Re:Yet another "reliable UDP" layer
on
Replacing TCP?
·
· Score: 2
You know, despite my skepticism about what these guys are proposing, I'll take issue (somewhat) with your comment. Saying "TCP has been designed to be robust in all conditions" is true if by 'robust' you mean 'able to transmit at least some data'.
But the criticism levelled at TCP in high-bandwidth, high-latency applications is entirely valid, and in some circumstances the inefficiency is so bad as to force people to use hacked solutions built on top of UDP (if you want to call doing a ton of application-level ECC a hack.) As clever as many of the features of TCP are, they're useless if inherent limitations in the protocol make it impossible to use it to carry the volume of traffic you need it to.
I would argue that TCP is designed to be able to handle high packet loss, unstable routing, unstable physical links, etc., and it does all of that extremely well. But the fact is that regardless of how rare or rampant that sort of instability is, if a protocol can't scale to cross-country gigabit+ connections then something needs to be done, either in terms of improving the protocol or replacing it with something that has all the necessary functionality.
Kind of getting ill to my stomach listening to Lucas talking about the Oedipal aspects in the scene, and how the son was aborting the production of the father's evil seed when blowing up the death star?
There is no warrantee against infringement for *any* software you buy, from *anyone*, including Microsoft, SCO, IBM, etc. This is also true of the GPL. In fact, to even imply that there could be a warrantee for infringment is absurd. It is, quite frankly, impossible.
I unfortunately have to take issue with this part of your comment. While I cannot quote you chapter and verse from a license agreement, I worked briefly for a very, very large software company and spoke at some length with a few upper-level managers about the SCO issue and Linux.
The crux of their concern actually was the very fact that every large commercial software manufacturer, including MS, included language in their EULAs that indemnified the customer against patent- or copyright-infringing code.
To say this warranty is absurd is... Well, excuse me, absurd. The language simply says something along the lines of, "We will cover any legal issues that arise from use of our code, as it pertains to intellectual property ownersip issues." Period. They are not SWEARING there is no infinging code, they are saying unequivocally that they will take responsbility for it if there is.
To throw my hat into the conspiracy ring:
The more I watch this saga unfold, the more I suspect that someone, be it Microsoft of a software manufacturer coalition of some sort, is behind SCO's motions. With every new announcement, with every so-called tactic, SCO's actions in general and McBride's in particular make less and less sense, unless examined strictly under the light of whether or not they're trying to damage Linux, rather than trying to in any way benefit SCO.
Take this indemnification example. Take going after end-users in general! Does anyone, McBride or Sontag included, think these sorts of plays will drive users into the hands of SCO? Given the minisicule market share SCO has and rapidly-dwindling userbase, I don't buy the argument that SCO recognizes most users will go to other Unix (or Windows) solutions and hoping a proportional piece of the pie going to SCO licenses.
Other Unix vendros' gain is SCO's loss, in more than just cash. Without enlarging their installed base they're simply going to die out, and they know it. They couldn't possibly believe that through this circus they'll gain enough of a foothold to last beyond 2005, maybe 2007 if they're lucky.
Which leaves us with what the tinfoil-hat crowd has been saying from the beginning -- Someone's pulling the strings on this marionette, and the obvious suspect is the one most prone to shady tactics and who would benefit most from this entire debacle.
I'd be curious to see how this works, honestly. Bellovin even comments in the paper that:
Using a random IPidfield has its own challenges to uniqueness. While linear congruential generators have a maximal cycle length, such generators are easily cryptanalyzed. A keyed generator, as is used in OpenBSD and FreeBSD, provides some protection, but one needs to be careful to avoid duplication if the generator is rekeyed periodically.
Apologies for the largish quote. But it does make for an interesting problem. If you decide to go the crypto route, you need to rekey in order to avoid brute-force attacks. But when you rekey you need to make sure that nothing in your data space conflicts with id's already 'out' on the net. How does *BSD handle this?
I don't see it as insurmountable, since the potential window for a collision is only , but it still seems like a challenge to solve it in a secure manner, i.e. solve it without giving away the underlying algorithm.
I don't know what you consider 'almost nothing', but as an avid San Jose Sharks season ticket holder and fan I was treated to the "Tivo Replay" on the jumbotron every time they showed a replay, they had ads for Tivo during many of the breaks, and they little scary tv dude mascot would host some of the intermission little distractions and such.
I'm guessing all of this cost a pretty penny. I saw plenty of TV ads too, particularly during big sports games. I'd guess all of this cost close to a few mil.
I never, ever post here, mostly because Slashdot is so packed nowadays it's probably already been said. But I feel compelled.
All of you saying Microsoft has the right to do this:
Are you all complete and utter retards? Does this really have to be explained to you anew each time something actions such as this (Not necessarily by Microsoft) has been taken?
Let's try again, slowly for those of you who can't understand it.
1) Although there aren't enough details available (That I've seen) to judge this particular instance, virtually every time a purveyor of products that let you change what you've legally purchased to do something else gets shut down it is NOT with actual legal action, it is with the THREAT of legal action. The sickening fact of all this isn't whether or not these entities are within their legal right to do this, but that the question is never asked. Lawsuits are so onerous that the mere threat of one is sufficient to stop what MAY BE legal. The crucial legal court test NEVER OCCURS.
2) The 'slippery slope', while being largely a strawman argument, in cases like this is perhaps valid. If you don't think ANY hardware company is absolutely DROOLING at the prospect of extending it's reach far beyond the change of posession (purchase) of a product you're living in a fantasy world. Precendents such as this will of course start with a basis in what are apparently legal and moral positions, right now in the name of stopping piracy, but there is absolutely no reason to stop there. Once you've established the precedent of extending so-called 'rights' beyond the customer taking posession of your product you have infintely more control over what they can and cannot do, spanning legal and illegal uses.
3) The fact that devices such as mod chips (And P2P networks, for that matter) have both legitimate and illegitimate uses is not just a side argument. It is important to realize that many freedoms enjoyed by Americans (And for that matter, citizens of many other countries) are freedoms that could be used for both legitimate and illegitimate purposes. Drawing comparisons between the use of mod chips and free speech is more than just hyperbole, it is an attempt to illustrate that once you start allowing the restriction of something based on it's (in this case potentially) illegal uses you are setting a very dangerous precedent, and one that because of the DMCA has criminal and not just civil ramifications.
The DMCA is the bridge between a civil lawsuit brought by Microsoft and someone going to jail for making or using something that could be used to violate IP 'rights'. If you still don't believe me, ask yourself why they need the DMCA then? Why was it necessary for the government to enact legislation that allows companies and the government to take punitive actions against those who violate IP, or more accurately those who MAKE things that COULD be used to violate IP, rather than stick with civil proceedings? (Even the threat of which, I might add, seem to work just fine.) In other words, if you're going to say no one's going to get sent to jail for this, why is there a law that says you will? Do you honestly think that mod chip makers should go to jail?
4) Microsoft's choice to sell their products (X-box) at a loss does not automatically give them the legal right to take any and all action they see fit to try and make money through other means, in this case through game licenses. It's been said time and again but you still don't seem to get it, just because somebody WANTS to make money doesn't mean they GET to. It's very possible that their choice to try and pursue this method of profit is foolish and could result in failure due to the boxes being modded for uses besides purchasing the products they do make money on, but because of point (1) we may never know. By using the threat of legal action they may have secured a business model that is unavailable to other companies without as deep pockets. Do you think Microsoft would have succeeded in beating down Lik Sang if Microsoft were a small startup? (Not that X-box's major competitors, such as Sony, are small startups.) No. They can do this because of point (1), and because other companies realize the law being on their side (perhaps) is a moot point. In this case, Might Makes Right.
I hope this explains a bit to those of you comparing modding your X-Box to rolling your odometer back on your car (boggle) or simply accusing posters of being Microsoft/other large coporate entity bashers. It IS about essential rights, albeit indirectly, whether you choose to believe ir ot not.
Note the very last line of the article, that this patent attorney is an 'entrenpeneur in silicon valley'. In other words, he's not writing this as a big-business lawyer shockingly biting the hand that feeds him, but of a businessman who wants to make some money and has decided to use his credentials to try and make it easier.
I mean, his message is still correct, so I'm not going to complain. But it's not particularly shocking that he wrote this.
> tax (say 25%) => 1250/month that is conservative
Uh, it's just wrong.
Federal tax rate for individual making $60,000 per year: 27.5% (Better not make $65,551, rate jumps to 30.5%) (Source: You can find it anywhere.) Federal social security tax: 6.2% (Source, anywhere) Federal medicare tax: 1.45% Total tax rate, federal: 35.15%
Federal tax, monthly, at above salary: $1757.50
Tax rate for Californian making over $37,725 per year: 9.3% (Source: here) Tax rate for Illinosian (?): 3% (Flat)(Source: here)
State tax for someone living in the bay area, monthly, at above salary: $465 State tax for someone living in Illinois, same: $150
Total tax, monthly, for Californian at above wage: $2222.50 Total tax, monthly, for Illinoisian at above wage: $1907.50
> rental => 1500/month sounds a bit high, but maybe not in the Bay area
If you're living alone, this is about right for anywhere except the bay area. If in bay area, this is high, however most folks in bay have roomies. A little low.
> grocery/food => 600/month 150/wk != dining out
This seems a little high to me. But then technical folks do tend to eat out more, being forced to keep hours where they don't have much choice. I spend at least this much, I guess.
> Utilities (phone, power, etc) => 100/month way low - I would double this
Uh, more like triple out here. Internet = $100 per month for broadband, cable is $30, phone is $50, power + gas is at least $100, water/sewer/garbage another $20 or so...
> car (gas, insurance) => 150/month that almost covers my insurance, doesn't do a thing for the gas
and what about a car payment?
My insurance is $120 a month, and I'm in a LOW bracket. And you're right, this doesn't cover a car payment.
total costs => 3600/month
No longer accurate, once you fix the tax rate and include things like car payment.
There ARE no laws... Just like there's no laws requiring movies, music, and video games to have ratings, or laws against cable stations airing dirty words. The government is here to HELP us, right?
Here's a suggestion a little different from all the other screaming on here. I, too, sneak popcorn into the theatre, although I'll always buy my soda to try and support the theatre.(That's not my suggestion.)
I go to movies a LOT, maybe twice a week if I can make it. Indie films, mainstream films, doesn't matter to me as long as it's cinema. I go to probably five different theatre-owned chains here in California (AMC, Cinemark, Syufy, Camera, Independent) and you know what? THE POPCORN TASTES LIKE SHIT. This is not a comment on how good the popcorn is compared with, say, microwave popcorn. It is quite definately a food product I wouldn't feed my dog. It is regularly served stale, or glopped with that horrific goo you call butter flavoring that's worse than the worst margarine, filled with seeds, served cold, whatever. For the price of a large popcorn I can go to a fast-food restaurant and get more food, of better quality, served hot, with a soda, and enjoy it more than the swill you owners call food.
You want to improve concession sales, research ways you can improve the flavor of popcorn while moderately increasing your price. Oh, but wait, that would cut into your precious profits. Sorry to tell you this, but it's how the market works. If you can't offer a superior product, or a superior price, bye! Maybe if enough theatre chains die the studios will loosen the screws a little on their prices.
In my case, Asus K7M, AMD 1.4GhZ processor. Built a bum fan tail, fan died, CPU death resulted within seconds. My all-copper heatsink turned all sorts of funny rainbow colors from the intense heat that resulted, and the top of the processor looks half-melted.
I'll agree with the posters saying it's a motherboard's thermal sensor issue, not necessarily an AMD problem. But I and my $142 credit card charge promise you, you lose your fan and/or heatsink and you've let the magic smoke out.
ANY company, ESPECIALLY a computer hardware company, will trumpet any 'optimizations' to anyone who'll listen in multiple press releases. Stupid little minutiae that make no difference in frame rate for the average user (AGP, anyone?) are announced as if they were the next generation in computer 3d graphics.
So. If ATI didn't think they were doing anything wrong, there'd be something like a sort of freaky stepchild of an iD/ATI agreement where ATI would plaster "Quake 3 optimized!" all over their boxes and take underhanded swipes at Nvidia et al. in their press releases about it being an exclusive.
They didn't. So it's clear, to me, that regardless of what the Slashdot/HardOCP/etc. community thinks, ATI thought it was scummy enough to keep it under wraps, AND make a non-statement regarding it once they'd been caught.
Pretty damning, I'd say. I can't wait to hear what Tom has to say about this. (Or has he spoken up already?)
Argh, I knew this would be misconstrued. I thought of it AFTER I pressed the 'submit' button of course.
I didn't mean that LLC's are in some way less 'legitimate' companies than corporations. I've worked for some pretty good LLC's myself.
What I meant is that incorporating is *expensive*. If you're going to build a company to act as a front or in some other manner misrepresent yourself, it's much cheaper to do it by becoming a limited partnership than a corporation. It's also a lot faster.
It's not to say that all LLC's are 'fake' (Using the term loosely) companies, but that most fake companies are LLC's, rather than corporations.
This looks suspicious to say the least. Go to their site, apparently as a company Pause Technologies does... Well, nothing, except has this one patent. They have maybe six total pages on their whole site, and none of them reference anything concrete beyond this one patent. My guess is this company is just a facade (Note the 'llc' instead of 'inc', this is usually a pretty clear sign) for an individual or law firm that decided they wanted to make a quick buck.
Not to say they didn't patent it, but they're trying to pass themselves off as a technology company. Much more likely some asshole with dollar signs in his eyes was looking at a vcr remote one day and thought, "Eureka!" The rest is history.
I'd love to, but they don't let faggots give blood. I wonder if anyone will die for a lack of blood I could have given them, were they to allow queers.
It's like talking about engines in terms of liters.
While I agree with you overall, I wanted to point out that most vehicle manufacturers still brag about the engine size, as do all motorcycle manufacturers. My point being that regardless of the usefulness of a number, the consumer demands a 'standard' benchmark, accurate or not, that the manufacturers are all too happy to give and salespeople are all too happy to tout.
Actually, the cost for bar codes isn't quite so horrific. You can get info on joining the coalition that distributes them here. It's $750 for sales up to $2million a year, which I assume a small label would fall under. Still very expensive, less than $1200.
Oh my god what a horrible film. Yes, it has a few funny moments. So do my bowel movements. I'm serious, it's that kinda funny. Like this laugh of relief, of, "Oh god, thank you for bringing me a joke that wasn't as horrific as the last fifty I've had to listen to."
5. Highways with different decks for different speeds
Actually, I'd say he was right on this. In Seattle, for example, there's a commuter-lane only road that runs express under the other one, under the city with no exits actually taking you into Seattle. Definately different speeds.:)
11. Use of plastics to construct houses
Well, it could be argued that this IS a miss, but not in the sense that it's not done at all, but it's just not the prevalent form of building materials.
16. Cleaning plastic waterproof furniture by turning a hose on it
Thanks god this was never invented! Imagine the smell after a week. Or has mold been eliminated in the future?
In response to the numerous posts claiming copying movies, cd's, etc. is pure theft, try and keep this in mind: In the case of music, I will agree, since the lack of export and content controls on music is only just now starting to be addressed. (The RIAA would love to have, for example, region-encoding of CD's.) But in the case of movies, I have no sympathy for the MPAA or for anyone else. They've made this bed, now they have to lie in it.
I'm perfectly happy to pay for movies. I make enough money to buy DVD's, and the respect I have for the filmmaking process dictates that I support artists I enjoy -- I WANT them to make more movies, so I'll do what I can to encourage that. But what do I do when the MPAA et. al. have backed me into a corner with content controls? If I can't get a copy of uncut Evangelion on DVD, of COURSE I'm going to download it! Would I have bought it were it available? Yes, absolutely! But I'm not given that choice.
Anime isn't the only example, I'm not even much of an anime fan. LEXX, the series, is available on DVD... In Canada. They don't have US distribution rights, so no LEXX DVD's for me! So I'm going to download the.avi's, not because it's my first choice, but because it's the only choice I'm given. And how can you claim it's theft, if the very organizations that claim I'm stealing are the ones making sure I can't get it through any other means?
Other examples are similar to the Evangelion one, where I'm ONLY given the option to buy censored/dubbed/cut/pan'n'scan versions of my favorite movies and shows. This trend will only continue; as the ack-acks as I saw them called try to control content further and further.
Piracy will grow, not because it's getting easier (Although that contributes) but because increasingly the methods used by people to get media not easily available to them (Such as overseas mail-order) will not be available due to digital content restrictions.
It's funny, because a lot of people dismiss the fanatical types by saying no one cares if they pirate stuff, it's the mainstream they're worried about, since it's a much larger demographic. What they don't realize is that the hardcore fans will be the ones who are constantly upgrading technology to fight content restrictions, and once they write it it's available to the general public. In other words, this isn't just Bubblegum Crisis fans making tapes, this is more akin to the fans making the VCR's (Via things like decss) and handing them out for free. Much more powerful.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't develop buggy games and slam them out the door fast enough. Let this be a lesson to the rest of you: Make crap faster.
Maybe he promised not to make any more games.
One can hope.
You know, despite my skepticism about what these guys are proposing, I'll take issue (somewhat) with your comment. Saying "TCP has been designed to be robust in all conditions" is true if by 'robust' you mean 'able to transmit at least some data'.
But the criticism levelled at TCP in high-bandwidth, high-latency applications is entirely valid, and in some circumstances the inefficiency is so bad as to force people to use hacked solutions built on top of UDP (if you want to call doing a ton of application-level ECC a hack.) As clever as many of the features of TCP are, they're useless if inherent limitations in the protocol make it impossible to use it to carry the volume of traffic you need it to.
I would argue that TCP is designed to be able to handle high packet loss, unstable routing, unstable physical links, etc., and it does all of that extremely well. But the fact is that regardless of how rare or rampant that sort of instability is, if a protocol can't scale to cross-country gigabit+ connections then something needs to be done, either in terms of improving the protocol or replacing it with something that has all the necessary functionality.
Kind of getting ill to my stomach listening to Lucas talking about the Oedipal aspects in the scene, and how the son was aborting the production of the father's evil seed when blowing up the death star?
There is no warrantee against infringement for *any* software you buy, from *anyone*, including Microsoft, SCO, IBM, etc. This is also true of the GPL. In fact, to even imply that there could be a warrantee for infringment is absurd. It is, quite frankly, impossible.
I unfortunately have to take issue with this part of your comment. While I cannot quote you chapter and verse from a license agreement, I worked briefly for a very, very large software company and spoke at some length with a few upper-level managers about the SCO issue and Linux.
The crux of their concern actually was the very fact that every large commercial software manufacturer, including MS, included language in their EULAs that indemnified the customer against patent- or copyright-infringing code.
To say this warranty is absurd is... Well, excuse me, absurd. The language simply says something along the lines of, "We will cover any legal issues that arise from use of our code, as it pertains to intellectual property ownersip issues." Period. They are not SWEARING there is no infinging code, they are saying unequivocally that they will take responsbility for it if there is.
To throw my hat into the conspiracy ring:
The more I watch this saga unfold, the more I suspect that someone, be it Microsoft of a software manufacturer coalition of some sort, is behind SCO's motions. With every new announcement, with every so-called tactic, SCO's actions in general and McBride's in particular make less and less sense, unless examined strictly under the light of whether or not they're trying to damage Linux, rather than trying to in any way benefit SCO.
Take this indemnification example. Take going after end-users in general! Does anyone, McBride or Sontag included, think these sorts of plays will drive users into the hands of SCO? Given the minisicule market share SCO has and rapidly-dwindling userbase, I don't buy the argument that SCO recognizes most users will go to other Unix (or Windows) solutions and hoping a proportional piece of the pie going to SCO licenses.
Other Unix vendros' gain is SCO's loss, in more than just cash. Without enlarging their installed base they're simply going to die out, and they know it. They couldn't possibly believe that through this circus they'll gain enough of a foothold to last beyond 2005, maybe 2007 if they're lucky.
Which leaves us with what the tinfoil-hat crowd has been saying from the beginning -- Someone's pulling the strings on this marionette, and the obvious suspect is the one most prone to shady tactics and who would benefit most from this entire debacle.
He's publicized what?
He's produced who?
He's worked on what soundtracks?
Am I the only one who's heard of none of these entities besides Ogg and Clark U? (And I'm not even sure I've heard of the latter.)
No offense to the guy, he's probably quite smart. But his credentials don't seem particularly impressive on the subject of RIAA experience.
I'd be curious to see how this works, honestly. Bellovin even comments in the paper that:
Using a random IPidfield has its own challenges to uniqueness. While linear congruential generators have a maximal cycle length, such generators are easily cryptanalyzed. A keyed generator, as is used in OpenBSD and FreeBSD, provides some protection, but one needs to be careful to avoid duplication if the generator is rekeyed periodically.
Apologies for the largish quote. But it does make for an interesting problem. If you decide to go the crypto route, you need to rekey in order to avoid brute-force attacks. But when you rekey you need to make sure that nothing in your data space conflicts with id's already 'out' on the net. How does *BSD handle this?
I don't see it as insurmountable, since the potential window for a collision is only , but it still seems like a challenge to solve it in a secure manner, i.e. solve it without giving away the underlying algorithm.
Er, uh.
I don't know what you consider 'almost nothing', but as an avid San Jose Sharks season ticket holder and fan I was treated to the "Tivo Replay" on the jumbotron every time they showed a replay, they had ads for Tivo during many of the breaks, and they little scary tv dude mascot would host some of the intermission little distractions and such.
I'm guessing all of this cost a pretty penny. I saw plenty of TV ads too, particularly during big sports games. I'd guess all of this cost close to a few mil.
I never, ever post here, mostly because Slashdot is so packed nowadays it's probably already been said. But I feel compelled.
All of you saying Microsoft has the right to do this:
Are you all complete and utter retards? Does this really have to be explained to you anew each time something actions such as this (Not necessarily by Microsoft) has been taken?
Let's try again, slowly for those of you who can't understand it.
1) Although there aren't enough details available (That I've seen) to judge this particular instance, virtually every time a purveyor of products that let you change what you've legally purchased to do something else gets shut down it is NOT with actual legal action, it is with the THREAT of legal action. The sickening fact of all this isn't whether or not these entities are within their legal right to do this, but that the question is never asked. Lawsuits are so onerous that the mere threat of one is sufficient to stop what MAY BE legal. The crucial legal court test NEVER OCCURS.
2) The 'slippery slope', while being largely a strawman argument, in cases like this is perhaps valid. If you don't think ANY hardware company is absolutely DROOLING at the prospect of extending it's reach far beyond the change of posession (purchase) of a product you're living in a fantasy world. Precendents such as this will of course start with a basis in what are apparently legal and moral positions, right now in the name of stopping piracy, but there is absolutely no reason to stop there. Once you've established the precedent of extending so-called 'rights' beyond the customer taking posession of your product you have infintely more control over what they can and cannot do, spanning legal and illegal uses.
3) The fact that devices such as mod chips (And P2P networks, for that matter) have both legitimate and illegitimate uses is not just a side argument. It is important to realize that many freedoms enjoyed by Americans (And for that matter, citizens of many other countries) are freedoms that could be used for both legitimate and illegitimate purposes. Drawing comparisons between the use of mod chips and free speech is more than just hyperbole, it is an attempt to illustrate that once you start allowing the restriction of something based on it's (in this case potentially) illegal uses you are setting a very dangerous precedent, and one that because of the DMCA has criminal and not just civil ramifications.
The DMCA is the bridge between a civil lawsuit brought by Microsoft and someone going to jail for making or using something that could be used to violate IP 'rights'. If you still don't believe me, ask yourself why they need the DMCA then? Why was it necessary for the government to enact legislation that allows companies and the government to take punitive actions against those who violate IP, or more accurately those who MAKE things that COULD be used to violate IP, rather than stick with civil proceedings? (Even the threat of which, I might add, seem to work just fine.) In other words, if you're going to say no one's going to get sent to jail for this, why is there a law that says you will? Do you honestly think that mod chip makers should go to jail?
4) Microsoft's choice to sell their products (X-box) at a loss does not automatically give them the legal right to take any and all action they see fit to try and make money through other means, in this case through game licenses. It's been said time and again but you still don't seem to get it, just because somebody WANTS to make money doesn't mean they GET to. It's very possible that their choice to try and pursue this method of profit is foolish and could result in failure due to the boxes being modded for uses besides purchasing the products they do make money on, but because of point (1) we may never know. By using the threat of legal action they may have secured a business model that is unavailable to other companies without as deep pockets. Do you think Microsoft would have succeeded in beating down Lik Sang if Microsoft were a small startup? (Not that X-box's major competitors, such as Sony, are small startups.) No. They can do this because of point (1), and because other companies realize the law being on their side (perhaps) is a moot point. In this case, Might Makes Right.
I hope this explains a bit to those of you comparing modding your X-Box to rolling your odometer back on your car (boggle) or simply accusing posters of being Microsoft/other large coporate entity bashers. It IS about essential rights, albeit indirectly, whether you choose to believe ir ot not.
Note the very last line of the article, that this patent attorney is an 'entrenpeneur in silicon valley'. In other words, he's not writing this as a big-business lawyer shockingly biting the hand that feeds him, but of a businessman who wants to make some money and has decided to use his credentials to try and make it easier.
I mean, his message is still correct, so I'm not going to complain. But it's not particularly shocking that he wrote this.
I'll even refine it further:
> salary => 60k/year => 5000/month
OK
> tax (say 25%) => 1250/month
that is conservative
Uh, it's just wrong.
Federal tax rate for individual making $60,000 per year: 27.5% (Better not make $65,551, rate jumps to 30.5%) (Source: You can find it anywhere.)
Federal social security tax: 6.2% (Source, anywhere)
Federal medicare tax: 1.45%
Total tax rate, federal: 35.15%
Federal tax, monthly, at above salary: $1757.50
Tax rate for Californian making over $37,725 per year: 9.3% (Source: here)
Tax rate for Illinosian (?): 3% (Flat)(Source: here)
State tax for someone living in the bay area, monthly, at above salary: $465
State tax for someone living in Illinois, same: $150
Total tax, monthly, for Californian at above wage: $2222.50
Total tax, monthly, for Illinoisian at above wage: $1907.50
> rental => 1500/month
sounds a bit high, but maybe not in the Bay area
If you're living alone, this is about right for anywhere except the bay area. If in bay area, this is high, however most folks in bay have roomies. A little low.
> grocery/food => 600/month
150/wk != dining out
This seems a little high to me. But then technical folks do tend to eat out more, being forced to keep hours where they don't have much choice. I spend at least this much, I guess.
> Utilities (phone, power, etc) => 100/month
way low - I would double this
Uh, more like triple out here. Internet = $100 per month for broadband, cable is $30, phone is $50, power + gas is at least $100, water/sewer/garbage another $20 or so...
> car (gas, insurance) => 150/month
that almost covers my insurance, doesn't do a thing for the gas
and what about a car payment?
My insurance is $120 a month, and I'm in a LOW bracket. And you're right, this doesn't cover a car payment.
total costs => 3600/month
No longer accurate, once you fix the tax rate and include things like car payment.
As Coca-Cola's CEO said in the 80's in response to a question as to whether the whole 'New Coke' debacle was planned from the get-go:
"We're not that smart, and we're not that stupid."
In other words, your conspiracy theory is highly doubtful.
There ARE no laws... Just like there's no laws requiring movies, music, and video games to have ratings, or laws against cable stations airing dirty words. The government is here to HELP us, right?
http://www.ustreas.gov/adc/
http://www.vortex.com/privacy/priv.08.18
Here's a suggestion a little different from all the other screaming on here. I, too, sneak popcorn into the theatre, although I'll always buy my soda to try and support the theatre.(That's not my suggestion.)
I go to movies a LOT, maybe twice a week if I can make it. Indie films, mainstream films, doesn't matter to me as long as it's cinema. I go to probably five different theatre-owned chains here in California (AMC, Cinemark, Syufy, Camera, Independent) and you know what? THE POPCORN TASTES LIKE SHIT. This is not a comment on how good the popcorn is compared with, say, microwave popcorn. It is quite definately a food product I wouldn't feed my dog. It is regularly served stale, or glopped with that horrific goo you call butter flavoring that's worse than the worst margarine, filled with seeds, served cold, whatever. For the price of a large popcorn I can go to a fast-food restaurant and get more food, of better quality, served hot, with a soda, and enjoy it more than the swill you owners call food.
You want to improve concession sales, research ways you can improve the flavor of popcorn while moderately increasing your price. Oh, but wait, that would cut into your precious profits. Sorry to tell you this, but it's how the market works. If you can't offer a superior product, or a superior price, bye! Maybe if enough theatre chains die the studios will loosen the screws a little on their prices.
In my case, Asus K7M, AMD 1.4GhZ processor. Built a bum fan tail, fan died, CPU death resulted within seconds. My all-copper heatsink turned all sorts of funny rainbow colors from the intense heat that resulted, and the top of the processor looks half-melted.
I'll agree with the posters saying it's a motherboard's thermal sensor issue, not necessarily an AMD problem. But I and my $142 credit card charge promise you, you lose your fan and/or heatsink and you've let the magic smoke out.
ANY company, ESPECIALLY a computer hardware company, will trumpet any 'optimizations' to anyone who'll listen in multiple press releases. Stupid little minutiae that make no difference in frame rate for the average user (AGP, anyone?) are announced as if they were the next generation in computer 3d graphics.
So. If ATI didn't think they were doing anything wrong, there'd be something like a sort of freaky stepchild of an iD/ATI agreement where ATI would plaster "Quake 3 optimized!" all over their boxes and take underhanded swipes at Nvidia et al. in their press releases about it being an exclusive.
They didn't. So it's clear, to me, that regardless of what the Slashdot/HardOCP/etc. community thinks, ATI thought it was scummy enough to keep it under wraps, AND make a non-statement regarding it once they'd been caught.
Pretty damning, I'd say. I can't wait to hear what Tom has to say about this. (Or has he spoken up already?)
Argh, I knew this would be misconstrued. I thought of it AFTER I pressed the 'submit' button of course.
I didn't mean that LLC's are in some way less 'legitimate' companies than corporations. I've worked for some pretty good LLC's myself.
What I meant is that incorporating is *expensive*. If you're going to build a company to act as a front or in some other manner misrepresent yourself, it's much cheaper to do it by becoming a limited partnership than a corporation. It's also a lot faster.
It's not to say that all LLC's are 'fake' (Using the term loosely) companies, but that most fake companies are LLC's, rather than corporations.
This looks suspicious to say the least. Go to their site, apparently as a company Pause Technologies does... Well, nothing, except has this one patent. They have maybe six total pages on their whole site, and none of them reference anything concrete beyond this one patent. My guess is this company is just a facade (Note the 'llc' instead of 'inc', this is usually a pretty clear sign) for an individual or law firm that decided they wanted to make a quick buck.
Not to say they didn't patent it, but they're trying to pass themselves off as a technology company. Much more likely some asshole with dollar signs in his eyes was looking at a vcr remote one day and thought, "Eureka!" The rest is history.
I'd love to, but they don't let faggots give blood. I wonder if anyone will die for a lack of blood I could have given them, were they to allow queers.
But I'm not bitter.
It's like talking about engines in terms of liters.
While I agree with you overall, I wanted to point out that most vehicle manufacturers still brag about the engine size, as do all motorcycle manufacturers. My point being that regardless of the usefulness of a number, the consumer demands a 'standard' benchmark, accurate or not, that the manufacturers are all too happy to give and salespeople are all too happy to tout.
Actually, the cost for bar codes isn't quite so horrific. You can get info on joining the coalition that distributes them here. It's $750 for sales up to $2million a year, which I assume a small label would fall under. Still very expensive, less than $1200.
Guess you can't blame it on the lag, bitch!
SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK.
Oh my god what a horrible film. Yes, it has a few funny moments. So do my bowel movements. I'm serious, it's that kinda funny. Like this laugh of relief, of, "Oh god, thank you for bringing me a joke that wasn't as horrific as the last fifty I've had to listen to."
Avoid! Run away!
5. Highways with different decks for different speeds
:)
:)
Actually, I'd say he was right on this. In Seattle, for example, there's a commuter-lane only road that runs express under the other one, under the city with no exits actually taking you into Seattle. Definately different speeds.
11. Use of plastics to construct houses
Well, it could be argued that this IS a miss, but not in the sense that it's not done at all, but it's just not the prevalent form of building materials.
16. Cleaning plastic waterproof furniture by turning a hose on it
Thanks god this was never invented! Imagine the smell after a week. Or has mold been eliminated in the future?
Just my nitpicks.
In response to the numerous posts claiming copying movies, cd's, etc. is pure theft, try and keep this in mind: In the case of music, I will agree, since the lack of export and content controls on music is only just now starting to be addressed. (The RIAA would love to have, for example, region-encoding of CD's.) But in the case of movies, I have no sympathy for the MPAA or for anyone else. They've made this bed, now they have to lie in it.
.avi's, not because it's my first choice, but because it's the only choice I'm given. And how can you claim it's theft, if the very organizations that claim I'm stealing are the ones making sure I can't get it through any other means?
I'm perfectly happy to pay for movies. I make enough money to buy DVD's, and the respect I have for the filmmaking process dictates that I support artists I enjoy -- I WANT them to make more movies, so I'll do what I can to encourage that. But what do I do when the MPAA et. al. have backed me into a corner with content controls? If I can't get a copy of uncut Evangelion on DVD, of COURSE I'm going to download it! Would I have bought it were it available? Yes, absolutely! But I'm not given that choice.
Anime isn't the only example, I'm not even much of an anime fan. LEXX, the series, is available on DVD... In Canada. They don't have US distribution rights, so no LEXX DVD's for me! So I'm going to download the
Other examples are similar to the Evangelion one, where I'm ONLY given the option to buy censored/dubbed/cut/pan'n'scan versions of my favorite movies and shows. This trend will only continue; as the ack-acks as I saw them called try to control content further and further.
Piracy will grow, not because it's getting easier (Although that contributes) but because increasingly the methods used by people to get media not easily available to them (Such as overseas mail-order) will not be available due to digital content restrictions.
It's funny, because a lot of people dismiss the fanatical types by saying no one cares if they pirate stuff, it's the mainstream they're worried about, since it's a much larger demographic. What they don't realize is that the hardcore fans will be the ones who are constantly upgrading technology to fight content restrictions, and once they write it it's available to the general public. In other words, this isn't just Bubblegum Crisis fans making tapes, this is more akin to the fans making the VCR's (Via things like decss) and handing them out for free. Much more powerful.