AFAIK the tracker has nothing to do with encouraging seeding; the tracker just keeps track of who is downloading a file, and keeps that data to anyone who connects to the tracker (and memorizes that one's adress as well).
While this may be true for many tracker sites, but there are also numerous sites (usually requiring some sort of signup) that use the tracker to track UL/DL ratios. Some of these will give extra privilages to people with good ratios, while some take things a step further and actively limit users that are leeching excessively. This is particularly effective when aren't a huge number of high-speed seeders as it keeps the overall UL/DL ratios more in balance.
It does have that effect. But there's a logical reason to want passwords to be tougher and non-permanent. They're obviously reacting to recent reports of security breaches due to stolen passwords.
Actually in said large blue company, the reason is that Italian security laws have recently changed and require a 90-day password change policy. Since the company has a presence in Italy and many of the resources used are common, the rules are being implemented company-wide.
I used to be pretty disappointed with Bittorrent's performance as well, until I started opening the right ports on my firewall. Once I did that my download speeds started to skyrocket. (My bandwidth caps at 250kB/45kB -- currently downloading Broken Saints at ~195kB/15kB). This is especially true when there is this high a number of downloaders and seeds. (When you're getting a less popular file, you're obviously at the mercy of other people's available bandwidth.)
It turns out that Bittorrent will work (sluggishly) without inbound ports open, which is why many people never think to look deeper into firewall settings.
BTW, Bittorrent uses TCP 6881-6889, one port for each torrent you are getting/sharing.
Do all radio stations have to pay royalties, or only commercial radio stations? I think it's the latter, since our college runs its own non-commercial radio station and they don't have to pay any royalties that I know of.
Most CDs out there have fine print on them indicating a copyright and prohibiting any public performance or broadcast without a license. Just because you are a radio station doesn't give you the right to broadcast them, regardless of whether or not you are commercial. Think about it -- why should you automatically have the right to broadcast someone else's work for free? Instead, radio stations generally pay a license fee to ASCAP and/or BMI on a yearly basis. The vast majority of artists have agreements with one of these entities, so paying the fee essentially gives you a blanket license to broadcast (most) released CDs. There are no limits on how often you can play pieces or how many people can listen.
If your station is not paying any licensing fees (they probably are, but it's buried deep in their budget and isn't given a second thought since everyone has paid these fees for many years), they are either limiting themselves to playing exclusively independant artists that have given some kind of permission to play their works, or they're broadcasting music illegally. (I too worked with my non-profit college station and we sure as hell paid those license fees).
A majority of the online radio stations are non-commercial, as in, they don't run radio stations for money. Most are run by shoutcast and other hobbyists anyway. So, why should these radio stations have to pay royalties, if their real-world (pardon the expression) counterparts do nt have to?
You've always had to pay fees to broadcast, regardless of how you were doing it. There has to be some form of compensation for artists. Many webcasters have been paying ASCAP/BMI license fees over the years (they are much much more reasonable than the RIAA fees). The ones that weren't paying were broadcasting just as illegally before the RIAA came along with their fees.
I think the issue is not paying fees in general. It's really that the more recent RIAA fee structure is in addition to the ASCAP/BMI licenses. The (flawed) argument is that a webcast is considered a copy of the music, so there should be a per-performance, per-listener fee. But the quality is still not a true copy and you could argue that it's equivalent to a strong FM signal -- hence no different than a normal radio station. Yes it's true that an mp3 stream is more convenient to manipulate and burn to a CD, but I don't think that's enough of an argument.
Radio stations do not need to pay the RIAA fees unless they are simulcasting over the web. And when they do have webstreams, the fees are significantly lower (for non-commercial at least) than internet-only broadcasters. Webcasters generally have a harder time generating ad revenue due to the more limited listener base, yet they have to pay higher fees. Does it make sense? No. It's just a really messed up system. And it's killing a lot of good streams.
My question is, there was 707 and 727... Was there a 717?
Initially, no, but Boeing did make a 717 more recently (info here). It's a small 100-seater that started service in 1999. The 707 and 727, on the other hand, aren't in production anymore (AFAIK).
yeah, I read somewhere that most of the performance gain on the x86 side would come from the additional registers. But a well-designed RISC CPU wouldn't have as much to gain as the poorly-designed CISC architecture.
Contrary to popular belief, modern x86 CPUs *are* RISC machines -- at least internally. On a P4 the horrendously contorted x86 instructions are decoded and chopped up into micro operations that are very much like RISC instructions.
64-bit means that each instruction can be 64 bits long, allowing for the native computation of larger numbers.
Ow, that hurts. 64 bit does NOT automatically mean 64 bit instructions. You don't need a 64bit instruction to manipulate 64bit data. Actually in PPC, instructions are 32 bits long. 64 bits usually refers to the width of memory addresses and can also refer to the width of the integer data busses. (FP data tends to be 64 bits or wider even on 32bit CPUs.)
The fact of the matter is that with a good set of rebates (and coupons, pricematches, etc) you can get items at absolutely amazing prices. A quick peek at forums like FatWallet reveals some astonishing deals.
The trick is to beat the rebate companies at their own game. First off, check the rebate for submissions deadline and send it in ASAP (though make sure you don't need to return the item). ALWAYS make copies of everything you submit. This gives you the leverage you need if rebates "get lost". Then, so you don't forget to follow up, put an entry into your favorite calendar program for 8 weeks from the mailing date and safely tuck away your rebate copies.
In more than one case, I had companies find no record of my submission after 8 weeks, but in ALL those cases when I emailed or faxed my copies they were taken care of. In one case it took 3 attempts, on the last of which I spoke with a supervisor and had my check 5 days later.
This behavior could also be exploited to your advantage should you forget to mail in your rebate in time. Mailing it in late guarantees you a denial, but what is to stop you (other than your conscience) from making photocopies anyway, calling after 8 weeks, acting surprised that it's not in the system and sending in those copies?? Rebate companies love to tell you the rebate must have gotten "lost in the mail", so you could just throw that back at them.
Of course I would never condone such behavior, but in theory it should work. Rebate companies are inherently evil, so you why not sweep morals under the table?
Hmm, while that probably works just fine, I just right-clicked on the movie and selected "Save As QuickTime Movie". And yes, it saved the movie not a reference file. (QT 5.02 on Win2k)
JP was his greatest book, IMHO. If they had filmed the movie exactly like the book, you would have shit your pants in the theatre!
Jurassic Park was the first Crichton book I read and I was immediately hooked. It promptly lead to me trying to get my hands on most of his other books. As cool as the movie version was though, especially with the big deal about the all-digital dinosaurs, I was disappointed with how much of the novel was left out of the movie.
Sadly I'm also noticing a downward spiral. Movie adoptions of Crichton's books after JP got worse and worse (Congo, Sphere) and even his novel Airframe was a disappointment. With all the good things I've read here about Prey, I'm gonna have to cash some of those Amazon gift certificates.
"Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue."
Offtopic, I know, but kudos for the "Airplane" reference...ahh, a classic.
ASCI Purple will be built using 12,544 IBM Power5 microprocessors, the same chips that are used in Apple PCs and Nintendo games systems.
Umm, how about...NOT. Just because they're all PowerPC based doesn't make them the same. Based on that logic a 386 and a Pentium 4 are the same too, just beacuse they're both built on the x86 architecture.
Power 5 (can't find a link) is a generation of chips that are related, but further on the horizon than
the chips Apple is buying (both are Power 4 spin-offs, but quite different). The chips used in the Nintendo GameCube are not even related -- they just happen to also be made by IBM -- not to mention they are several years old while the above chips are not even available yet.
Then again having a server class chip in a Nintendo might be interesting...
One thing that a lot of people seem to ignore is that most people are pretty clueless about the relatively easy methods of circumvention.
Then again, for a while now those people are also the least likely to try to copy a CD so I guess there is some truthfulness to the original claim.
This is not necessarily as true as in the past. With today's dirt-cheap CD burners bundled with software that makes it virtually idiot-proof to copy (or mix) a CD, more and more of those clueless people are making copies and giving them to their friends. All these copy-protection schemes are going to do is move CD copying back into the realm of advanced users who know how to circumvent them...at least for a while. Then the industry will come up with some new deterrent and the cycle repeats.
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIK the tracker has nothing to do with encouraging seeding; the tracker just keeps track of who is downloading a file, and keeps that data to anyone who connects to the tracker (and memorizes that one's adress as well).
While this may be true for many tracker sites, but there are also numerous sites (usually requiring some sort of signup) that use the tracker to track UL/DL ratios. Some of these will give extra privilages to people with good ratios, while some take things a step further and actively limit users that are leeching excessively. This is particularly effective when aren't a huge number of high-speed seeders as it keeps the overall UL/DL ratios more in balance.
It does have that effect. But there's a logical reason to want passwords to be tougher and non-permanent. They're obviously reacting to recent reports of security breaches due to stolen passwords.
Actually in said large blue company, the reason is that Italian security laws have recently changed and require a 90-day password change policy. Since the company has a presence in Italy and many of the resources used are common, the rules are being implemented company-wide.
Finally a working torrent of the full 19MB version...
Downloaded at usual 200kB+ speeds and played in QT 6.3
Direct link to torrent is here.
I used to be pretty disappointed with Bittorrent's performance as well, until I started opening the right ports on my firewall. Once I did that my download speeds started to skyrocket. (My bandwidth caps at 250kB/45kB -- currently downloading Broken Saints at ~195kB/15kB). This is especially true when there is this high a number of downloaders and seeds. (When you're getting a less popular file, you're obviously at the mercy of other people's available bandwidth.)
It turns out that Bittorrent will work (sluggishly) without inbound ports open, which is why many people never think to look deeper into firewall settings.
BTW, Bittorrent uses TCP 6881-6889, one port for each torrent you are getting/sharing.
Do all radio stations have to pay royalties, or only commercial radio stations? I think it's the latter, since our college runs its own non-commercial radio station and they don't have to pay any royalties that I know of.
Most CDs out there have fine print on them indicating a copyright and prohibiting any public performance or broadcast without a license. Just because you are a radio station doesn't give you the right to broadcast them, regardless of whether or not you are commercial. Think about it -- why should you automatically have the right to broadcast someone else's work for free? Instead, radio stations generally pay a license fee to ASCAP and/or BMI on a yearly basis. The vast majority of artists have agreements with one of these entities, so paying the fee essentially gives you a blanket license to broadcast (most) released CDs. There are no limits on how often you can play pieces or how many people can listen.
If your station is not paying any licensing fees (they probably are, but it's buried deep in their budget and isn't given a second thought since everyone has paid these fees for many years), they are either limiting themselves to playing exclusively independant artists that have given some kind of permission to play their works, or they're broadcasting music illegally. (I too worked with my non-profit college station and we sure as hell paid those license fees).
A majority of the online radio stations are non-commercial, as in, they don't run radio stations for money. Most are run by shoutcast and other hobbyists anyway. So, why should these radio stations have to pay royalties, if their real-world (pardon the expression) counterparts do nt have to?
You've always had to pay fees to broadcast, regardless of how you were doing it. There has to be some form of compensation for artists. Many webcasters have been paying ASCAP/BMI license fees over the years (they are much much more reasonable than the RIAA fees). The ones that weren't paying were broadcasting just as illegally before the RIAA came along with their fees.
I think the issue is not paying fees in general. It's really that the more recent RIAA fee structure is in addition to the ASCAP/BMI licenses. The (flawed) argument is that a webcast is considered a copy of the music, so there should be a per-performance, per-listener fee. But the quality is still not a true copy and you could argue that it's equivalent to a strong FM signal -- hence no different than a normal radio station. Yes it's true that an mp3 stream is more convenient to manipulate and burn to a CD, but I don't think that's enough of an argument.
Radio stations do not need to pay the RIAA fees unless they are simulcasting over the web. And when they do have webstreams, the fees are significantly lower (for non-commercial at least) than internet-only broadcasters. Webcasters generally have a harder time generating ad revenue due to the more limited listener base, yet they have to pay higher fees. Does it make sense? No. It's just a really messed up system. And it's killing a lot of good streams.
Skipped a few digits, though, din't they?
My question is, there was 707 and 727... Was there a 717?
Initially, no, but Boeing did make a 717 more recently (info here). It's a small 100-seater that started service in 1999. The 707 and 727, on the other hand, aren't in production anymore (AFAIK).
Wow, has noone noticed this is OLD NEWS? Slashdot covered it over a month ago when the kid was interviewed about the $12k settlement here. *sigh*
yeah, I read somewhere that most of the performance gain on the x86 side would come from the additional registers. But a well-designed RISC CPU wouldn't have as much to gain as the poorly-designed CISC architecture.
Contrary to popular belief, modern x86 CPUs *are* RISC machines -- at least internally. On a P4 the horrendously contorted x86 instructions are decoded and chopped up into micro operations that are very much like RISC instructions.
64-bit means that each instruction can be 64 bits long, allowing for the native computation of larger numbers.
Ow, that hurts. 64 bit does NOT automatically mean 64 bit instructions. You don't need a 64bit instruction to manipulate 64bit data. Actually in PPC, instructions are 32 bits long. 64 bits usually refers to the width of memory addresses and can also refer to the width of the integer data busses. (FP data tends to be 64 bits or wider even on 32bit CPUs.)
The fact of the matter is that with a good set of rebates (and coupons, pricematches, etc) you can get items at absolutely amazing prices. A quick peek at forums like FatWallet reveals some astonishing deals.
The trick is to beat the rebate companies at their own game. First off, check the rebate for submissions deadline and send it in ASAP (though make sure you don't need to return the item). ALWAYS make copies of everything you submit. This gives you the leverage you need if rebates "get lost". Then, so you don't forget to follow up, put an entry into your favorite calendar program for 8 weeks from the mailing date and safely tuck away your rebate copies.
In more than one case, I had companies find no record of my submission after 8 weeks, but in ALL those cases when I emailed or faxed my copies they were taken care of. In one case it took 3 attempts, on the last of which I spoke with a supervisor and had my check 5 days later.
This behavior could also be exploited to your advantage should you forget to mail in your rebate in time. Mailing it in late guarantees you a denial, but what is to stop you (other than your conscience) from making photocopies anyway, calling after 8 weeks, acting surprised that it's not in the system and sending in those copies?? Rebate companies love to tell you the rebate must have gotten "lost in the mail", so you could just throw that back at them.
Of course I would never condone such behavior, but in theory it should work. Rebate companies are inherently evil, so you why not sweep morals under the table?
Look here for news debunking this rumor. Yahoo has it too. Wonder if Jake Gyllenhaal dating Kirstin Dunst has anything to do with these rumors.
Hmm, while that probably works just fine, I just right-clicked on the movie and selected "Save As QuickTime Movie". And yes, it saved the movie not a reference file. (QT 5.02 on Win2k)
;-)
Simpler
JP was his greatest book, IMHO. If they had filmed the movie exactly like the book, you would have shit your pants in the theatre!
Jurassic Park was the first Crichton book I read and I was immediately hooked. It promptly lead to me trying to get my hands on most of his other books. As cool as the movie version was though, especially with the big deal about the all-digital dinosaurs, I was disappointed with how much of the novel was left out of the movie.
Sadly I'm also noticing a downward spiral. Movie adoptions of Crichton's books after JP got worse and worse (Congo, Sphere) and even his novel Airframe was a disappointment. With all the good things I've read here about Prey, I'm gonna have to cash some of those Amazon gift certificates.
"Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue."
Offtopic, I know, but kudos for the "Airplane" reference...ahh, a classic.
ASCI Purple will be built using 12,544 IBM Power5 microprocessors, the same chips that are used in Apple PCs and Nintendo games systems.
Umm, how about...NOT. Just because they're all PowerPC based doesn't make them the same. Based on that logic a 386 and a Pentium 4 are the same too, just beacuse they're both built on the x86 architecture.
Power 5 (can't find a link) is a generation of chips that are related, but further on the horizon than the chips Apple is buying (both are Power 4 spin-offs, but quite different). The chips used in the Nintendo GameCube are not even related -- they just happen to also be made by IBM -- not to mention they are several years old while the above chips are not even available yet.
Then again having a server class chip in a Nintendo might be interesting...
One thing that a lot of people seem to ignore is that most people are pretty clueless about the relatively easy methods of circumvention.
Then again, for a while now those people are also the least likely to try to copy a CD so I guess there is some truthfulness to the original claim.
This is not necessarily as true as in the past. With today's dirt-cheap CD burners bundled with software that makes it virtually idiot-proof to copy (or mix) a CD, more and more of those clueless people are making copies and giving them to their friends. All these copy-protection schemes are going to do is move CD copying back into the realm of advanced users who know how to circumvent them...at least for a while. Then the industry will come up with some new deterrent and the cycle repeats.