Actually the US has just as good a safety net for the poor (I've read a number of articles that the say $ quantity of support is even more), but it's the middle class in the US is where they remove the support. From a state benefit perspective the poor aren't in a bad shape, the people on the lower-middle class bracket are where the safety net end in the US and continues in Canada (med bills, mortgage, layoff, etc for this non-poor but non-wealthy group can get painful)
And you also have to register your gun in the US too.
Probably because we are rebuilding their infrastructure. We tore it down to begin with, it's our responsibility to give them some semblence of it back. To do what you are suggesting would be a very bad thing, the US is selfish but not *that* selfish, or that stupid (and to pull out would be selfish & stupid).
The new government had it's soldiers and police removed, anybody with half a brain realizes it takes more than a couple of weeks to replace that kind of infrastructure. Infrastructure replacement is stopping us from leaving now, but that's a finite time.
The quantity of the population that are fighting are a severe minority, akin to what the KKK is (a small but violent and vocal minority). More Iraqi's are dieing from attacks on their own people than there are US soldiers even getting injured by the same people.
By saying "when I see you actually leaving" I've got to assume that you are from a different country not there. I can understand being against the initial invasion, but how can you be against helping of the civilian people being kill daily by a minority? Is your country really *that* selfish? The world's track record on this is pretty damn shitty, during the 90's in Rwanda the death rate of that genocide was higher than the Nazi's. Higher than the friggin Nazi's, the world says it doesn't want to get involved, you have opportunities now again and you intentionally sit on your hands to "teach the US a lesson" on not intervening, only it's on the backs of the civilians being killed by others. That's pretty damn selfish is all I can say.
You want to know something... Iraq *did* cause 9/11, all one has to do is use the tiniest ounce of real critical thinking and jump off the only about WMD or Bush==Hitler bandwagon.
Go back a few years to the early 90's
1) Bin Laden wanted his perfect *MUSLIM* military to protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq (yes from Iraq), the Saudi's instead chose the US 2) Having the Saudi's choose the US instead of his small rag-tag but religious bunch pissed him off 3) Iraq situation not improving, UN seems to have no incentive at all to do anything except to leave the sanctions in place and keep it all around crappy for everyone (except those getting kickbacks). So US is stuck in Saudi Arabia because Iraq is exactly the same as it has been 4) Bin Laden minority group get's more and more pissed at US precense and starts acting (1st WTC bombing, Cole, etc) 5) 9/11 hits, big mama jamma.
Options
Pulling out Saudi Arabia to appease the minority group of Muslims behind Bin Laden vs the majority Muslim group who disagree with him (not going to happen, remember all the lovely 70's plane hijackings & what appeasement did?)
Change the stalled decade long Iraq situation and then remove the troops. Note was it even a month after the US invaded that troops in Saudi Arabia pulled out... Coincidence? I think not. The current Iraq situation has a much shorter lifespan than the stuck in the mud, decade-long Iraq situation before.
All France, Germany, etc wanted to do was to continue to contain Iraq with sanctions (no matter that nothing had changed with intent over the past decade, and we now see he was getting billions on the side), they really didn't have their neck on the line like the US by keeping the situation the same.
It wasn't about oil, it wasn't really directly about WMD, it was about changing the situation so the US can actually *get-out* of the Middle East.
So your owner didn't setup the reverse entries that they are supposed to do, and you are mad at AOL because they and half of the rest implemented the same rules. Spam does originate from untended/unmanaged machines that's why they block everybody from sending out mail directly and only their providers servers (which the ISP can monitor). If it's only allowed to come out of their servers, the ISP *can* take responsible action. If your provider won't fix the problem at your end (not having reverse addresses) why would you expect AOL to make an individual exception for yours and the million+ others. You could probably have a staff 20+ people and all that they'd do all day would be to just type in sites like yours who are incorrectly configured into access lists.
> pick a format that has real room for growth and can accomodate our needs today and tomorrow?
I believe it's because they want to sell you hardware for the new format that's coming out tommorrow. It's engineered to barely support today, so it will be obsolete in a few years, guaranteeing a nice revenue stream.
I'd say that scientists aren't falsifying or misinterpreting their results; but are coming in with a preconceived notion. Having a preconceived notion of what they want the end goal to believe (intentional or not) they will tend to achieve that belief.
It's the equivalent of Microsoft funding a report against linux, there may not be anything misrepresented or false in a report, but you have a pretty good idea that if the study expanded their parameters to also look at data inconsistent with the preconceived goals instead of ignoring it the report would have a good chance of being different.
Actually you are incorrect. Circumventing them does NOT violate the DMCA, distributing a program to circumvent them does violate it.
If it's your original copy of the CD and you aren't putting the program you use to copy it up on the web anywhere; you can copy the media to your hearts content under fair use and legally nobody will be able to do anything about it. You could walk into the FBI's office tell them that you are copying it, but not distributing the media or how to copy it and they wouldn't be able to do anything about it (you would of course get a very exhaustive look over, but nothing would be illegal).
Just wanted to clear up a rampant myth about the DMCA as to how it actually affects people.
AOL actually didn't really care too much about the program or how good it was. At the time Netscape was the start page of a majority of the internet. They bought Netscape for their page views, they sold all of the programs (except for the browser) off to Sun. They kept the browser so they could keep the clicks, unrealizing that MS would end up flipping their position and that in short while adveritsement dollars wouldn't be quite the same.
John Kerry said this "[O]ne would be hard-pressed," he wrote, "to find a single grieving relative of those killed in the bombings of the World Trade Center in New York or the federal building in Oklahoma City who would not have gladly sacrificed a measure of personal privacy if it could have saved a loved one"
Not a single senator 99-0 signed up for Kyoto as it stands. Bush and Kerry both have said they would not sign it as it stood, both said they would sign it if changes were made.
The US is decreasing it's per-capita emissions at a faster rate than Canada has since signing the treaty.
So if the entire government refused to move forward with it and the US is reducing it faster than nations who signed up for it... what good would it be?
I made the statement because it was pretty obvious that the poster I was replying to was alluding that the US is alone in it's court system. France and Germany are examples in that there are multiple different countries causing an issue. And I'm sorry, you won't get a completely correct answer (at least from me) because I'm not going to write down every single nation in the world from the tiny Lichtenstein to the ever changing former Soviet block, Africa nations, South America, Asian, etc. I figured a few examples that weren't US were enough, I guess for nit-picky people who want a list of every possible nation, I will leave that up to you; since it's pretty obvious you care about whether or not Lichtenstein is in the list I post.
I should have been more descriptive on the google/France, I put it out in relation to the previous post how he was alluding that the US sues. Just like the US isn't suing, an individual is; multiple companies inside of France sued Google over it's adwords business.
Back to topic, and what do you think this is then?
Germany & France sues Yahoo because people in their country can see auctions for nazi material on US servers, even though it's allowed in the country it's being housed at.
Person threatens suit because people in US can access US copyrighted material on Australian servers, even though it's allowed in the country it's being housed at.
I guess you could argue ones about not allowing a physical thing and other electronic, but the core thought behind it is the same. If you look at the article, the parallels to the Germany & France bans at yahoo are even closer:
"The Stephens Mitchell Trusts wants Australian Gutenberg volunteers either to remove Gone With the Wind from their servers or else take steps to prevent downloads in countries where copyright law bans unauthorized distribution of the 1936 classic."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/760782.s tm "A French judge has ruled that the US Internet Service Provider Yahoo! Inc must make it impossible for French users to access sites auctioning race hate memorabilia. "
One is preventing French users from accessing a site, the other is preventing US users from accessing a site. I'd say that's really close to apples to apples.
Which countries would this be? France has sued google for allowing other companies to use certain word phrases, France & Germany have sued Yahoo US over Nazi stuff.
My comcast Moto 6208 gives me unencrypted video out firewire, which I then record to my linux box that emulates a D-VHS recorder. No hardware modding, a bit of software (but not too much) mucking but it works like a champ... until you run out of disk space.
In our situation it's not clusters, but farms. Each node is completely independant but they do the same tasks.
You do realize of course that a p690 is what exactly what I was referring to as a "big iron" system. I'm talking Dell, HP Proliant, IBM xSeries type systems $7k. You may be doing some extremely niche fluid dynamics that require a single image; but the majority of what high-end Unix systems are being sold for do NOT require that, a small percentage do but not all. You take your one p690 and replace it with a bunch of nodes of *SMALLER* systems (not two p690's), enough to handle your entire load then throw in a few extra. You increase your availability by being able to lose a node, you increase your performance by adding some extra nodes, and your incremental growth costs are some inexpensive nodes you throw in once a year for growth (no more forklift upgrades that finance hates to hear).
Never said it was good for everything, but that we were able to prove to our management that we can get better: performance, reliability, scalability than the traditional monolithic systems. It seems that you don't want to admit that low class linux systems could possibly fullfill the same requirements as your p690 system but at a much better cost point.
Maybe to better illustrate the point is that you don't require linux, you could get some of the low-end IBM boxes, etc. and do the same procedure scaling horizontally rather than vertically. You won't get as an attractive price point but your availability, reliability increases significanly beyond what you have today with one system. You might say I've less of a "Linux is good for everything" attitude and more of a "horizontal scaling is good for almost all business, and combining Linux & x86 make it an easy dollar win". What's even better is now you could drop hardware support contracts, lease for 3 years and get a 3 year warranty, by some extra for spares and you've removed another significant dollar cost from your organization (provided you have semi-technical staff) repairs also happen much quicker than having to get parts expressed in from the vendor.
It may not work for everyone (extremely niche single image systems), but we've had extremely good luck in replacing our mainframes, our high-end Irix and high-end Solaris systems (high-end being 16+ procs) and getting much more performance (upto 2 fold per CPU) more reliability, and more availability and it cost our business much less.
That is until you put in n+1 active configurations. We went from a shop of purely big iron, SGI Origin 2000, Sun 6800, HPUX, Sequent. And have replaced it with Linux and have a higher overall stability, scalability and performance.
Compared just 1 linux to 1 big iron the big iron will beat it, but all I've got to do is buy 1 or 2 additional linux box and my availability is better (and been proven better over the past 2 years in our environment) than just 1 big iron box and a much better capital price point.
You think possibly the fact that not a SINGLE person in the senate voted (95 to 0) that the Kyoto treaty as it stood was acceptable, might also be a reason why he didn't persue entering into it?
In fact Bush has said that he supports the concept of the Kyoto treaty, (which would basically contradict what you are trying to say that he doesn't believe that humans can cause issues) but like ALL the other senators (remember every single one said don't sign it, Dem & Repub) has issues with the writing.
And it's not just all the US Senators, here's an open letter from SCIENTISTS also concerned with the content of the Kyoto treaty. http://www.envirotruth.org/openletter.cfm I'd say that a number of nations were rushing to "pat themselves on the back" rather than actually solving the issue.
Actually very few independant pieces of software these days from the shops we are talking about (small shops, or single person), are offering the raw material or a good basis for support just for their paying customers. These shops normally are trying to be a nice to people as possible, supporting *all* the people not just the verified people with support contracts; we aren't talking million dollar oracle licenses we are talking $20 programs here.
I never said for a minute that the majority would have purchased, I said that when faced with a decision between pulling out there credit card and downloading or just directly downloading the program people directly download the program. There is no way that the free market can work in this situation, since you brought it up... why don't you tell me how the freemarket will work in the $20 shareware market.
But you are missing the part where there was obviously enough value for people to continue using it.
Let me ask this, provided the same easy access to the same software, fprefect said it very well "the plain fact is that most people are honest unless given a chance to be dishonest." If it's just as easy to get a code that makes your software "free" than to actually pay for it, the majority of people will go for free. You might be trying to say that people don't act this way through some rose colored glasses but believe me people are this way.
The free market breaks when I can get a program for the same effort (or even less effort) as purchasing it. How can a company compete with someone giving away their product for free? Obviously the free is *always* going to win, this is as you said the freemarket. It's not like you can put compete by putting out a better product, since it is your own product.
Only fools, wave the issue off as easily as you do.
Actually I'd say that something *HAS* happned to someone by use of the codes. If you clicked the link under "threw in the towel" you'd see this lovely display:
"Echelon has been discontinued due to lack of support, anyone who previously bought the program may still get support from digitalschism@cox.net, otherwise we no longer sell/distribute the product."
If the people using serialz actually end up forcing products out of everybody's elses hands I'd say that those people are surely equivalent to common vandals. What if I really wanted to use that product that the developer killed because of people's use of serialz, etc. they've affected me and all the people who wanted to use it not just the developer.
Actually I believe both ABC & ESPN to 720/60p via satelite (I've got cable, but watching my buds projector on ESPN was sweet).
I'd disagree with your statement abour just as valid. Do a quick search for just 1080/60p and see the number of products that support it, now do the same for you 1080/75p; notice a bit of a difference in the quantity of results. It's a standard for the cable & satelite guys, the OTA people right now are SOL.
Yeah I know. as I said previously the ATSC have plans to keep OTA in 6mhz effectivley 19mb/s. Cable & satelite providers aren't under those same restrictions and already their hardware support 1080/60p. What's interesting is that the FCC didn't make a statement about any of the 18 "official" standards, just the bandwidth. Another reason why with OTA you won't see 1080/60p (without serious compression), FCC doesn't set the bandwidth on cable and satelite for cable QAM256 allows them to get that bigger bandwidth benefit.
It leads into the whole broadcast flag. The intent for cable providers is to send the signals in 1080/60p, if your device isn't broadcast flag "ready" the receiver will drop it down to maybe 480p (if you are lucky) if you play nicely you get to see the benefits of the whole shebang. If one wants to get tinfoilish, one might see this as a way to squeeze the OTA market completely out and make sure everybody does the flag dance, since they won't be able get as good of a signal (but the difference between them of course is actually pretty minimal) marketing hype will force everybody over to a cable or satelite provider.
Yup my bad, I really should have stated some additional things.
As to whether or not it's overkill... I don't know 720/60p is pretty damn good for fast motion; but then when you want to sit down with a really immersive movie you give up some on the res. Switching back and forth between them isn't the best on my older RPTV; and creates some hell for recording. Once I get that 200" front projector (which will have to be snuck in to get past the S.O. factor), I'll probably be beating down someone's door to get my 1080/60p.
Yup, my bad I dropped a word or two between the per second. Actually it's 30, 29.9, 24 or 23.9. The 24&23.9 are what movies are normally filmed at. They then display the same image twice to reduce the flicker.
Ahh... but you aren't comparing apples to apples, 1080/60i == 1080/30p != 1080/60p. You do realize that 1080/60p is a valid format don't you? The only reason why it's not there as much is because the ATSC had lots of problems fitting it into a 6mhz channel (plus for some reason they've got a boner for interlaced), there are quite a few consumer products with a full 60p and about all broadcast equipment has that capability.
Right now it's all about the bandwidth limits, That's why I said that to fit 1080 running at the same mhz within their channel requirements they'd have to compress the absolute shit out of it. 1080/60p won't fit on a 19meg OTA channel without massive compression, but many cable receivers do have the capability so they can support via 256QAM 38meg capabilities (my Motorola supports 256QAM, and could take a 1080/60p signal if the cable company decided to send one to me).
If you want to compare apples (1080/60i) and oranges (1080/30p) than that's something different.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the US has just as good a safety net for the poor (I've read a number of articles that the say $ quantity of support is even more), but it's the middle class in the US is where they remove the support. From a state benefit perspective the poor aren't in a bad shape, the people on the lower-middle class bracket are where the safety net end in the US and continues in Canada (med bills, mortgage, layoff, etc for this non-poor but non-wealthy group can get painful)
And you also have to register your gun in the US too.
Probably because we are rebuilding their infrastructure. We tore it down to begin with, it's our responsibility to give them some semblence of it back. To do what you are suggesting would be a very bad thing, the US is selfish but not *that* selfish, or that stupid (and to pull out would be selfish & stupid).
The new government had it's soldiers and police removed, anybody with half a brain realizes it takes more than a couple of weeks to replace that kind of infrastructure. Infrastructure replacement is stopping us from leaving now, but that's a finite time.
The quantity of the population that are fighting are a severe minority, akin to what the KKK is (a small but violent and vocal minority). More Iraqi's are dieing from attacks on their own people than there are US soldiers even getting injured by the same people.
By saying "when I see you actually leaving" I've got to assume that you are from a different country not there. I can understand being against the initial invasion, but how can you be against helping of the civilian people being kill daily by a minority? Is your country really *that* selfish? The world's track record on this is pretty damn shitty, during the 90's in Rwanda the death rate of that genocide was higher than the Nazi's. Higher than the friggin Nazi's, the world says it doesn't want to get involved, you have opportunities now again and you intentionally sit on your hands to "teach the US a lesson" on not intervening, only it's on the backs of the civilians being killed by others. That's pretty damn selfish is all I can say.
You want to know something... Iraq *did* cause 9/11, all one has to do is use the tiniest ounce of real critical thinking and jump off the only about WMD or Bush==Hitler bandwagon.
Go back a few years to the early 90's
1) Bin Laden wanted his perfect *MUSLIM* military to protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq (yes from Iraq), the Saudi's instead chose the US
2) Having the Saudi's choose the US instead of his small rag-tag but religious bunch pissed him off
3) Iraq situation not improving, UN seems to have no incentive at all to do anything except to leave the sanctions in place and keep it all around crappy for everyone (except those getting kickbacks). So US is stuck in Saudi Arabia because Iraq is exactly the same as it has been
4) Bin Laden minority group get's more and more pissed at US precense and starts acting (1st WTC bombing, Cole, etc)
5) 9/11 hits, big mama jamma.
Options
Pulling out Saudi Arabia to appease the minority group of Muslims behind Bin Laden vs the majority Muslim group who disagree with him (not going to happen, remember all the lovely 70's plane hijackings & what appeasement did?)
Change the stalled decade long Iraq situation and then remove the troops. Note was it even a month after the US invaded that troops in Saudi Arabia pulled out... Coincidence? I think not. The current Iraq situation has a much shorter lifespan than the stuck in the mud, decade-long Iraq situation before.
All France, Germany, etc wanted to do was to continue to contain Iraq with sanctions (no matter that nothing had changed with intent over the past decade, and we now see he was getting billions on the side), they really didn't have their neck on the line like the US by keeping the situation the same.
It wasn't about oil, it wasn't really directly about WMD, it was about changing the situation so the US can actually *get-out* of the Middle East.
So your owner didn't setup the reverse entries that they are supposed to do, and you are mad at AOL because they and half of the rest implemented the same rules. Spam does originate from untended/unmanaged machines that's why they block everybody from sending out mail directly and only their providers servers (which the ISP can monitor). If it's only allowed to come out of their servers, the ISP *can* take responsible action. If your provider won't fix the problem at your end (not having reverse addresses) why would you expect AOL to make an individual exception for yours and the million+ others. You could probably have a staff 20+ people and all that they'd do all day would be to just type in sites like yours who are incorrectly configured into access lists.
> pick a format that has real room for growth and can accomodate our needs today and tomorrow?
I believe it's because they want to sell you hardware for the new format that's coming out tommorrow. It's engineered to barely support today, so it will be obsolete in a few years, guaranteeing a nice revenue stream.
I'd say that scientists aren't falsifying or misinterpreting their results; but are coming in with a preconceived notion. Having a preconceived notion of what they want the end goal to believe (intentional or not) they will tend to achieve that belief.
It's the equivalent of Microsoft funding a report against linux, there may not be anything misrepresented or false in a report, but you have a pretty good idea that if the study expanded their parameters to also look at data inconsistent with the preconceived goals instead of ignoring it the report would have a good chance of being different.
Actually you are incorrect. Circumventing them does NOT violate the DMCA, distributing a program to circumvent them does violate it.
If it's your original copy of the CD and you aren't putting the program you use to copy it up on the web anywhere; you can copy the media to your hearts content under fair use and legally nobody will be able to do anything about it. You could walk into the FBI's office tell them that you are copying it, but not distributing the media or how to copy it and they wouldn't be able to do anything about it (you would of course get a very exhaustive look over, but nothing would be illegal).
Just wanted to clear up a rampant myth about the DMCA as to how it actually affects people.
AOL actually didn't really care too much about the program or how good it was. At the time Netscape was the start page of a majority of the internet. They bought Netscape for their page views, they sold all of the programs (except for the browser) off to Sun. They kept the browser so they could keep the clicks, unrealizing that MS would end up flipping their position and that in short while adveritsement dollars wouldn't be quite the same.
There is a more radical one I can think of:
John Kerry said this "[O]ne would be hard-pressed," he wrote, "to find a single grieving relative of those killed in the bombings of the World Trade Center in New York or the federal building in Oklahoma City who would not have gladly sacrificed a measure of personal privacy if it could have saved a loved one"
Factoids:
Not a single senator 99-0 signed up for Kyoto as it stands. Bush and Kerry both have said they would not sign it as it stood, both said they would sign it if changes were made.
The US is decreasing it's per-capita emissions at a faster rate than Canada has since signing the treaty.
So if the entire government refused to move forward with it and the US is reducing it faster than nations who signed up for it... what good would it be?
Let the flamewar begin.
I made the statement because it was pretty obvious that the poster I was replying to was alluding that the US is alone in it's court system. France and Germany are examples in that there are multiple different countries causing an issue. And I'm sorry, you won't get a completely correct answer (at least from me) because I'm not going to write down every single nation in the world from the tiny Lichtenstein to the ever changing former Soviet block, Africa nations, South America, Asian, etc. I figured a few examples that weren't US were enough, I guess for nit-picky people who want a list of every possible nation, I will leave that up to you; since it's pretty obvious you care about whether or not Lichtenstein is in the list I post.
I should have been more descriptive on the google/France, I put it out in relation to the previous post how he was alluding that the US sues. Just like the US isn't suing, an individual is; multiple companies inside of France sued Google over it's adwords business.
s tm
Back to topic, and what do you think this is then?
Germany & France sues Yahoo because people in their country can see auctions for nazi material on US servers, even though it's allowed in the country it's being housed at.
Person threatens suit because people in US can access US copyrighted material on Australian servers, even though it's allowed in the country it's being housed at.
I guess you could argue ones about not allowing a physical thing and other electronic, but the core thought behind it is the same. If you look at the article, the parallels to the Germany & France bans at yahoo are even closer:
"The Stephens Mitchell Trusts wants Australian Gutenberg volunteers either to remove Gone With the Wind from their servers or else take steps to prevent downloads in countries where copyright law bans unauthorized distribution of the 1936 classic."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/760782.
"A French judge has ruled that the US Internet Service Provider Yahoo! Inc must make it impossible for French users to access sites auctioning race hate memorabilia. "
One is preventing French users from accessing a site, the other is preventing US users from accessing a site. I'd say that's really close to apples to apples.
Which countries would this be? France has sued google for allowing other companies to use certain word phrases, France & Germany have sued Yahoo US over Nazi stuff.
My comcast Moto 6208 gives me unencrypted video out firewire, which I then record to my linux box that emulates a D-VHS recorder. No hardware modding, a bit of software (but not too much) mucking but it works like a champ... until you run out of disk space.
In our situation it's not clusters, but farms. Each node is completely independant but they do the same tasks.
You do realize of course that a p690 is what exactly what I was referring to as a "big iron" system. I'm talking Dell, HP Proliant, IBM xSeries type systems $7k. You may be doing some extremely niche fluid dynamics that require a single image; but the majority of what high-end Unix systems are being sold for do NOT require that, a small percentage do but not all. You take your one p690 and replace it with a bunch of nodes of *SMALLER* systems (not two p690's), enough to handle your entire load then throw in a few extra. You increase your availability by being able to lose a node, you increase your performance by adding some extra nodes, and your incremental growth costs are some inexpensive nodes you throw in once a year for growth (no more forklift upgrades that finance hates to hear).
Never said it was good for everything, but that we were able to prove to our management that we can get better: performance, reliability, scalability than the traditional monolithic systems. It seems that you don't want to admit that low class linux systems could possibly fullfill the same requirements as your p690 system but at a much better cost point.
Maybe to better illustrate the point is that you don't require linux, you could get some of the low-end IBM boxes, etc. and do the same procedure scaling horizontally rather than vertically. You won't get as an attractive price point but your availability, reliability increases significanly beyond what you have today with one system. You might say I've less of a "Linux is good for everything" attitude and more of a "horizontal scaling is good for almost all business, and combining Linux & x86 make it an easy dollar win". What's even better is now you could drop hardware support contracts, lease for 3 years and get a 3 year warranty, by some extra for spares and you've removed another significant dollar cost from your organization (provided you have semi-technical staff) repairs also happen much quicker than having to get parts expressed in from the vendor.
It may not work for everyone (extremely niche single image systems), but we've had extremely good luck in replacing our mainframes, our high-end Irix and high-end Solaris systems (high-end being 16+ procs) and getting much more performance (upto 2 fold per CPU) more reliability, and more availability and it cost our business much less.
>Linux doesn't even come close
That is until you put in n+1 active configurations. We went from a shop of purely big iron, SGI Origin 2000, Sun 6800, HPUX, Sequent. And have replaced it with Linux and have a higher overall stability, scalability and performance.
Compared just 1 linux to 1 big iron the big iron will beat it, but all I've got to do is buy 1 or 2 additional linux box and my availability is better (and been proven better over the past 2 years in our environment) than just 1 big iron box and a much better capital price point.
You think possibly the fact that not a SINGLE person in the senate voted (95 to 0) that the Kyoto treaty as it stood was acceptable, might also be a reason why he didn't persue entering into it?
In fact Bush has said that he supports the concept of the Kyoto treaty, (which would basically contradict what you are trying to say that he doesn't believe that humans can cause issues) but like ALL the other senators (remember every single one said don't sign it, Dem & Repub) has issues with the writing.
And it's not just all the US Senators, here's an open letter from SCIENTISTS also concerned with the content of the Kyoto treaty. http://www.envirotruth.org/openletter.cfm I'd say that a number of nations were rushing to "pat themselves on the back" rather than actually solving the issue.
For it to be effective doesn't it have to be well known. I can say I've never ran across that statement.
Actually very few independant pieces of software these days from the shops we are talking about (small shops, or single person), are offering the raw material or a good basis for support just for their paying customers. These shops normally are trying to be a nice to people as possible, supporting *all* the people not just the verified people with support contracts; we aren't talking million dollar oracle licenses we are talking $20 programs here.
I never said for a minute that the majority would have purchased, I said that when faced with a decision between pulling out there credit card and downloading or just directly downloading the program people directly download the program. There is no way that the free market can work in this situation, since you brought it up... why don't you tell me how the freemarket will work in the $20 shareware market.
But you are missing the part where there was obviously enough value for people to continue using it.
Let me ask this, provided the same easy access to the same software, fprefect said it very well "the plain fact is that most people are honest unless given a chance to be dishonest." If it's just as easy to get a code that makes your software "free" than to actually pay for it, the majority of people will go for free. You might be trying to say that people don't act this way through some rose colored glasses but believe me people are this way.
The free market breaks when I can get a program for the same effort (or even less effort) as purchasing it. How can a company compete with someone giving away their product for free? Obviously the free is *always* going to win, this is as you said the freemarket. It's not like you can put compete by putting out a better product, since it is your own product.
Only fools, wave the issue off as easily as you do.
Actually I'd say that something *HAS* happned to someone by use of the codes. If you clicked the link under "threw in the towel" you'd see this lovely display:
"Echelon has been discontinued due to lack of support, anyone who previously bought the program may still get support from digitalschism@cox.net, otherwise we no longer sell/distribute the product."
If the people using serialz actually end up forcing products out of everybody's elses hands I'd say that those people are surely equivalent to common vandals. What if I really wanted to use that product that the developer killed because of people's use of serialz, etc. they've affected me and all the people who wanted to use it not just the developer.
I assume you have the same strong statements for the offenders using cracked codes.
Actually I believe both ABC & ESPN to 720/60p via satelite (I've got cable, but watching my buds projector on ESPN was sweet).
I'd disagree with your statement abour just as valid. Do a quick search for just 1080/60p and see the number of products that support it, now do the same for you 1080/75p; notice a bit of a difference in the quantity of results. It's a standard for the cable & satelite guys, the OTA people right now are SOL.
Yeah I know. as I said previously the ATSC have plans to keep OTA in 6mhz effectivley 19mb/s. Cable & satelite providers aren't under those same restrictions and already their hardware support 1080/60p. What's interesting is that the FCC didn't make a statement about any of the 18 "official" standards, just the bandwidth. Another reason why with OTA you won't see 1080/60p (without serious compression), FCC doesn't set the bandwidth on cable and satelite for cable QAM256 allows them to get that bigger bandwidth benefit.
It leads into the whole broadcast flag. The intent for cable providers is to send the signals in 1080/60p, if your device isn't broadcast flag "ready" the receiver will drop it down to maybe 480p (if you are lucky) if you play nicely you get to see the benefits of the whole shebang. If one wants to get tinfoilish, one might see this as a way to squeeze the OTA market completely out and make sure everybody does the flag dance, since they won't be able get as good of a signal (but the difference between them of course is actually pretty minimal) marketing hype will force everybody over to a cable or satelite provider.
Yup my bad, I really should have stated some additional things.
As to whether or not it's overkill... I don't know 720/60p is pretty damn good for fast motion; but then when you want to sit down with a really immersive movie you give up some on the res. Switching back and forth between them isn't the best on my older RPTV; and creates some hell for recording. Once I get that 200" front projector (which will have to be snuck in to get past the S.O. factor), I'll probably be beating down someone's door to get my 1080/60p.
Yup, my bad I dropped a word or two between the per second. Actually it's 30, 29.9, 24 or 23.9. The 24&23.9 are what movies are normally filmed at. They then display the same image twice to reduce the flicker.
Ahh... but you aren't comparing apples to apples, 1080/60i == 1080/30p != 1080/60p. You do realize that 1080/60p is a valid format don't you? The only reason why it's not there as much is because the ATSC had lots of problems fitting it into a 6mhz channel (plus for some reason they've got a boner for interlaced), there are quite a few consumer products with a full 60p and about all broadcast equipment has that capability.
Right now it's all about the bandwidth limits, That's why I said that to fit 1080 running at the same mhz within their channel requirements they'd have to compress the absolute shit out of it. 1080/60p won't fit on a 19meg OTA channel without massive compression, but many cable receivers do have the capability so they can support via 256QAM 38meg capabilities (my Motorola supports 256QAM, and could take a 1080/60p signal if the cable company decided to send one to me).
If you want to compare apples (1080/60i) and oranges (1080/30p) than that's something different.