By shear fortunate accident of incompetent lawmaking, it's rather neutered and not causing a huge problem... yet.
If it's left as is it could be an example of competent law making.
I ticks the boxes: 3 strikes law, allowing rights holders to force IPs to convert IP address into Account holders without a Court order and puts the burden of proof onto the infringer. That sounds pretty strict and scary and might implement all of ACTA.
Yet its about the most toothless piracy law I have seen and you have plain stupid to offend 3 times. It probably costs the rights holders more to use than they will ever gain back. I think if intentional it is sheer brilliance. And we have ISP lobbing to keep it that way, piracy probably accounts for half their profits.
Any Government representative on NZ would turn a blind eye to non-profit copyright infringement while having a law somewhere hidden in the backgroud.
"auto-guilty" for this law like speed camera fines will most likely come with fines that amount to a couple of weeks disposable income at most. Proving trivial offences when there is reasonable certainty that you did do it makes it cost more for everyone.
I do think they should change the law to failing to secure your network against copyright infringement though at least that's what they are actually prosecuting you for.
Not a lawyer. The first 2 are just notices/warnings that you can challenge, though you have to prove innocence rather than they have to prove guilt (but i guess you would be able to review their logs they are using to accuse you, false accusations will be expensive in terms of wages).
Furthermore should a user be disconnected by their ISP, could a user then go after one of these IP enforcement mobs for slander or loss of productivity as a result of one of these warnings?
Not for any reasonable if any sum of money in NZ. We aren’t big on awarding large damages for anything and you do get two warnings and two months to comply.
And I would expect that the fines for normal circumstances will be under or close 500 unless they can prove the account holder did it.
Re:Was the world better off due to C?
on
Dennis Ritchie Day
·
· Score: 1
The claims that one language is an order of magnitude faster than the other is usually accomplished with such biased comparisons.
I said less than, but still statistically slower. 10x but but greater than 0. Faster languages have been developed.
As for the benchmarks its still able to beaten by ada and ATS (two languages that are not successful and will have lacking support and the chip is old and popular enough for a fixed goal) and i think those benchmarks for running time at least a fair enough test to draw conclusions.
Re:Was the world better off due to C?
on
Dennis Ritchie Day
·
· Score: 1
To give Pascal the win perhaps would could try something with a tight loop with string length operations.
I would expect in both cases they would win buy large amounts, Pascal more so.
I assume by string length perpetrations you mean c arrays vs pascal strings. Or otherwise my string structure in C has the length written before the string as well. Neither of these tests are fair.
To me once you start turning things off you prove C was right all along.
Disclaimer: I was not around when Pascal was still being used.
Re:Was the world better off due to C?
on
Dennis Ritchie Day
·
· Score: 1
Though it appears there are a number of compliers, as far as i can tell similar run time performance is way of saying Pascal less than an order of magnitude slower than C.
The C like language would have been invented eventually, that is a language that with little runtime safety and one you can sometime see the RISK instructions would be used. The two fastest popular languages that avoid this i think are Java and ada both of these are much closer to C in performance but use more memory.
The possibility of buffer overflows appears to be a prerequisite for fast code and the C syntax still competes with modern languages.
Ignore the memory reference i should have looked up the numbers would have been 6.4MB or something.
Re:Was the world better off due to C?
on
Dennis Ritchie Day
·
· Score: 1
No, in my interpretation of of the hypothetical non C world we would all be using Java and Ada.
Pascal would be inherently too slow. We are still unable to beat the C performance barrier and show no signs of doing so, Pascal would have been surpassed and made obsolete by any number of languages.
Yes there would be less buffer overflows but you would have never needed more than 16MB of ram.
Or things are cheaper because they now pay the real price for the former fake object. These products have been developed if they are actually useful people will continue to buy them.
From my very limited self taught cryptography knowledge it appears to be some form of Chosen ciphertext attack or at least involves the idea. I think a poor CBC implementation or using it inappropriately would make this possible.
Some one corret this! : i think if you can intercept the encrypted message you can modify it (so that it could still conform to some parts of the protocol at the other end (the CBC problem)) and resend a different modification a number of times and from the replies be able to determine a key from it. Having a protocol that can't determine that the message is not authentic and sends back a reply is another part of the weakness.
(While I am sure that they are skilled enough to exploit latest privilege escalation bug in the linux kernel,) it still takes windows to give it access to the hardisk like that to begin with. This is ignoring that you have to get Linux to execute the code in first place.
MS hurting Linux to fix their own security problem makes it still easy to blame them.
Assuming the root kit keeps your home partition intact (you would not be turning your computer on to often if it did not) this should be easy enough to fix.
Unless they have accepted community contributions that are difficult to replace they as the copyright owners can do 'whatever the hell they want' anyway.
The BSD licence allow us to 'whatever the hell we want'.
The FF devs should be working on getting Firefox appropriately sandboxed, even if it's Windows-only at the start.
Says the douche with a windows power desktop with 8 gigs of ram.
When was the last time there was a security hole in firefox that was widely exploited. They are generally among the fastest to patch it too. Considering the lack regular holes, would you gain anything from this added security. For those of us without windows or using Noscript all that would mean is a slower browser with greater memory requirements.
Even though firefox is catching up I think Chrome fulfils your personal requirements better.
Hated such as some people in they would write "freakishly negative comments". If all Java implementations were fully GPL and the IP was owned by SUN then/. might be more lenient towards it.
I can mention some very large C apps too (like open office (java disabled), and firefox / mozzila) etc.
Stop trolling: LO has pretty good memory usage and firefox has really low memory usage (compared to alternatives). Nether of those are C apps they are just native not requiring a full VM. If they were written purely in C they would use even less memory and not be finished yet. Seriously generic conservative GC on a web browser would be painful.
Why all the freakishly negative comments about one of the best languages to come along in a while? Super blazingly fast and fun to program.... Anyway, if Java is going to succeed on the desktop it has to be possible to write apps which don't take up 500M of RAM
Java is a trade off that uses excessive memory usage to allow you to 'have fun programming' (write shit code) and run almost a fast a C/C++ and have byte code that will run on multiple platforms.
Its inherent to the language to use heaps of memory (needing a VM and using conservative GC) and have slow load times populating that memory. Is a language that has a niche (only good for running on a desktop with 4Gigs or more of ram) not a brilliant language. Probably the main reason its hated, is its owned by Oracle though. You cannot rewrite Java and have the extra memory usage disappear.
A contract by its very nature is a set of terms by which two parties agree to exchange things of value.
I did not say it was fair in our country our government would possibly do something about it. Yes AT&T does have all the power due to voters still not understanding the true free market. But that said my take on a Phone contract is you get a cheep phone if sign up to pay them money once a month for 24 months with some freedom for both side to change the contract (say if i wanted more data less calls). Yes you were mislead but your contract probably only gave you 2Gigs and they have an open offer to let you buy more.
My point is it its unreasonable to expect wired pricing on a wireless service and your counter is you were told and assume you contract guarantees it but as anyone using large amounts of data should know phone companies have escape clauses.
It probably is that simple in an open field where there are no bandwidth problems.
In an urban environment due complicated paths to the phone (non line of sight) its a whole lot more complicated they are working on it in theory all the time.
Also its say double the infrastructure cost (to double the bandwidth) which unless you want to double your monthly payments gets hard to justify to investors and CEOs.
I assume you signed up to a contract that has fine print that allows them to change the terms at will. At least that’s what it appears to be. You got your months notice and here are you new terms, not saying I agree with it but it appears it's legal enough. Until someone finds find a way to change it you should expect that mobile companies in US can change your plan at will and especially wireless.
Hey. Those 5% of the users are trying to use what they bought.
Supposedly you were informed last month you were no longer buying full speed, if you just use the 2 gigs that you signed up for nothing bad happens. Yes I guess you can still expect to buy as much as you like non throttled until the end of your contract but that contract is an agreement to pay a fixed amount a month to pay off your cheeper phone.
I am saying unreasonable to expect any wireless provider to be able to maintain unlimited (at consumer rates) without greatly overselling (killing it for everyone). The top 5 percent should know by now that any unlimited promises are unlikely to last, it gets killed regularly. The reason they promise it is the suckers continuously fall for it, its pretty standard practice for unlimited in the US it appears. They would not offer unlimited at all if they could not take it back.
To expect nothing to happened (yes their should be high cost plans). These users negatively effecting other users performance and expecting the other uses to subsidise them. There are other fixed cost associated with a monthly mobile account and taking on large amounts of data at the end for fixed cost while other small users pay a lesser but similar amount and don't overload the service. I am assuming that in some areas the system is being overloaded/oversold and I do think $10 per GB is excessive.
I just don't get the exception of unlimited on a wireless service there is certainly not unlimited available. Whenever they offer it its because its a new service and they are encouraging rapid adoption so they can start to recouping the costs for the infrastructure quicker. There will always be ways to use the available bandwidth so in a your free market when you have limited supply in demand you keep charging more.
I though it was an HD service. You have to account for double bandwidth though, I think. You have to revive and send it. Yes it would fine for 300k or what ever.
Slashdot Mirror
You an NZ lawyer. We are not into awarding damages here for libel. You are certainly not getting your lawyers fees back.
By shear fortunate accident of incompetent lawmaking, it's rather neutered and not causing a huge problem... yet.
If it's left as is it could be an example of competent law making.
I ticks the boxes: 3 strikes law, allowing rights holders to force IPs to convert IP address into Account holders without a Court order and puts the burden of proof onto the infringer. That sounds pretty strict and scary and might implement all of ACTA.
Yet its about the most toothless piracy law I have seen and you have plain stupid to offend 3 times. It probably costs the rights holders more to use than they will ever gain back. I think if intentional it is sheer brilliance. And we have ISP lobbing to keep it that way, piracy probably accounts for half their profits.
Any Government representative on NZ would turn a blind eye to non-profit copyright infringement while having a law somewhere hidden in the backgroud.
"auto-guilty" for this law like speed camera fines will most likely come with fines that amount to a couple of weeks disposable income at most. Proving trivial offences when there is reasonable certainty that you did do it makes it cost more for everyone.
I do think they should change the law to failing to secure your network against copyright infringement though at least that's what they are actually prosecuting you for.
Not a lawyer. The first 2 are just notices/warnings that you can challenge, though you have to prove innocence rather than they have to prove guilt (but i guess you would be able to review their logs they are using to accuse you, false accusations will be expensive in terms of wages).
Furthermore should a user be disconnected by their ISP, could a user then go after one of these IP enforcement mobs for slander or loss of productivity as a result of one of these warnings?
Not for any reasonable if any sum of money in NZ. We aren’t big on awarding large damages for anything and you do get two warnings and two months to comply.
And I would expect that the fines for normal circumstances will be under or close 500 unless they can prove the account holder did it.
The claims that one language is an order of magnitude faster than the other is usually accomplished with such biased comparisons.
I said less than, but still statistically slower. 10x but but greater than 0. Faster languages have been developed.
As for the benchmarks its still able to beaten by ada and ATS (two languages that are not successful and will have lacking support and the chip is old and popular enough for a fixed goal) and i think those benchmarks for running time at least a fair enough test to draw conclusions.
To give Pascal the win perhaps would could try something with a tight loop with string length operations.
I would expect in both cases they would win buy large amounts, Pascal more so.
I assume by string length perpetrations you mean c arrays vs pascal strings. Or otherwise my string structure in C has the length written before the string as well. Neither of these tests are fair.
To me once you start turning things off you prove C was right all along.
Have a look at the shootout though i expect modern complier optimisations may no longer be added to the compiler.
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=fpascal&lang2=gcc
I guess you do avoid the bloated glibc using pascal. Pascal gets worse with more cores and x64.
Disclaimer: I was not around when Pascal was still being used.
Though it appears there are a number of compliers, as far as i can tell similar run time performance is way of saying Pascal less than an order of magnitude slower than C.
The C like language would have been invented eventually, that is a language that with little runtime safety and one you can sometime see the RISK instructions would be used. The two fastest popular languages that avoid this i think are Java and ada both of these are much closer to C in performance but use more memory.
The possibility of buffer overflows appears to be a prerequisite for fast code and the C syntax still competes with modern languages.
Ignore the memory reference i should have looked up the numbers would have been 6.4MB or something.
No, in my interpretation of of the hypothetical non C world we would all be using Java and Ada.
Pascal would be inherently too slow. We are still unable to beat the C performance barrier and show no signs of doing so, Pascal would have been surpassed and made obsolete by any number of languages.
Yes there would be less buffer overflows but you would have never needed more than 16MB of ram.
Or things are cheaper because they now pay the real price for the former fake object.
These products have been developed if they are actually useful people will continue to buy them.
From my very limited self taught cryptography knowledge it appears to be some form of Chosen ciphertext attack or at least involves the idea. I think a poor CBC implementation or using it inappropriately would make this possible.
Some one corret this! : i think if you can intercept the encrypted message you can modify it (so that it could still conform to some parts of the protocol at the other end (the CBC problem)) and resend a different modification a number of times and from the replies be able to determine a key from it. Having a protocol that can't determine that the message is not authentic and sends back a reply is another part of the weakness.
(While I am sure that they are skilled enough to exploit latest privilege escalation bug in the linux kernel,) it still takes windows to give it access to the hardisk like that to begin with. This is ignoring that you have to get Linux to execute the code in first place.
MS hurting Linux to fix their own security problem makes it still easy to blame them.
Assuming the root kit keeps your home partition intact (you would not be turning your computer on to often if it did not) this should be easy enough to fix.
I thought it was implied in my post that in the hypothetical situation they went with an alternative, that is GPL.
Unless they have accepted community contributions that are difficult to replace they as the copyright owners can do 'whatever the hell they want' anyway.
The BSD licence allow us to 'whatever the hell we want'.
The FF devs should be working on getting Firefox appropriately sandboxed, even if it's Windows-only at the start.
Says the douche with a windows power desktop with 8 gigs of ram.
When was the last time there was a security hole in firefox that was widely exploited. They are generally among the fastest to patch it too. Considering the lack regular holes, would you gain anything from this added security.
For those of us without windows or using Noscript all that would mean is a slower browser with greater memory requirements.
Even though firefox is catching up I think Chrome fulfils your personal requirements better.
Hated such as some people in they would write "freakishly negative comments". If all Java implementations were fully GPL and the IP was owned by SUN then /. might be more lenient towards it.
I can mention some very large C apps too (like open office (java disabled), and firefox / mozzila) etc.
Stop trolling:
LO has pretty good memory usage and firefox has really low memory usage (compared to alternatives).
Nether of those are C apps they are just native not requiring a full VM. If they were written purely in C they would use even less memory and not be finished yet.
Seriously generic conservative GC on a web browser would be painful.
Why all the freakishly negative comments about one of the best languages to come along in a while? Super blazingly fast and fun to program. ... Anyway, if Java is going to succeed on the desktop it has to be possible to write apps which don't take up 500M of RAM
Java is a trade off that uses excessive memory usage to allow you to 'have fun programming' (write shit code) and run almost a fast a C/C++ and have byte code that will run on multiple platforms.
Its inherent to the language to use heaps of memory (needing a VM and using conservative GC) and have slow load times populating that memory. Is a language that has a niche (only good for running on a desktop with 4Gigs or more of ram) not a brilliant language. Probably the main reason its hated, is its owned by Oracle though. You cannot rewrite Java and have the extra memory usage disappear.
A contract by its very nature is a set of terms by which two parties agree to exchange things of value.
I did not say it was fair in our country our government would possibly do something about it. Yes AT&T does have all the power due to voters still not understanding the true free market. But that said my take on a Phone contract is you get a cheep phone if sign up to pay them money once a month for 24 months with some freedom for both side to change the contract (say if i wanted more data less calls). Yes you were mislead but your contract probably only gave you 2Gigs and they have an open offer to let you buy more.
My point is it its unreasonable to expect wired pricing on a wireless service and your counter is you were told and assume you contract guarantees it but as anyone using large amounts of data should know phone companies have escape clauses.
How is that relevant to my post?
My reply to what could be relevant: its a public company they don't put excess towers in just so they can keep the bandwidth cheep.
That's the fault to the Slashdot Editors.
If they had of directed you though the lead in page their might be been warnings.
It probably is that simple in an open field where there are no bandwidth problems.
In an urban environment due complicated paths to the phone (non line of sight) its a whole lot more complicated they are working on it in theory all the time.
Also its say double the infrastructure cost (to double the bandwidth) which unless you want to double your monthly payments gets hard to justify to investors and CEOs.
I assume you signed up to a contract that has fine print that allows them to change the terms at will. At least that’s what it appears to be.
You got your months notice and here are you new terms, not saying I agree with it but it appears it's legal enough. Until someone finds find a way to change it you should expect that mobile companies in US can change your plan at will and especially wireless.
Hey. Those 5% of the users are trying to use what they bought.
Supposedly you were informed last month you were no longer buying full speed, if you just use the 2 gigs that you signed up for nothing bad happens. Yes I guess you can still expect to buy as much as you like non throttled until the end of your contract but that contract is an agreement to pay a fixed amount a month to pay off your cheeper phone.
I am saying unreasonable to expect any wireless provider to be able to maintain unlimited (at consumer rates) without greatly overselling (killing it for everyone). The top 5 percent should know by now that any unlimited promises are unlikely to last, it gets killed regularly. The reason they promise it is the suckers continuously fall for it, its pretty standard practice for unlimited in the US it appears. They would not offer unlimited at all if they could not take it back.
To expect nothing to happened (yes their should be high cost plans). These users negatively effecting other users performance and expecting the other uses to subsidise them. There are other fixed cost associated with a monthly mobile account and taking on large amounts of data at the end for fixed cost while other small users pay a lesser but similar amount and don't overload the service. I am assuming that in some areas the system is being overloaded/oversold and I do think $10 per GB is excessive.
I just don't get the exception of unlimited on a wireless service there is certainly not unlimited available. Whenever they offer it its because its a new service and they are encouraging rapid adoption so they can start to recouping the costs for the infrastructure quicker. There will always be ways to use the available bandwidth so in a your free market when you have limited supply in demand you keep charging more.
Disable noscript... (nothing came up before I did that)
Its a tech demo still pretty cool though.
Find the fox and double click on it to win.
I though it was an HD service.
You have to account for double bandwidth though, I think. You have to revive and send it. Yes it would fine for 300k or what ever.