It doesn't seem that the lack of competition has really hurt innovation. Intel might have been sorta slacking off for a while, but then AMD gave them a kick in the ass and Intel started picking back up.
If you want to see lack of innovation, it seems to me that the hard disk market is it. Sure they are still advancing capacity at a pretty good clip, but there are several questionable things going on there that look like collusion.
Though, it's not really that new. I remember back when AOL sent out free AOL kits that included a floppy disk, I wrote a script using macro.exe that would submit the kit request form a few hundred times.
Sure enough, they mailed me a few hundred free floppy disks. Yes, peeling the labels off were a bitch.
Not suprisingly, a month or two after that, they put a limit of something like 5 kits per month.
I guess it's the same reason why sweepsstakes disclaimers are so long these days. Got to cover all those loopholes people found in the system.
Every upgrade things get a little shittier, a little more bloated, a lot more buggy. Especially for just running servers.
The old stuff was buggy when it came out too, but at least it has patches out, and I don't think it was quite as buggy even when new if you compare to something like Fedora, which is very bad lately.
I use Debian stable in some places too, that usually runs pretty far behind.
Anyway, whenever I can get away with it, I generally do run older software on servers.
Our servers right now are a mix of Red Hat (slated for upgrade to Centos), Centos3/4 and a couple Debian stable.
That's what I said. Legal in their state, liberals ruled that it fell under federal law, due to a very weak, far removed, link to interstate commerce (potentially slightly reducing the interstate trade in illegal drugs).
Bit by bit they've expanded federal power, and this most recent ruling shows just how weak the link to interstate commerce need be.
If the federal government wanted to ban public libraries, they could easily do so now, as they obviously reduce the interstate demand for books.
Grokster does not know when an illegal transaction occurs, and Grokster does not even itself have the power to bar a specific person from making a transaction, Grokster cannot be liable for a criminal transaction by a user
They ruled on that. They said that because grokster specifically promoted illegal use, with tons of evidence such as emails that said "we need more illegal music on our network than our competitors", that they were liable.
Another major part was that Grokster specifically sought to capture Napster users, by providing an alternate venue specifically designed for copying infringing content.
Perhaps the lower court, to which the Supremes' decision returns the case for a new decision with their "advice", will find that Grokster is not liable
Not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. With the supreme court holding that Sony (betamax) does not apply in cases where the clear intent and promotion was infringement, Grokster's case is gutted. This case is over.
The court specifically says they aren't changing the Betamax ruling. They point out that nothing in Betamax says the court must be blind to blatent intent and promotion of infringement.
Betamax is intact, the court just basically said "I don't think that means what you think it means".
Also, it was the conservatives that tried to uphold the rights of medical marijuana patients to grow pot for their own personal use when it is legal in thier state.
The liberals ruled that it fell under federal law and was therefore illegal.
I think this sort of analogy will keep this ruling pretty narrowly construed.
If you tell someone about the performance of the car at 120 MPH, that sounds pretty bad, but you don't know whether they are going to use it on a closed track or what. If you tell them how great it is for street racing, then maybe that wouldn't fly.
Now, there's no legal concept of "vicarious speeding" as there is "vicarious infrigement", but it looks like simply providing a tool is still not illegal.
There's no need. This "externality" damages a very specific party (the ISP), under your description of the system, so civil remedies should work fine without government regulation.
The problem is, it doesn't damage a lot of the ISPs. Many large ones make tons of money hosting spammers for premium rates.
Civil remedies could work there too, non-spamming ISPs could sue spam-friendly ISPs for damages successfully.
Anyway, I see no need for excessive criminal law for spam.
You don't get it. Your encryption key should be on your computer, not your ISPs, or a "privacy oriented email" service's machine.
So it is exactly what I said. People trusting an upstream provider, Autistici, to do the encryption for them, Autistici, in turn, trusted their hosting provider not to tamper with the machine. It backfired, as is to be expected, with that many people having access to the private key.
The "whole cannabis" inhaler thing has been approved in Canada. The problem is it only contains like 50 sprays, the dose is 5 sprays per day, and it costs $150 per sprayer.
So you pay $150 every 10 days as opposed to spending $30 on a quarter every month.
Yeah it would help to have alternatives, but if the alternative costs 10 times more, it's not very reasonable.
You think that Opera would *win* if it broke more websites for its users?
In the end, yes.
It's like putting on layer after layer of deodorant instead of taking a bath. Taking a bath might take longer in the short run, but it's the only way to address the root of the problem.
The practical solution (like it or not) is build for the defacto standard (the browser with 90% market share).
This part is the bullshit.
You said "The practical solution" implying that it is the only valid solution. Then you reinforce this idea by saying "like it or not", which implies any other methods are invalid, and people have no choice.
Besides that, it's factually incorrect in my experience.
Back when I used to test in IE first, I always had trouble with rendering in other browsers. Since I started targetting standards compliance and firefox, I very rarely have problems with pages looking vastly different or wrong in other browsers.
If anything, the more practical solution is to not target IE.
Slashdot Mirror
The same way people used to memorize 500 page long epic folk poems, and pass them down with oral tradition. One piece leads into the next piece.
:)
So it's not unprecedented in human history, but it's still a feat because a poem tolerates a slight change in diction, a number doesn't.
How dare you suggest that there are more than two sides to something!
:)
Fox should fire you right now!
It doesn't seem that the lack of competition has really hurt innovation. Intel might have been sorta slacking off for a while, but then AMD gave them a kick in the ass and Intel started picking back up.
If you want to see lack of innovation, it seems to me that the hard disk market is it. Sure they are still advancing capacity at a pretty good clip, but there are several questionable things going on there that look like collusion.
That is a good insight.
Though, it's not really that new. I remember back when AOL sent out free AOL kits that included a floppy disk, I wrote a script using macro.exe that would submit the kit request form a few hundred times.
Sure enough, they mailed me a few hundred free floppy disks. Yes, peeling the labels off were a bitch.
Not suprisingly, a month or two after that, they put a limit of something like 5 kits per month.
I guess it's the same reason why sweepsstakes disclaimers are so long these days. Got to cover all those loopholes people found in the system.
Every upgrade things get a little shittier, a little more bloated, a lot more buggy. Especially for just running servers.
The old stuff was buggy when it came out too, but at least it has patches out, and I don't think it was quite as buggy even when new if you compare to something like Fedora, which is very bad lately.
I use Debian stable in some places too, that usually runs pretty far behind.
Anyway, whenever I can get away with it, I generally do run older software on servers.
Our servers right now are a mix of Red Hat (slated for upgrade to Centos), Centos3/4 and a couple Debian stable.
That's what I said. Legal in their state, liberals ruled that it fell under federal law, due to a very weak, far removed, link to interstate commerce (potentially slightly reducing the interstate trade in illegal drugs).
Bit by bit they've expanded federal power, and this most recent ruling shows just how weak the link to interstate commerce need be.
If the federal government wanted to ban public libraries, they could easily do so now, as they obviously reduce the interstate demand for books.
100% according to my math would mean it was half the expected size. You buy a 200 whateverbyte drive and you only get 100 WiB.
It will happen eventually, assuming unbounded growth. After than it would just go above 100%.
Grokster does not know when an illegal transaction occurs, and Grokster does not even itself have the power to bar a specific person from making a transaction, Grokster cannot be liable for a criminal transaction by a user
They ruled on that. They said that because grokster specifically promoted illegal use, with tons of evidence such as emails that said "we need more illegal music on our network than our competitors", that they were liable.
Another major part was that Grokster specifically sought to capture Napster users, by providing an alternate venue specifically designed for copying infringing content.
Perhaps the lower court, to which the Supremes' decision returns the case for a new decision with their "advice", will find that Grokster is not liable
Not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. With the supreme court holding that Sony (betamax) does not apply in cases where the clear intent and promotion was infringement, Grokster's case is gutted. This case is over.
The court specifically says they aren't changing the Betamax ruling. They point out that nothing in Betamax says the court must be blind to blatent intent and promotion of infringement.
Betamax is intact, the court just basically said "I don't think that means what you think it means".
Also, it was the conservatives that tried to uphold the rights of medical marijuana patients to grow pot for their own personal use when it is legal in thier state.
The liberals ruled that it fell under federal law and was therefore illegal.
I think this sort of analogy will keep this ruling pretty narrowly construed.
If you tell someone about the performance of the car at 120 MPH, that sounds pretty bad, but you don't know whether they are going to use it on a closed track or what. If you tell them how great it is for street racing, then maybe that wouldn't fly.
Now, there's no legal concept of "vicarious speeding" as there is "vicarious infrigement", but it looks like simply providing a tool is still not illegal.
As hard disks get bigger, it gets more important, not less important.
1,048,576 vs 1,000,000 is 4.8% off
GiB vs GB = 7.3% off
TiB vs TB = 9.9% off
PiB vs PB = 12.5% off
EiB vs EB = 15.2% off
Anyway, it is important. How long until someone dies because some programmer mixed the two up?
but if you have a lot of users on a 233 MHz server, PHP, Apache and Postgre will not perform well.
It was enough in 1999.
Someone should sneak into developer's houses and clock all their systems down so we can get efficient software.
There's no need. This "externality" damages a very specific party (the ISP), under your description of the system, so civil remedies should work fine without government regulation.
The problem is, it doesn't damage a lot of the ISPs. Many large ones make tons of money hosting spammers for premium rates.
Civil remedies could work there too, non-spamming ISPs could sue spam-friendly ISPs for damages successfully.
Anyway, I see no need for excessive criminal law for spam.
You don't get it. Your encryption key should be on your computer, not your ISPs, or a "privacy oriented email" service's machine.
So it is exactly what I said. People trusting an upstream provider, Autistici, to do the encryption for them, Autistici, in turn, trusted their hosting provider not to tamper with the machine. It backfired, as is to be expected, with that many people having access to the private key.
The point of encrypted email is you don't have to trust your ISP, or anyone, except the intended recipient.
If you are trusting some upstream service to do the encryption it sorta defeats the purpose, as this example points out.
Are there US compnies or laws that will make me more secure?
No one can make you secure, except yourself.
The "whole cannabis" inhaler thing has been approved in Canada. The problem is it only contains like 50 sprays, the dose is 5 sprays per day, and it costs $150 per sprayer.
So you pay $150 every 10 days as opposed to spending $30 on a quarter every month.
Yeah it would help to have alternatives, but if the alternative costs 10 times more, it's not very reasonable.
The Bush administration has also successfully prevented terminally ill people from getting the only medicine that works for some of them: marijuana.
Bush isn't pro-life, he's anti-choice.
but but but... flash memory is full of flash powder right?? :)
Only to people that buy crippled hardware for some stupid reason, and then want to "hack" into their own stuff.
You think that Opera would *win* if it broke more websites for its users?
In the end, yes.
It's like putting on layer after layer of deodorant instead of taking a bath. Taking a bath might take longer in the short run, but it's the only way to address the root of the problem.
The practical solution (like it or not) is build for the defacto standard (the browser with 90% market share).
This part is the bullshit.
You said "The practical solution" implying that it is the only valid solution. Then you reinforce this idea by saying "like it or not", which implies any other methods are invalid, and people have no choice.
Besides that, it's factually incorrect in my experience.
Back when I used to test in IE first, I always had trouble with rendering in other browsers. Since I started targetting standards compliance and firefox, I very rarely have problems with pages looking vastly different or wrong in other browsers.
If anything, the more practical solution is to not target IE.
All the more reason for browsers to identify themselves correctly. If no one is aware of the problem, no one will complain to get it fixed.
That's bullshit. I design all pages using firefox, then validate them. They always look fine in IE and all the other browsers.
*Why* in the world would a company want their browser to show up as Internet Explorer?
How else can you visit toiletpaperworld.com??
Tape is way inferior to being able to access TB amounts in real time.