Think ST:TNG to ST.