How much of an incentive do you think people need to create? The volume of freely available work on the internet has clearly eclipsed the restricted world of paper publishing. Would you ever bother to buy a paper encyclopedia now that you can get Wikipedia?
Are you kidding? Perhaps it's been a while since you actually read a book, but I have a Safari subscription and the content there shits all over the stuff you can get for free on the internet.
I'd be fascinated to see the free version of Lord of the Rings. I bet it's way better than the multi-million-dollar professionally produced one which wouldn't have existed without copyright law.
No, if you RTFA article, on newer versions the overflow will still work, but require authentication, making it Important. On older versions the exploit can work with no authentication making it Critical. Microsoft has always used this labeling convention for patches.
Additionally, Vista and Server 2008 will only restart the service twice after it crashes, so an attacker only gets two tries (failed attempts result in a crash). Earlier versions have no limit on how often they restart the service, so you can have as many tries as you like.
I always though there was some merit to the technologies behind UAC, even if the interface was god-awful. It seems in this case it's doing the job it was designed for.
1. It can never deprive me of my media. 2. It can not restrict what devices I use my media on. 3. It can not restrict the storage format of the media.
Before the advent of home recording devices all of those restrictions applied. If you were born in the 50s or 60s would you have had the same objections about buying vinyl?
I think their is room for DRM that does what many creators want (what I want anyway) , and that's 1) credit for our work, and 2) assurance our audience has the real thing, not some low quality spoof that devalues this, and any future works. When I say "credit" sometimes that may be a path for money, but usually that is a BSD style "created by John Smith" or "derived from work by John Smith."
Do you make a living exclusively from producing copyright works? I mean personally, not as work-for-hire. I bet, for example, very few working composers share your view. Exclusive rights are what pays their bills.
Re:Again showing why bandwidth caps are backwards
on
Bandwidth Use In MMOs
·
· Score: 1
They're no more plausible than my numbers. How would a company survive raising its prices by 75%? Customers would leave in droves, reducing profits.
US copyright was not made to prevent, "unauthorized reproductions" it was made to maximize the public domain and advance the state of the art.
Preventing unauthorised reproductions is the mechanism by which the public domain is enhanced. Without control over reproduction (be it legal or technical) copyright doesn't provide any incentive to create. Without the exclusive right to reproduce copyright simply cannot exist. That's the price we pay to encourage artists, authors and so on to do their thing.
I agree that current copyright law is too extensive in duration and fair dealing / fair use rights can too easily be trampled by DRM, but if you allow any and all reproductions you would destroy copyright, not improve it.
Re:Again showing why bandwidth caps are backwards
on
Bandwidth Use In MMOs
·
· Score: 1
Oooh, can I play the invent-some-numbers game too?
It was 2 x $50 for 251GB.
Now my dad pays $20 for 1GB Wares guy pays $70 for 250 GB. Total = $90 for 251 GB.
There you go, it seems you were wrong and corporations actually love us all and will take a 10% drop in revenue in the name of fairness.
Re:Again showing why bandwidth caps are backwards
on
Bandwidth Use In MMOs
·
· Score: 1
Yes, because the giant telecom companies will forward the extra revenue they extort from gamers and "illegal downloaders" (which all heavy downloaders are, of course!) to your clueless dad.
That is in fact exactly what they do. For his account with a 2 GB cap he pays substantially less than the cheapest packages which were available when all ISPs only offered "unlimited" access.
Re:Again showing why bandwidth caps are backwards
on
Bandwidth Use In MMOs
·
· Score: 1
What should my dad, who never exceeds 1 GB per month, subsidise someone downloading 250 GB of warez every month? Caps and grades of service makes people pay for what they use. The only people who object to that are the minority of people currently being subsidised by the majority of normal users.
The GP just said they have a cap and don't exceed it, it's not about where they are, they just don't use more than 25 GB a month. I'm not working at the moment so am on-line 10+ hours per day with my fair share of YouTube and BBC iPlayer and I don't even get close to my 25 GB cap. There are another two people in the house who do typical web / email stuff on the same connection too.
I just can't see many legitimate uses for that much bandwidth for most people. Not that there are no legitimate uses, just that they don't apply to most people. Most people hitting their bandwidth caps are just plain cheap. Too cheap to pay for the bandwidth they are using to download the pirated games, music and movies that they're too cheap to buy.
UK ISPs offer uncapped downloads too. Sky when they have their own kit in the exchange is truly unlimited. Be is truly unlimited. Virgin throttles heavy users at peak times but doesn't cut anybody off. Those three aren't available everywhere, but they cover more than half the population and one or more are available in every major population centre. Others like PlusNet (which you can get everywhere in the UK) only cap peak-time usage. It's only a problem for people who think they should get unlimited high quality service from whichever ISP they fancy without actually paying for it. There is nowhere in the UK where you are restricted to only one choice of ISP.
How good MMOs could be if bandwidth wasn't an issue?
Not much better at all I suspect. You only need to transmit the players' inputs to perfectly recreate their actions, which doesn't take much bandwidth. Unless that is you want thousands of people on-screen and fighting at once, which I can't imagine working very well from a gameplay perspective and would push PC hardware pretty hard too.
In the US, there really aren't any such caps but in the UK and elswhere, there often are.
Yes, but the notion that using 2.5% of your monthly cap at once would somehow require planning is just fucking absurd. That's less than one days bandwidth. Even 10% of your monthly cap isn't a lot - that's the variation between long and short months. If you're operating to within 2.5% of your monthly cap every month you are one seriously cheap motherfucker. Upgrade.
Indeed it is a hell of a lot of torque. That's the kind of torque you get from a supercharged 6 litre V8. SUV transmission is precisely the kind of thing you would need, and not from a small SUV either.
The power thing doesn't much matter, it's torque which moves things and breaks driveshafts. An engine more powerful than 1hp but still with 550 lbs/ft would just turn faster, not with any more force. (power = torque x rpm)
Nice try, but they specify the requirements differently. You listed the requirements for Office 2000 under Windows 95 or 98. 2007 requires XP at a minimum. For Office 2000 under XP it lists 128 MB for the OS, plus 4 MB per application. Although it's possible to install between 128 MB and 256 MB of RAM it's rare, so if you need 128 MB + 4*n MB that will typically be a 256 MB system. They don't go into the same level of detail for 2007, just say 256 MB minimum. So for 2000 under XP you would by a system with 256 MB, for 2007 under XP you'd buy a system with 256 MB as well.
The true energy savings happen at the source. We need to find ways to increase coal-to-electricity efficiency conversion to 90% or higher.
The maximum temperature of a coal fire is around 2000 C, with a cold reservoir at 20 C the maximum theoretical Carnot efficiency is 87%. Even at -20 C efficiency is only 2% better. You'll never achieve the theoretical efficiency in practice and there will inevitably be losses in the generation process too. 90% just isn't going to happen.
So they put servers in containers, then put the containers in a warehouse? What good does the container do at that point?
You need drastically less infrastructure in the building. To build a traditional datacentre you need suspended floors, fire control systems, security, partition walls and so on. That takes a lot of time and money, time is I suspect as large a factor as money. With containers everything is built-in - power distribution, local network, cooling, fire suppression, security. You just need a warehouse with power, data and cooling water, which any local contractor can provide. There's less need for specialist datacentre construction expertise as all the expertise is concentrated at your container assembly facility.
Judging by the responses here nuisance calls are about two orders of magnitude more of a problem in the US than in the UK. Here, if as an individual you opt out of marketing calls you don't get any - that includes charities and political parties. They clamp down hard and fast on people who break the law (it is illegal, not just a breach of your terms and conditions). Many businesses have consent for marketing in their standard contracts, but I've only had a few such calls in my life and if you tell them to stop they have to, by law.
It's worse for businesses, AFAIK they can't opt out of marketing calls. When I worked in a telephone exchange we'd get three or four marketing calls per week. The most amusing ones were when they tried to sell you phone service or broadband. "This is a British Telecom exchange mate, we've got 20 000 lines already" shut them up pretty fast.
Quite a few of the non-standard USB leads use non-standard connectors because they're actually USB-serial converters, not just leads. My previous phone, a Sony Ericsson, was like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you kidding? Perhaps it's been a while since you actually read a book, but I have a Safari subscription and the content there shits all over the stuff you can get for free on the internet.
I'd be fascinated to see the free version of Lord of the Rings. I bet it's way better than the multi-million-dollar professionally produced one which wouldn't have existed without copyright law.
It only used the word "sell" in describing something you cannot do with Steam, emphasising its rental nature.
Additionally, Vista and Server 2008 will only restart the service twice after it crashes, so an attacker only gets two tries (failed attempts result in a crash). Earlier versions have no limit on how often they restart the service, so you can have as many tries as you like.
I always though there was some merit to the technologies behind UAC, even if the interface was god-awful. It seems in this case it's doing the job it was designed for.
Before the advent of home recording devices all of those restrictions applied. If you were born in the 50s or 60s would you have had the same objections about buying vinyl?
The GP was just changing it back, they were talking about Steam's rental model and you changed that to purchase.
Do you make a living exclusively from producing copyright works? I mean personally, not as work-for-hire. I bet, for example, very few working composers share your view. Exclusive rights are what pays their bills.
They're no more plausible than my numbers. How would a company survive raising its prices by 75%? Customers would leave in droves, reducing profits.
Preventing unauthorised reproductions is the mechanism by which the public domain is enhanced. Without control over reproduction (be it legal or technical) copyright doesn't provide any incentive to create. Without the exclusive right to reproduce copyright simply cannot exist. That's the price we pay to encourage artists, authors and so on to do their thing.
I agree that current copyright law is too extensive in duration and fair dealing / fair use rights can too easily be trampled by DRM, but if you allow any and all reproductions you would destroy copyright, not improve it.
Oooh, can I play the invent-some-numbers game too?
It was 2 x $50 for 251GB.
Now my dad pays $20 for 1GB
Wares guy pays $70 for 250 GB.
Total = $90 for 251 GB.
There you go, it seems you were wrong and corporations actually love us all and will take a 10% drop in revenue in the name of fairness.
That is in fact exactly what they do. For his account with a 2 GB cap he pays substantially less than the cheapest packages which were available when all ISPs only offered "unlimited" access.
What should my dad, who never exceeds 1 GB per month, subsidise someone downloading 250 GB of warez every month? Caps and grades of service makes people pay for what they use. The only people who object to that are the minority of people currently being subsidised by the majority of normal users.
The GP just said they have a cap and don't exceed it, it's not about where they are, they just don't use more than 25 GB a month. I'm not working at the moment so am on-line 10+ hours per day with my fair share of YouTube and BBC iPlayer and I don't even get close to my 25 GB cap. There are another two people in the house who do typical web / email stuff on the same connection too.
I just can't see many legitimate uses for that much bandwidth for most people. Not that there are no legitimate uses, just that they don't apply to most people. Most people hitting their bandwidth caps are just plain cheap. Too cheap to pay for the bandwidth they are using to download the pirated games, music and movies that they're too cheap to buy.
UK ISPs offer uncapped downloads too. Sky when they have their own kit in the exchange is truly unlimited. Be is truly unlimited. Virgin throttles heavy users at peak times but doesn't cut anybody off. Those three aren't available everywhere, but they cover more than half the population and one or more are available in every major population centre. Others like PlusNet (which you can get everywhere in the UK) only cap peak-time usage. It's only a problem for people who think they should get unlimited high quality service from whichever ISP they fancy without actually paying for it. There is nowhere in the UK where you are restricted to only one choice of ISP.
Not much better at all I suspect. You only need to transmit the players' inputs to perfectly recreate their actions, which doesn't take much bandwidth. Unless that is you want thousands of people on-screen and fighting at once, which I can't imagine working very well from a gameplay perspective and would push PC hardware pretty hard too.
Yes, but the notion that using 2.5% of your monthly cap at once would somehow require planning is just fucking absurd. That's less than one days bandwidth. Even 10% of your monthly cap isn't a lot - that's the variation between long and short months. If you're operating to within 2.5% of your monthly cap every month you are one seriously cheap motherfucker. Upgrade.
Gah, bloody stupid non-SI units. lbs.ft, not lbs/ft. Strictly, lbf.ft (pounds force x feet).
Indeed it is a hell of a lot of torque. That's the kind of torque you get from a supercharged 6 litre V8. SUV transmission is precisely the kind of thing you would need, and not from a small SUV either.
The power thing doesn't much matter, it's torque which moves things and breaks driveshafts. An engine more powerful than 1hp but still with 550 lbs/ft would just turn faster, not with any more force. (power = torque x rpm)
That's totally unacceptable! Now, waterboarding, that's a different matter...
Nice try, but they specify the requirements differently. You listed the requirements for Office 2000 under Windows 95 or 98. 2007 requires XP at a minimum. For Office 2000 under XP it lists 128 MB for the OS, plus 4 MB per application. Although it's possible to install between 128 MB and 256 MB of RAM it's rare, so if you need 128 MB + 4*n MB that will typically be a 256 MB system. They don't go into the same level of detail for 2007, just say 256 MB minimum. So for 2000 under XP you would by a system with 256 MB, for 2007 under XP you'd buy a system with 256 MB as well.
The maximum temperature of a coal fire is around 2000 C, with a cold reservoir at 20 C the maximum theoretical Carnot efficiency is 87%. Even at -20 C efficiency is only 2% better. You'll never achieve the theoretical efficiency in practice and there will inevitably be losses in the generation process too. 90% just isn't going to happen.
You need drastically less infrastructure in the building. To build a traditional datacentre you need suspended floors, fire control systems, security, partition walls and so on. That takes a lot of time and money, time is I suspect as large a factor as money. With containers everything is built-in - power distribution, local network, cooling, fire suppression, security. You just need a warehouse with power, data and cooling water, which any local contractor can provide. There's less need for specialist datacentre construction expertise as all the expertise is concentrated at your container assembly facility.
Judging by the responses here nuisance calls are about two orders of magnitude more of a problem in the US than in the UK. Here, if as an individual you opt out of marketing calls you don't get any - that includes charities and political parties. They clamp down hard and fast on people who break the law (it is illegal, not just a breach of your terms and conditions). Many businesses have consent for marketing in their standard contracts, but I've only had a few such calls in my life and if you tell them to stop they have to, by law.
It's worse for businesses, AFAIK they can't opt out of marketing calls. When I worked in a telephone exchange we'd get three or four marketing calls per week. The most amusing ones were when they tried to sell you phone service or broadband. "This is a British Telecom exchange mate, we've got 20 000 lines already" shut them up pretty fast.
With a machine shop you can build a car. Most people prefer to buy one ready made though.
Quite a few of the non-standard USB leads use non-standard connectors because they're actually USB-serial converters, not just leads. My previous phone, a Sony Ericsson, was like that.
Why is having the tab on the bottom better?