This would not work. Broadcasters can not charge for their content by law. There's the little matter that you can't charge someone to access something that is inherently thiers. The airwaves belong to the PEOPLE. Broadcasters have to justify their use of the airwaves to the people (via the FCC).
The game is produced by the US Army, a Governemnt entity. According to the rules of IP, a Gorvnment entity can not hold a copyright or a patent on any works produces for it directly, or under contract.
This is the real reason they are giving it away... the law says they have to.
But, that makes this game a version of open source/free software. Some IP lawyer would have to rearch more to find out if the source couls would have to be released also under the non-copyright/full disclosure laws.
That further leads to the question of how Microsoft will respond to the Government using public money (tax dollars) to produce software they intend to release for free in to a market that Microsoft would like to dominate (see Xbox and their growing library of games for PC).
Hmmm. Microsoft vs. the Army... perhaps Redmond will get bombedto ashes after all.:)
Most of the terrorists and the planners and financers of the Al Queda orginization are SAUDI. If anything we should be attacking Suadi Arabia for financing the terrorists.
And we are NOT at war. War is a political state that according to our (Usited states of America) constitutuion requires a declaration of such by the Congress (both houses). What we have here is the President illegally sending troops to bomb a soverign nation, kidnap and hold hostage it's residents and claiming that we're doing the right thing.
I don't think I said they were the same. OS-9 used to run on the 6809 back in the days of the Tandy Color Computer. When the 68K line overtook the 6809 Microware dropped support for the 6809 and now the 68K line is the lowest end processor supported. You can STILL locate copies of OS-9 for 6809 in many older CoCo shows/sales/user's groups.
I dissagree. Perhaps I typed in "IBM thinkpad" to find a used unit, find people griping about or cheering about some problem/feature of the thing, or perhaps was looking for a local user's group. All of those things would NOT be found on the IBM thinkpad's site.
Microware's OS-9 is an ideal solution for such a project. The OS will run in a few K of RAM and has complete network stacks as I recall. THe OS runs on most chips from 6809(68K now) onward.
I'll turn that around on you. Why SHOULD corporations have copyright and patent ability? I see nothing in the US Constitution or Bill or Rights that states corporations or businesses have any rights in this country. The Declaration of Independence states "We the People...", not "We the people and the companies and businesses".
Then just from a logistical standpoint, companies do not produce/invent/write things. People do that for the benifit of the company. In the instance of Microsoft, without PEOPLE working on the code, a program would never be produced by the company. Hence, the company should not own copyright, but the people who wrote the code should, individually or in groups.
The only reason the IP laws are interprited the way they are is because the corporations tossed a lot of money at the politicians and lawyers to argue thier side. With the politicians paid for by the companies, the PEOPLE have no voice to argue for them as the Constitution intended.
I was not stating that either of the first two devices are simple to build (the IC and TW BMs). I was pointing out the differences between the several devices that the poster I was replying to confused (namely ICBM and cruise missile).
You are comparing a military grade weapon designed to reach a target in any weather condition while causing as little collateral damage as possible. Such devices attempt to be stealthy and redundant for survivability. In military specs a device should never detonate unless it is certain its target has been aquired and achieved.
A cruise missile as a terror weapon would need no such fault protection or advanced guidance, reliability or fail-safes. The servos and control devices are available at most any toy store. Wood and metal are easily available at any home improvement store. The plans for wings are easily found in hobby shops, on-line or in text books. After a few attempts I'd guess a simple one-use plane could be assembled in a two days.
Add explosives, or payload of biological or chemical agent. With little risk to the terrorist, such a payload could destroy a small building or dispersed over many square miles.
Micro turbines on soldiers? First time they dove in the dirt, got wet, or accidentally covered the air intake, the thing would stop. Can you imagine how small the string must be that you wind around it to spin it back up?
I also must ponder this: If you're thinking about putting a fuel like Hydrogen on the soldier, why not simply put a small fuel cell on them instead. It has NO moving parts, is quite efficient today, requires no new research, and works in any orientation as long as it gets air.
This seems like a solution in search of a problem and funding.
ICBM: Intercontinental ballistic missile. A missile that is launched and power via rocker engines. Before apogee in the upper atmosphere, the rockets cut out, and the warhead(s) fall back to Earth on a ballistic trajectory. Rather "simple" to build if you can make the rocket engines.
TWBM: A medium range missile similar to an ICMB. Usually only used withing the combat theater. Think SCUD.
Cruise Missile: A short range missile designed like a small airplane. The thing may be lauched with rocket assist, but is powered by a turbofan or propeller type engine. These things generally fly to a designated spot/target under power and explode.
A cruise missile as the first poster was talking about is a rather simple device to construct. You can do it with parts from a local hobby shop and the camping store. Basically it's a remote control airplane that is guided by a GPS instead of a hand-held transmitter. Anyone who has studied even basic aerodynamics can hack together a fueselage and aerofoil from wood, aluminum and fabric. A small lawnmower engine would provide plenty of payload capacity and cruise time. Heck, I bet in a day or two most electronics nuts could hack together some sort of laser range finder based terrrain avoidance/following module. In short, a cruise missile would be a LOT easier to build than and ICBM or a small "clean" nuclear device. Dirty nuclear would be alltogether a different story.
*Standard diclaimer: If you think I'm giving any posssible terrorist any ideas then you are (like our government) underestimating the alleged terrorists. We trained and funded these people to Fight Different(tm), and they're damned good at it.
First you have to really ask what yo uare going to teach: Linux is an open source kernel that comprises the core of an open source operating system. The vast majority of the operating system and applications you use on what is typically called a "Linux" machine is written by GNU, and other open source projects (Xfree86, PERL, Samba, etc). A book on Linux would be simple, it only covers the one small part of the operating system. What you are asking for is a single textbook that will cover all the disparate appliations on the system. To relate this to the "mainstream computing world" it would be like looking for a single text book that covers MSOffice, Windows, Windows Explorer, IIS, Photoshop, Flash and all the other applications and components of a Windows environment.
Ignorance of the laws is not a valid defense, not for criminals OR those who think their privacy is being invaded.
There are several standards for determining privacy in both real-life interaction and on-line interaction. People seem to be mixing these several definitions together in these arguments.
The law in most any case I recall requires the person expecting privacy to take some clear action to request/achieve that privacy from private entities. Remember, the US Consitution's 4th amendment is written as to, and usually interprited as to restrict invasion of person and privacy by Government entities, not private entities. It takes extral Federal, State and local laws to provide the same protections from individuals. So remember: in the US you have no inherent right to privacy: you have the right to privacy in your private home/posessions from Governement entities (unless they shoe probable cause under oath to a court of law). Step outside and all bets are off.
For example: The peeking in the window thing. If the bakcyard has no fence, and no signage, then yes... the person MAY enter your yard, feed your dog and perhaps peer in your window without violating any laws. The peering MAY be limited/restricted by some laws, but most peeping tom laws I've seen require a tresspass, which this Hypothetical Situation(tm) does not have. IF the yard where fenced, or signed then the whole thing would be a tresspass/invasion of privacy. In most places standing in the street and looking in windows is NOT illegal. There is no tresspass, and there should be no assumption of privacy if one can easily see the interior of the house from a public area. Laws also state that there is not reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.
On-line should be held to the same restritcitons/rules. In this case it seems easy to understand that the network was not encrypted/restricted and that MANY people could access it freely. This seems to meet the definition of a public place. Packet sniffing on this network would be no more illegal than looking in to the cars passing you on the roadway, listening to a conversation between people your sitting near in the mall, etc.
For clarification, a Public Space is generally any place that can be accessed without restriciton, membership or fee by the general public. So a Shopping mall's storefront areas are a public space (though still private property), the hallways that have closed doors and are marked "employees only" are not, even if the doors are not locked. An Interstate highway is usually a public space, the sections that are limited access toll-road would not be a public space even though they may be public property.
But there are also long term effects of large scale solar power:
By using solar panels on a large scale, you take quite a bit of enery out of the biosystem by converting it in to electricity. Yes some of that will come back as dissapated heat during use of that power.
Right now with PV cells hobering around 8-12% efficiency and limited use it's not an issue. What happens when PVs are 70% efficient and we've covered vast portions of the planet with them. There may be changes in at least regional weather patterns.
Same thing with wind power. If you put a large number of wind turbines on a coastline, stealing energy from the wind, there will evenually be concequenses down-wind. Perhaps a river will slowly change course because of less debis being blown in. Perhaps less rain will fall inland.
I'm not saying that any of these things will happen. I just never see anyone talking about them as a possibility at all. People just seem to think we can use these "renewable" resources at will and without issue. Perhaps the environmentalists need to take a step back and scutinize their plans as harshly as they do the current systems. Look what happened to hydro power.
That said, I'm all for alternative/renewable energy sources. It'll be a nice solution until the tocamaks become viable (sustainable positive energy output).
True, some of the exaust may be water vapor. They could always condense the exaust and flow it to the local water works to be mixed with the drinking water. The stuff is nearly pure. I doubt the exaust uncaptured would alter the climate in that region much. But water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The most common one at that.
Even if the reaction takes oxygen from the air you've got to remember the electrolisys phase. They probably released that O2 back to the atmosphere. Personally I'd harness it and run it in to the fuel cell along with the hydrogen.
Besides, it would all balance out in the end. Whether humans are in the mix when the balance occurs is another question all together.:)
Someone joked "Won't anyone think about the rotation of the Earth?"
The question has a much more serious ramification than the jokester may have realized:
The Earth is slowing down and will eventually break this system.
The Moon ya see is creating these things called tides that this generation plant is at least partially dependent upon. The friction of the water being drug across the surface of the Earth by the moon is slowing decelerating the earth. Eventually the Moon will become geosynchronous with the Earth, and the lunar tides will cease.
If lunar tides cease to exist, ocean temperatures will likely equalize a little (less water movement at all), and so winds will become less intense. Lower wind speeds mean lower waves (wind and tides are the major causes of waves).
This may not really be the long term soution they think it is.
The software publishers association today announced a new copy protection scheme for computer software. The new CDs containing the most commonly pirated software will no loger function when placed in the CD-ROM drives of personal computers. When asked how customers would install the software the SPA spokesperson stated "That's not for us to worry about, we're just out to protect the rights and bottom lines of our member companies. We feel it necessary to prevent the ability to make exact digital copies of our software, and this is the only way we can thing to accomplish that goal."
If you were to call up each Yahoo customer (which, of course, would be ironic since this story is about the evils of telemarketing) and tell them what was going on, i'm willing to bet at least 95% of them would want to opt-out.
Obviously not, because an e-mail was sent and 95% didnt respond.
And I bet if you sent out the same email in reverse: IE... we wan't to telemarket you, please respond if you would like to be called. That 95% would also have not responded at all. This is simple social engineering. about 95% of the population are apathetic toward most anything you ask them about if it would require any action on their part other than an immediate oral answer.
Using that opt-out email as evidence that most people don't mind the marketing is just bad science.
Yahoo used apathy to send out a notification with a specific wording to get the maximum number of "opt-ins". Had they made opt-in the reason you had to reply or visit the preferences page, they would have had no-one to call.
I'd like to see an experiment: Send an email, or a letter to every subscriber to some service: Yahoo, Good Housekeeping, Driver's License lists, etc... In the notification state that unless the recipient calls a certain toll free telephone number and enters a code in the letter, that their bank account will be charged a $500 "profitability guarantee" fee. I bet a HUGE percentage would never respond.
And what of those who purchase these discs on-line? I just did a quick check of Amazon and there is NO mention of this issue on the official section by Amazon. A prominent user review does mention it.
What obligation will on-line retailers have to discover and disclose the presence and type of disc protection who can't see the shrink-wrapped package in the store?
But the dat pipe the ISP purchased IS symmetrical in all probablility. If they were performing bandwidth limiting to be certain that all customers got a fair share they should put lower limits on downstream (to the home) throughput. If 80% of traffic is from ISP to CM, then why does that path have the higher limit?
As far as the signaling, the QAM symbol size is not a limit of technology, but, again, of the asymetrical nature of most users. I'm pretty certain I've seen CMs that can do QAM 256 in both directions. It's a combination of the signal rate and the symbol size that affect speeds. According to the specs, upstream communication at 16QAM can be accomplished at up to 2560 Ksym/sec. If I've done the math correctly, that's about 4MB/s upstream capability. Hence, the caps have nothing to do with bandwidth limitations or ditribution, and everything to do with politics.
I do believe the old "mouse button down on boot" trick still works to eject all removable media at boot. This is a firmware thing, so it should work before the OS even attempts to search for a boot drive.
The issues aren't the same though. The speed limits on public roads are for safety (Ie.. keep the fastest drivers within 20MPH of the slowest drivers). The bandwidth limits are much more akin to limiting the number of cars, or number of vehicle occupants on the roadway at any given time.
Bandwidth limitations are not for safety, nor are they there to maximize utilization for customers as a whole.
The networks are built out fully symetrical to my understanding. That means that from the backbone connections throug the HFC node connections, the upstream and downstream bandwiths are identical at any given point. Ex: at the backbone of my ISP, there is a DS3: ~44MB/s in both directions. At the HFC node 200 yards from my house, the bandwidth is probably 50MB/s in both directions.
If you follow the rule that on average, 80% of your bandwidth is downstream, and 20% upstream, you'll see there is NO need for lower downstream limits. In fact, they should put lower limits on the downstream to ensure more even bandwidth utilization.
The only reason most of these companies are limiting upstream bandwidth is because they are afraid of customers running P2P servers that will allow pirated content to be transferred, and the cable companies don't want to be involved in that.
My cableco actually disabled certain common P2P ports from traversing the cable network. This of course does not in any way limit HTTP (port 80 or otherwise), FTP, Gopher, NNTP, chat, Hotline or most any othe method of exchanging software.
So.. because some people may potentially set up servers to exchange illegal software on a network completely capable of handling the load, I'm restricted in my ability to transfer large video files to a remote server, or have high quality video conferencing with my friends and family.
All that said, I am graced with a cable ISP that has remarkably few political restrictions in place in the EULA/customer agreement/TOS. I do still wish they would raise the artificially low upstream bandwidth caps.
By your logic:
It is wrong for me to not stop and read (most)every advertisement and classified ad in a newspaper. Newspapers are supported by classified ads and general advertising. The purchasers of that space expect people to look at them, it's sort of a "contract" when you purchase a newspaper that you'll read the ads. If the ads weren't in a newspaper, the paper would have to go subscription and probably cost $20 or more.
So the next time you flip past the ads on the way to the comics section, remember your behaving like a criminal.
Internet broadcasters stations should be subject to the same royalties and restrictions as any other broadcaster. At lest those that are not from the FCC, since no public airwaves are used here. If a radio station has to pay $1000 for an album to be able to play it any time they want in a public forum, then Inet broadcasters should have the same fee.
I think artists/performers/producers do have a right to control their artistic and intellectual property. I don't think the politicians should keep passing bad laws based on information gleened from over-paid lobbyests.
I specifically leave that phrase out since it was not placed in the pledge by our founding fathers. The phrase was placed in the pledge by conservative paranoid christian maniacs during the MacCarthy witchhunt.
Slashdot Mirror
This would not work. Broadcasters can not charge for their content by law.
There's the little matter that you can't charge someone to access something that is inherently thiers. The airwaves belong to the PEOPLE. Broadcasters have to justify their use of the airwaves to the people (via the FCC).
The game is produced by the US Army, a Governemnt entity. According to the rules of IP, a Gorvnment entity can not hold a copyright or a patent on any works produces for it directly, or under contract.
:)
This is the real reason they are giving it away... the law says they have to.
But, that makes this game a version of open source/free software. Some IP lawyer would have to rearch more to find out if the source couls would have to be released also under the non-copyright/full disclosure laws.
That further leads to the question of how Microsoft will respond to the Government using public money (tax dollars) to produce software they intend to release for free in to a market that Microsoft would like to dominate (see Xbox and their growing library of games for PC).
Hmmm. Microsoft vs. the Army... perhaps Redmond will get bombedto ashes after all.
But AFGANASTAN did NOT attack us!
WE ARE ATTACKING AFGANASTAN!
Most of the terrorists and the planners and financers of the Al Queda orginization are SAUDI. If anything we should be attacking Suadi Arabia for financing the terrorists.
And we are NOT at war. War is a political state that according to our (Usited states of America) constitutuion requires a declaration of such by the Congress (both houses). What we have here is the President illegally sending troops to bomb a soverign nation, kidnap and hold hostage it's residents and claiming that we're doing the right thing.
I don't think I said they were the same. OS-9 used to run on the 6809 back in the days of the Tandy Color Computer. When the 68K line overtook the 6809 Microware dropped support for the 6809 and now the 68K line is the lowest end processor supported. You can STILL locate copies of OS-9 for 6809 in many older CoCo shows/sales/user's groups.
I dissagree. Perhaps I typed in "IBM thinkpad" to find a used unit, find people griping about or cheering about some problem/feature of the thing, or perhaps was looking for a local user's group. All of those things would NOT be found on the IBM thinkpad's site.
Microware's OS-9 is an ideal solution for such a project. The OS will run in a few K of RAM and has complete network stacks as I recall.
THe OS runs on most chips from 6809(68K now) onward.
I'll turn that around on you. Why SHOULD corporations have copyright and patent ability? I see nothing in the US Constitution or Bill or Rights that states corporations or businesses have any rights in this country.
The Declaration of Independence states "We the People...", not "We the people and the companies and businesses".
Then just from a logistical standpoint, companies do not produce/invent/write things. People do that for the benifit of the company. In the instance of Microsoft, without PEOPLE working on the code, a program would never be produced by the company. Hence, the company should not own copyright, but the people who wrote the code should, individually or in groups.
The only reason the IP laws are interprited the way they are is because the corporations tossed a lot of money at the politicians and lawyers to argue thier side. With the politicians paid for by the companies, the PEOPLE have no voice to argue for them as the Constitution intended.
I was not stating that either of the first two devices are simple to build (the IC and TW BMs). I was pointing out the differences between the several devices that the poster I was replying to confused (namely ICBM and cruise missile).
You are comparing a military grade weapon designed to reach a target in any weather condition while causing as little collateral damage as possible. Such devices attempt to be stealthy and redundant for survivability. In military specs a device should never detonate unless it is certain its target has been aquired and achieved.
A cruise missile as a terror weapon would need no such fault protection or advanced guidance, reliability or fail-safes. The servos and control devices are available at most any toy store. Wood and metal are easily available at any home improvement store. The plans for wings are easily found in hobby shops, on-line or in text books. After a few attempts I'd guess a simple one-use plane could be assembled in a two days.
Add explosives, or payload of biological or chemical agent. With little risk to the terrorist, such a payload could destroy a small building or dispersed over many square miles.
Micro turbines on soldiers? First time they dove in the dirt, got wet, or accidentally covered the air intake, the thing would stop. Can you imagine how small the string must be that you wind around it to spin it back up?
I also must ponder this: If you're thinking about putting a fuel like Hydrogen on the soldier, why not simply put a small fuel cell on them instead. It has NO moving parts, is quite efficient today, requires no new research, and works in any orientation as long as it gets air.
This seems like a solution in search of a problem and funding.
ICBM: Intercontinental ballistic missile. A missile that is launched and power via rocker engines. Before apogee in the upper atmosphere, the rockets cut out, and the warhead(s) fall back to Earth on a ballistic trajectory. Rather "simple" to build if you can make the rocket engines.
TWBM: A medium range missile similar to an ICMB. Usually only used withing the combat theater. Think SCUD.
Cruise Missile: A short range missile designed like a small airplane. The thing may be lauched with rocket assist, but is powered by a turbofan or propeller type engine. These things generally fly to a designated spot/target under power and explode.
A cruise missile as the first poster was talking about is a rather simple device to construct. You can do it with parts from a local hobby shop and the camping store. Basically it's a remote control airplane that is guided by a GPS instead of a hand-held transmitter.
Anyone who has studied even basic aerodynamics can hack together a fueselage and aerofoil from wood, aluminum and fabric. A small lawnmower engine would provide plenty of payload capacity and cruise time. Heck, I bet in a day or two most electronics nuts could hack together some sort of laser range finder based terrrain avoidance/following module.
In short, a cruise missile would be a LOT easier to build than and ICBM or a small "clean" nuclear device. Dirty nuclear would be alltogether a different story.
*Standard diclaimer: If you think I'm giving any posssible terrorist any ideas then you are (like our government) underestimating the alleged terrorists. We trained and funded these people to Fight Different(tm), and they're damned good at it.
First you have to really ask what yo uare going to teach:
Linux is an open source kernel that comprises the core of an open source operating system.
The vast majority of the operating system and applications you use on what is typically called a "Linux" machine is written by GNU, and other open source projects (Xfree86, PERL, Samba, etc).
A book on Linux would be simple, it only covers the one small part of the operating system. What you are asking for is a single textbook that will cover all the disparate appliations on the system. To relate this to the "mainstream computing world" it would be like looking for a single text book that covers MSOffice, Windows, Windows Explorer, IIS, Photoshop, Flash and all the other applications and components of a Windows environment.
Ignorance of the laws is not a valid defense, not for criminals OR those who think their privacy is being invaded.
There are several standards for determining privacy in both real-life interaction and on-line interaction. People seem to be mixing these several definitions together in these arguments.
The law in most any case I recall requires the person expecting privacy to take some clear action to request/achieve that privacy from private entities. Remember, the US Consitution's 4th amendment is written as to, and usually interprited as to restrict invasion of person and privacy by Government entities, not private entities. It takes extral Federal, State and local laws to provide the same protections from individuals. So remember: in the US you have no inherent right to privacy: you have the right to privacy in your private home/posessions from Governement entities (unless they shoe probable cause under oath to a court of law). Step outside and all bets are off.
For example:
The peeking in the window thing. If the bakcyard has no fence, and no signage, then yes... the person MAY enter your yard, feed your dog and perhaps peer in your window without violating any laws. The peering MAY be limited/restricted by some laws, but most peeping tom laws I've seen require a tresspass, which this Hypothetical Situation(tm) does not have. IF the yard where fenced, or signed then the whole thing would be a tresspass/invasion of privacy. In most places standing in the street and looking in windows is NOT illegal. There is no tresspass, and there should be no assumption of privacy if one can easily see the interior of the house from a public area. Laws also state that there is not reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.
On-line should be held to the same restritcitons/rules. In this case it seems easy to understand that the network was not encrypted/restricted and that MANY people could access it freely. This seems to meet the definition of a public place. Packet sniffing on this network would be no more illegal than looking in to the cars passing you on the roadway, listening to a conversation between people your sitting near in the mall, etc.
For clarification, a Public Space is generally any place that can be accessed without restriciton, membership or fee by the general public. So a Shopping mall's storefront areas are a public space (though still private property), the hallways that have closed doors and are marked "employees only" are not, even if the doors are not locked. An Interstate highway is usually a public space, the sections that are limited access toll-road would not be a public space even though they may be public property.
But there are also long term effects of large scale solar power:
By using solar panels on a large scale, you take quite a bit of enery out of the biosystem by converting it in to electricity. Yes some of that will come back as dissapated heat during use of that power.
Right now with PV cells hobering around 8-12% efficiency and limited use it's not an issue. What happens when PVs are 70% efficient and we've covered vast portions of the planet with them. There may be changes in at least regional weather patterns.
Same thing with wind power. If you put a large number of wind turbines on a coastline, stealing energy from the wind, there will evenually be concequenses down-wind. Perhaps a river will slowly change course because of less debis being blown in. Perhaps less rain will fall inland.
I'm not saying that any of these things will happen. I just never see anyone talking about them as a possibility at all. People just seem to think we can use these "renewable" resources at will and without issue. Perhaps the environmentalists need to take a step back and scutinize their plans as harshly as they do the current systems. Look what happened to hydro power.
That said, I'm all for alternative/renewable energy sources. It'll be a nice solution until the tocamaks become viable (sustainable positive energy output).
True, some of the exaust may be water vapor. They could always condense the exaust and flow it to the local water works to be mixed with the drinking water. The stuff is nearly pure.
:)
I doubt the exaust uncaptured would alter the climate in that region much. But water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The most common one at that.
Even if the reaction takes oxygen from the air you've got to remember the electrolisys phase. They probably released that O2 back to the atmosphere. Personally I'd harness it and run it in to the fuel cell along with the hydrogen.
Besides, it would all balance out in the end. Whether humans are in the mix when the balance occurs is another question all together.
Someone joked "Won't anyone think about the rotation of the Earth?"
The question has a much more serious ramification than the jokester may have realized:
The Earth is slowing down and will eventually break this system.
The Moon ya see is creating these things called tides that this generation plant is at least partially dependent upon.
The friction of the water being drug across the surface of the Earth by the moon is slowing decelerating the earth. Eventually the Moon will become geosynchronous with the Earth, and the lunar tides will cease.
If lunar tides cease to exist, ocean temperatures will likely equalize a little (less water movement at all), and so winds will become less intense. Lower wind speeds mean lower waves (wind and tides are the major causes of waves).
This may not really be the long term soution they think it is.
The software publishers association today announced a new copy protection scheme for computer software.
The new CDs containing the most commonly pirated software will no loger function when placed in the CD-ROM drives of personal computers.
When asked how customers would install the software the SPA spokesperson stated "That's not for us to worry about, we're just out to protect the rights and bottom lines of our member companies. We feel it necessary to prevent the ability to make exact digital copies of our software, and this is the only way we can thing to accomplish that goal."
And I bet if you sent out the same email in reverse: IE... we wan't to telemarket you, please respond if you would like to be called.
That 95% would also have not responded at all. This is simple social engineering. about 95% of the population are apathetic toward most anything you ask them about if it would require any action on their part other than an immediate oral answer.
Using that opt-out email as evidence that most people don't mind the marketing is just bad science.
Yahoo used apathy to send out a notification with a specific wording to get the maximum number of "opt-ins". Had they made opt-in the reason you had to reply or visit the preferences page, they would have had no-one to call.
I'd like to see an experiment:
Send an email, or a letter to every subscriber to some service: Yahoo, Good Housekeeping, Driver's License lists, etc...
In the notification state that unless the recipient calls a certain toll free telephone number and enters a code in the letter, that their bank account will be charged a $500 "profitability guarantee" fee. I bet a HUGE percentage would never respond.
And what of those who purchase these discs on-line?
I just did a quick check of Amazon and there is NO mention of this issue on the official section by Amazon.
A prominent user review does mention it.
What obligation will on-line retailers have to discover and disclose the presence and type of disc protection who can't see the shrink-wrapped package in the store?
But the dat pipe the ISP purchased IS symmetrical in all probablility. If they were performing bandwidth limiting to be certain that all customers got a fair share they should put lower limits on downstream (to the home) throughput.
If 80% of traffic is from ISP to CM, then why does that path have the higher limit?
As far as the signaling, the QAM symbol size is not a limit of technology, but, again, of the asymetrical nature of most users. I'm pretty certain I've seen CMs that can do QAM 256 in both directions.
It's a combination of the signal rate and the symbol size that affect speeds. According to the specs, upstream communication at 16QAM can be accomplished at up to 2560 Ksym/sec. If I've done the math correctly, that's about 4MB/s upstream capability. Hence, the caps have nothing to do with bandwidth limitations or ditribution, and everything to do with politics.
For those paying attention, I meant to type Mb/s, not MB/s in the previous post. I WISH I had 44MB/s downstream :)
I do believe the old "mouse button down on boot" trick still works to eject all removable media at boot.
This is a firmware thing, so it should work before the OS even attempts to search for a boot drive.
No?
The issues aren't the same though.
The speed limits on public roads are for safety (Ie.. keep the fastest drivers within 20MPH of the slowest drivers). The bandwidth limits are much more akin to limiting the number of cars, or number of vehicle occupants on the roadway at any given time.
Bandwidth limitations are not for safety, nor are they there to maximize utilization for customers as a whole.
The networks are built out fully symetrical to my understanding. That means that from the backbone connections throug the HFC node connections, the upstream and downstream bandwiths are identical at any given point. Ex: at the backbone of my ISP, there is a DS3: ~44MB/s in both directions. At the HFC node 200 yards from my house, the bandwidth is probably 50MB/s in both directions.
If you follow the rule that on average, 80% of your bandwidth is downstream, and 20% upstream, you'll see there is NO need for lower downstream limits. In fact, they should put lower limits on the downstream to ensure more even bandwidth utilization.
The only reason most of these companies are limiting upstream bandwidth is because they are afraid of customers running P2P servers that will allow pirated content to be transferred, and the cable companies don't want to be involved in that.
My cableco actually disabled certain common P2P ports from traversing the cable network. This of course does not in any way limit HTTP (port 80 or otherwise), FTP, Gopher, NNTP, chat, Hotline or most any othe method of exchanging software.
So.. because some people may potentially set up servers to exchange illegal software on a network completely capable of handling the load, I'm restricted in my ability to transfer large video files to a remote server, or have high quality video conferencing with my friends and family.
All that said, I am graced with a cable ISP that has remarkably few political restrictions in place in the EULA/customer agreement/TOS. I do still wish they would raise the artificially low upstream bandwidth caps.
By your logic:
It is wrong for me to not stop and read (most)every advertisement and classified ad in a newspaper.
Newspapers are supported by classified ads and general advertising. The purchasers of that space expect people to look at them, it's sort of a "contract" when you purchase a newspaper that you'll read the ads.
If the ads weren't in a newspaper, the paper would have to go subscription and probably cost $20 or more.
So the next time you flip past the ads on the way to the comics section, remember your behaving like a criminal.
Perhaps not clipping cupons should be a felony?
Internet broadcasters stations should be subject to the same royalties and restrictions as any other broadcaster. At lest those that are not from the FCC, since no public airwaves are used here. If a radio station has to pay $1000 for an album to be able to play it any time they want in a public forum, then Inet broadcasters should have the same fee.
I think artists/performers/producers do have a right to control their artistic and intellectual property. I don't think the politicians should keep passing bad laws based on information gleened from over-paid lobbyests.
I specifically leave that phrase out since it was not placed in the pledge by our founding fathers. The phrase was placed in the pledge by conservative paranoid christian maniacs during the MacCarthy witchhunt.