The problem I had with charging services like Netflix and Hulu for special treatment is that it incentivizes ISPs (especially cellular ISPs) to provide a worse service to their end-users than is needed to fully enjoy streamed video content so they can effectively turn around and charge high bandwidth services a toll to access users on their cellular network.
This system from T-Mobile has a different incentive structure behind it though based on what I heard. Netflix and Hulu are NOT paying T-Mobile, they are just cooperating to make sure their data is not counted against T-Mobile's customer's data usage caps, which increases the value of all three companies services. T-Mobile has an incentive to offer this deal to any web-service that is well known and desirable enough to their end-users that offering access without a data cap improves the apparent value of T-Mobiles service.
We're all glad to hear that you and your family don't watch porn or visit church websites, now stop ignoring things like Cryptolocker and it's spawn that many businesses have been hit with over the last few years.
Remember that some people (myself NOT included thankfully) have to deal with data caps. Companies have to factor in the potential loss of users who can't cope with the large video sizes this solution results in. Until data caps are gone from the majority of connections they could be a major deciding point for what video formats end up most popular in the long run.
Yeah, it'll probably be an in-place upgrade. I'm gonna hope that it downloads an ISO during the update that can be captured to perform a clean install instead.
I would like to hear your justification for your last statement though. It's a topic I'm interested in but I haven't reached the same conclusion that you have. The only thing that sounds remotely threatening is that I heard they were expanding the Windows store to include non-universal apps (AKA traditional software), although I'm not sure if that's still the case. They're not blocking steam from being installed, restricting valve's freedom to add features, nor are they degrading its performance.
Actually, I think a better policy would be "Need to charge your phone while you're on the train? Use our outlets!" It would be a good PR move for them and help build goodwill.
The article does mention that the outlets may be prone to surges when the train switches from one substation to another. Although the source for this concern was from the forums, and not an official voice from the London Overground, if that concern has any truth behind it then allowing people to plug in their sensitive electronics could actually be a very stupid policy.
After looking at it further and reading some more comments her on/. I'm beginning to suspect that, although WiFi Sense is enabled by default on the system, it does not include new networks by default unless you select them when connecting for the first time. If so, then this issue is much less of a problem since it effectively becomes opt-in, but I still don't like having to look over my friends shoulders to be absolutely sure he/she didn't select the wrong setting my MY home network.
The problem is you can't enforce that you're friend didn't enable WiFi Sense without looking over his shoulder. He might end up accidentally distributing YOUR passphrase when he shouldn't be.
The only way to be sure that this doesn't happen is to add an ugly _optout line at the end of your SSID. Frankly Mr. Joe Person down the street shouldn't have to know about Microsoft's new feature to be confident that his passphrase isn't being passed around without his permission.
DirectX 11 (useful to gamers) Windowed Modern Apps (could potentially make them useful in a desktop environment finally) Better UI than Windows 8.x (Though I suspect most people will remain partial to Win7 out of familiarity)
Honestly those are the two things that I can think of off the top of my head. Everything since Windows 7 has pretty much been nothing but under-the-hood changes and major UI redesigns (for better or worse... mostly worse). I wouldn't be surprised to see more improvements in high DPI display scaling and multi-monitor support, but I wouldn't hold my breath looking for things that are completely new.
Raise the tax rate to 75% of the corporate profit and see what happens...
So Amazon shuts down because they can't be profitable enough to justify their investments and hard work. That is different than Amazon raising prices, which the topic of this little debate.
No one said that raising taxes (or suddenly paying taxes that you've been avoiding until recently) couldn't affect a business, just that it wouldn't be reflected in the price of the goods and services that a (rational) business sells. If amazon is pricing their items optimally, then changing the price of their products at all should result in less pre-tax profit, which is then taxed at a set percentage afterwards. If maximizing post-tax profits is the goal, than it's better to earn $1 million pre-tax and pay $750k (75%) in taxes with $250k (25%) left over for you than to earn $800, paying $600k in taxes with $200k left over.
If the tax were increased too much it becomes more likely that Amazon (and other businesses) would simply not operate in that country because of the poor return on investment, but until the tax reaches that breaking point where products simply become unavailable, the prices should not rise.
Except that Harvard of course has incomplete information in this case. They may know that the girl took 8 AP classes from her high school transcripts, and they may know she was in the 96th percentile, but they don't have a way of knowing that it was her mother pushing her, or that she had an SAT coach. In fact she might have been flipping burgers after school to earn her own pocket change because her parents decided that would be better than giving her everything she wants out of their own pockets, for all Harvard can tell.
Fair use does allow short excerpts from others work to be used legally.
Fair use only allows certain excerpts to be used under certain conditions. IANAL and I'm not familiar with all court cases that that might have affected the interpretation of U.S.C. Title 17 Section 107 (the portion of copyright law that implements the "Fair Use" exception), but this might not be covered under that.
That section of the law specifies a few example purposes that can be covered and the closest example is "Scholarship", which this might fall under. I don't think that that is guaranteed though since the use of Mario and related ideas (Goombas, Bob-ombs, etc) as well as the first level of Super Mario 64 was not required for Ross to learn to use or demonstrate the Unity engine, and releasing his work afterwards beyond the video trailer was definitely not needed for the purposes of scholarship (whereas if he released this as part of a project in a class to other students it would have been).
Having said all that, I feel that Nintendo missed a great opportunity for positive PR by not instead contacting Ross and retroactively giving him permission to use the content found in the first world of Super Mario 64 to make this recreation and then using the project to generate excitement for more complete and official re-releases.
This is NOT a fully game re-implemented but I wonder if we'd be better off allowing full fan-fiction games, art, etc under the 1st amendment, freedom to express, freedom to make art, with the publics interest in mind.
This actually perfectly describes one of the things US copyright law is specifically designed to prevent. You have to freedom to make your own art like a 3D platformer game, but you do not necessarily have the freedom to use other people's art, such as the character of Mario or distinctive level designs made by other people, as a part of your art. This was supposed to be off-set by older works passing into the public domain, but that part of the system got broken by Disney; Shame on them.
I would say a 'parody work' that remakes the game top-to-bottom should be allowed, in the creators own mind and image, but a complete dupe of Nintendo's original work might be a "counterfeit" or "illegal duplication."
A parody game is definitely allowed, but you need to remember what a parody is. It generally needs to be humorous twisting of the original work the results in an ironic meaning. An example of a parody would be "Stinkoman 20x6" from Homestarrunner.com (man, didn't think I'd mention that website ever again) which riffs on the Megaman series of side-scrolling video games, other examples include most "[insert popular anime name] the abridged series" videos on youtube. What Ross did is much closer to a duplication of the original work, in fact it's even being referred to as a modern recreation.
Certainly a mere single world recreation is akin to taking a 3 minute excerpt from a 2 hour film and is completely fair use of Nintendo's IP.
This guy's demo is probably legal but he doesn't have a lawyer to take his case to court to test the waters.
This work looks like fair use, like a parody, like new content, like a transformation, like a demo, with public interest - art protected by the 1st amendment. That will be his argument in court.
This seems a bit like comparing apples and oranges. It might be like 3 minutes out of 2 hours in terms of relative length compared to the original work, but that does negate the fact that it's 20-60 minutes of gameplay, not 3 minutes. Additionally many aspects of the recreation would be separate copyrights, use of a likeness of Mario can violate copyright law on its own even without recreating a level from one of Nintendo's games.
You might think this guy's demo should be legal and that's your opinion, but I'm showing you another int
Except the only difference between the locked laptop and the unlocked laptop is in the firmware, not the hardware. Given the fact that all current systems allow disabling Secure Boot we know that providing the option to disable Secure Boot is not technically infeasible (read difficult to do). So the price difference between a locked laptop and an unlocked laptop would be pennies at most when spread out across the number sold.
I have a hard time imagining that a company would have to spend more than $500 in their software engineers time to implement this particular feature, so if implementing it increases the sales of computers with that firmware by even 34 units, its paid for itself (assuming an average of $15 profit per computer sold, which is slightly lower than "TheGuardian.com" calculated in 2013 based on publicly available financial data.)
A lot of people here have another advantage: We happen to have, because of genetic accidents, a higher than average affinity for technology and the like. We happen to have a very useful genetic advantage, and people judge us as better more virtuous people for a mistake that occurred at our birth.
The 'mistake' didn't happen at our birth. Most people tend not to procreate randomly, instead finding a partner with traits they find desirable. Intelligence is a common trait to select for in a prospective partner. While there are still unforeseeable consequences such as predispositions towards certain cancers and diseases as well as birth defects, intelligence and strength are traits that are too often purposefully selected even before conception to call a mistake since the odds were skewed in your favor based on your parents dating habits, which were decidedly not random (although likely not done with genetics at the forefront of the mind).
The Internet has been abuzz with insane amounts of comments from gamers begging for HL3 for years.....how can there not be enough evidence to make it obvious HL3 would be a monumental success...(if on par with previous versions)?
Because the internet is also full of people who read reviews or wait for recommendations from friends before buying the game. If HL3 is mediocre or sucks then its sales will slow significantly after reviews come out saying. Heck, even if it's good I could see reviews with the following conclusions slowing sales: "Don't get us wrong, it is a good game, but it's not quite a Half-Life game. 8/10". Valve needs to know that they're getting a 9/10 at least from most reviewers.
Your statement that the last.5GB is not running at 1150MHz is as factually correct as Nvidia's statement that the card had 64 ROPs...
The issue isn't with the speed of the RAM, it's with the setup of the connections between the RAM and the GM204 GPU, the entire last 1GB of RAM is accessed using a single L2 interface, while the other six L2 interfaces only handle.5GB each.
Each of the seven L2 interfaces in the GPU can handle roughly 22GB/s bandwidth to RAM and data in RAM is interleaved between interfaces, so to reach peak bandwidth (~150GB/s) the last L2 interface dedicates its full bandwidth to just its first.5GB of RAM. Otherwise the first six L2 interfaces (3GB VRAM) would spend half their time waiting for the last interface (1GB) to catch up, since it's reading or writing twice as much data, netting us a peak bandwidth of only ~75GB/s total. Only when 3.5GB is already used does the seventh L2 interface start splitting its performance to use the remaining.5GB. Fortunately NVidia is at least competent enough the least bandwidth intensive stuff on that last.5GB so it doesn't slow down the whole system anywhere close to its the worst case scenario would have predicted.
False advertising requires that the false information, amongst other things, would have affected the purchase decision and resulted in some sort of lose -- usually the amount spent on the item that would otherwise have been used differently.
So given that requirement I'll go ahead and fix your statement.
If you bought 970 because it has 64 ROP and it only has 56, then fix it.
That solves the browser issue, but many apps (especially those that have in app advertising) remain vulnerable whenever they load an ad. So people using the free versions of many popular apps can still fall victim to this vulnerability.
No, blame for this is on Google, because Android is designed as a firmware but marketed as an operating system.
Darn it, I feel a bit pedantic saying this but... ...No matter how I look at it, Android is definitely an operating system, not a firmware (especially as it doesn't reside in any sort of ROM, you just don't have write permissions as the end-user). It happens to be most commonly updated all at once, rather than in bits and pieces like Windows or OS X, but it is not in anyway necessary for an OS to provide a streamlined update mechanism to perform the function of an OS.
Then again, everyone refers to anything that gets updated in this manner as firmware even when it's not so maybe us techies will just have to start accepting that the meaning of the word is changing.
Umm... you can stop compiling for ARMv7 based Windows RT...
MS in their infinite wisdom is still making an x86 based Windows 10 version so you can't just start developing everything as 64-bit just yet.
Okay, I actually think it was a good idea for MS to keep a 32-bit version of Win10, but only to give the poor Win8.1 32-bit users a chance to upgrade to something with a usable desktop. I don't foresee the same need with a hypothetical Windows 11, so maybe this will be the last time we ever see a 32-bit Windows release?
It's not like the Windows RT based devices are losing out. Their primary limitation is the inability to install desktop apps in the first place, and almost all of the changes in Windows 10 are focused on making the desktop UI usable again. Let's take a look at some of the changes, shall we?
-Intelligently starting up to the desktop UI instead of the silly Windows 8/8.1 UI doesn't help. (MS Office and IE10/11 are the only commonly used programs you might use in the Desktop UI, everything else is an app)
-The new start menu is a desktop centric upgrade so it doesn't really apply (and by default it would open the Start Screen on a Surface device anyways, so no change from Windows 8/8.1 RT behavior for Surface RT.
-Virtual desktops don't help on a device that almost exclusively runs Windows Store apps since they tend to be full screen, switching between apps is about as difficult as switching between desktops would be.
The only thing we lose out on is the new web browser, which is so far completely untested. Basically as long as Windows 10 doesn't introduce compatibility issues with Windows store apps continuing to run on Windows 8/8.1 nothing of value has been lost by not getting an upgrade.
IANAL but the system could be designed such that your system CAN'T have child porn on it even if someone else has added child porn to the distributed network.
Imagine for a moment that all files are encrypted in 64KB blocks, then imagine that the peer-to-peer system, lets say it's torrent based, stores them in 32KB chunks. Lastly, the system does not store any two sequential chunks on the same computer (effectively the even chucks would be like one torrent, the odd chucks a second torrent, and only the originator of the data even would know which torrents correspond to each other). Since 32KB of the 64KB block are not on your computer (and your computer doesn't even know how to find the corresponding other 32KB chunks), the data on your computer cannot be processed in such a way as to result in child porn, thus you are not in possession of, nor distributing illegal content.
Well, it's a pipedream anyway. A lawyer would probably say that since it can be turned into child porn by adding a specific set of additional data and then decrypting the resulting file it constitutes child porn itself. Which would sort of imply that in a more general case that any set of binary data that can be found in a larger but illegal set of binary data is illegal to share if it's likely that someone somewhere will combine the two sets of data at some point in the future. Dang, when I word it like that it even starts to sound reasonable because of the 'likely' clause.
Why is that bad? It drives down the cost or storage for the rest of us, and incentivizes people to secure their systems. It is certainly better than them using compromised systems as spambots.
Who said that they wouldn't also mine for Bitcoins, send spam, and zombify your computer for their DDoS attacks. They already managed to get the Trojan onto the target computer, no need to limit themselves.
Anyways, while it's definitely good to have a secure system, that doesn't suddenly make the 'incentive' for having a secure system a good thing. It's like saying that living in a bad neighborhood is a good thing because it teaches people to consistently lock their doors and latch their windows.
Broadband networks are the modern-day microphone by which their owners [e.g. Verizon] engage in First Amendment speech
Wouldn't web pages and services hosted on servers be the "microphones" and the broadband network itself is just a phone line or audio cable? Or does the broadband network include the servers that deliver the content? If the second ones the case then did Verizon somehow buy up all of the servers that I use their network to access?
IANAL, I'm just sayin' it seems like I'm accessing the "speech" of whoever produced the content and put it on a server somewhere, not the one that gives me access to the server, especially when I would have access to the same servers even if I used a different network.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem I had with charging services like Netflix and Hulu for special treatment is that it incentivizes ISPs (especially cellular ISPs) to provide a worse service to their end-users than is needed to fully enjoy streamed video content so they can effectively turn around and charge high bandwidth services a toll to access users on their cellular network.
This system from T-Mobile has a different incentive structure behind it though based on what I heard. Netflix and Hulu are NOT paying T-Mobile, they are just cooperating to make sure their data is not counted against T-Mobile's customer's data usage caps, which increases the value of all three companies services. T-Mobile has an incentive to offer this deal to any web-service that is well known and desirable enough to their end-users that offering access without a data cap improves the apparent value of T-Mobiles service.
We're all glad to hear that you and your family don't watch porn or visit church websites, now stop ignoring things like Cryptolocker and it's spawn that many businesses have been hit with over the last few years.
Remember that some people (myself NOT included thankfully) have to deal with data caps. Companies have to factor in the potential loss of users who can't cope with the large video sizes this solution results in. Until data caps are gone from the majority of connections they could be a major deciding point for what video formats end up most popular in the long run.
Yeah, it'll probably be an in-place upgrade. I'm gonna hope that it downloads an ISO during the update that can be captured to perform a clean install instead.
I would like to hear your justification for your last statement though. It's a topic I'm interested in but I haven't reached the same conclusion that you have. The only thing that sounds remotely threatening is that I heard they were expanding the Windows store to include non-universal apps (AKA traditional software), although I'm not sure if that's still the case. They're not blocking steam from being installed, restricting valve's freedom to add features, nor are they degrading its performance.
Actually, I think a better policy would be "Need to charge your phone while you're on the train? Use our outlets!" It would be a good PR move for them and help build goodwill.
The article does mention that the outlets may be prone to surges when the train switches from one substation to another. Although the source for this concern was from the forums, and not an official voice from the London Overground, if that concern has any truth behind it then allowing people to plug in their sensitive electronics could actually be a very stupid policy.
After looking at it further and reading some more comments her on /. I'm beginning to suspect that, although WiFi Sense is enabled by default on the system, it does not include new networks by default unless you select them when connecting for the first time. If so, then this issue is much less of a problem since it effectively becomes opt-in, but I still don't like having to look over my friends shoulders to be absolutely sure he/she didn't select the wrong setting my MY home network.
The problem is you can't enforce that you're friend didn't enable WiFi Sense without looking over his shoulder. He might end up accidentally distributing YOUR passphrase when he shouldn't be.
The only way to be sure that this doesn't happen is to add an ugly _optout line at the end of your SSID. Frankly Mr. Joe Person down the street shouldn't have to know about Microsoft's new feature to be confident that his passphrase isn't being passed around without his permission.
DirectX 11 (useful to gamers)
Windowed Modern Apps (could potentially make them useful in a desktop environment finally)
Better UI than Windows 8.x (Though I suspect most people will remain partial to Win7 out of familiarity)
Honestly those are the two things that I can think of off the top of my head. Everything since Windows 7 has pretty much been nothing but under-the-hood changes and major UI redesigns (for better or worse... mostly worse). I wouldn't be surprised to see more improvements in high DPI display scaling and multi-monitor support, but I wouldn't hold my breath looking for things that are completely new.
But not legal in the states, which is the location we're talking about.
Try this mental exercise...
Raise the tax rate to 75% of the corporate profit and see what happens...
So Amazon shuts down because they can't be profitable enough to justify their investments and hard work. That is different than Amazon raising prices, which the topic of this little debate.
No one said that raising taxes (or suddenly paying taxes that you've been avoiding until recently) couldn't affect a business, just that it wouldn't be reflected in the price of the goods and services that a (rational) business sells. If amazon is pricing their items optimally, then changing the price of their products at all should result in less pre-tax profit, which is then taxed at a set percentage afterwards. If maximizing post-tax profits is the goal, than it's better to earn $1 million pre-tax and pay $750k (75%) in taxes with $250k (25%) left over for you than to earn $800, paying $600k in taxes with $200k left over.
If the tax were increased too much it becomes more likely that Amazon (and other businesses) would simply not operate in that country because of the poor return on investment, but until the tax reaches that breaking point where products simply become unavailable, the prices should not rise.
Except that Harvard of course has incomplete information in this case. They may know that the girl took 8 AP classes from her high school transcripts, and they may know she was in the 96th percentile, but they don't have a way of knowing that it was her mother pushing her, or that she had an SAT coach. In fact she might have been flipping burgers after school to earn her own pocket change because her parents decided that would be better than giving her everything she wants out of their own pockets, for all Harvard can tell.
Fair use does allow short excerpts from others work to be used legally.
Fair use only allows certain excerpts to be used under certain conditions. IANAL and I'm not familiar with all court cases that that might have affected the interpretation of U.S.C. Title 17 Section 107 (the portion of copyright law that implements the "Fair Use" exception), but this might not be covered under that.
That section of the law specifies a few example purposes that can be covered and the closest example is "Scholarship", which this might fall under. I don't think that that is guaranteed though since the use of Mario and related ideas (Goombas, Bob-ombs, etc) as well as the first level of Super Mario 64 was not required for Ross to learn to use or demonstrate the Unity engine, and releasing his work afterwards beyond the video trailer was definitely not needed for the purposes of scholarship (whereas if he released this as part of a project in a class to other students it would have been).
Having said all that, I feel that Nintendo missed a great opportunity for positive PR by not instead contacting Ross and retroactively giving him permission to use the content found in the first world of Super Mario 64 to make this recreation and then using the project to generate excitement for more complete and official re-releases.
This is NOT a fully game re-implemented but I wonder if we'd be better off allowing full fan-fiction games, art, etc under the 1st amendment, freedom to express, freedom to make art, with the publics interest in mind.
This actually perfectly describes one of the things US copyright law is specifically designed to prevent. You have to freedom to make your own art like a 3D platformer game, but you do not necessarily have the freedom to use other people's art, such as the character of Mario or distinctive level designs made by other people, as a part of your art. This was supposed to be off-set by older works passing into the public domain, but that part of the system got broken by Disney; Shame on them.
I would say a 'parody work' that remakes the game top-to-bottom should be allowed, in the creators own mind and image, but a complete dupe of Nintendo's original work might be a "counterfeit" or "illegal duplication."
A parody game is definitely allowed, but you need to remember what a parody is. It generally needs to be humorous twisting of the original work the results in an ironic meaning. An example of a parody would be "Stinkoman 20x6" from Homestarrunner.com (man, didn't think I'd mention that website ever again) which riffs on the Megaman series of side-scrolling video games, other examples include most "[insert popular anime name] the abridged series" videos on youtube. What Ross did is much closer to a duplication of the original work, in fact it's even being referred to as a modern recreation.
Certainly a mere single world recreation is akin to taking a 3 minute excerpt from a 2 hour film and is completely fair use of Nintendo's IP.
This guy's demo is probably legal but he doesn't have a lawyer to take his case to court to test the waters.
This work looks like fair use, like a parody, like new content, like a transformation, like a demo, with public interest - art protected by the 1st amendment. That will be his argument in court.
This seems a bit like comparing apples and oranges. It might be like 3 minutes out of 2 hours in terms of relative length compared to the original work, but that does negate the fact that it's 20-60 minutes of gameplay, not 3 minutes. Additionally many aspects of the recreation would be separate copyrights, use of a likeness of Mario can violate copyright law on its own even without recreating a level from one of Nintendo's games.
You might think this guy's demo should be legal and that's your opinion, but I'm showing you another int
Except the only difference between the locked laptop and the unlocked laptop is in the firmware, not the hardware. Given the fact that all current systems allow disabling Secure Boot we know that providing the option to disable Secure Boot is not technically infeasible (read difficult to do). So the price difference between a locked laptop and an unlocked laptop would be pennies at most when spread out across the number sold.
I have a hard time imagining that a company would have to spend more than $500 in their software engineers time to implement this particular feature, so if implementing it increases the sales of computers with that firmware by even 34 units, its paid for itself (assuming an average of $15 profit per computer sold, which is slightly lower than "TheGuardian.com" calculated in 2013 based on publicly available financial data.)
A lot of people here have another advantage: We happen to have, because of genetic accidents, a higher than average affinity for technology and the like. We happen to have a very useful genetic advantage, and people judge us as better more virtuous people for a mistake that occurred at our birth.
The 'mistake' didn't happen at our birth. Most people tend not to procreate randomly, instead finding a partner with traits they find desirable. Intelligence is a common trait to select for in a prospective partner. While there are still unforeseeable consequences such as predispositions towards certain cancers and diseases as well as birth defects, intelligence and strength are traits that are too often purposefully selected even before conception to call a mistake since the odds were skewed in your favor based on your parents dating habits, which were decidedly not random (although likely not done with genetics at the forefront of the mind).
The Internet has been abuzz with insane amounts of comments from gamers begging for HL3 for years.....how can there not be enough evidence to make it obvious HL3 would be a monumental success...(if on par with previous versions)?
Because the internet is also full of people who read reviews or wait for recommendations from friends before buying the game. If HL3 is mediocre or sucks then its sales will slow significantly after reviews come out saying. Heck, even if it's good I could see reviews with the following conclusions slowing sales: "Don't get us wrong, it is a good game, but it's not quite a Half-Life game. 8/10". Valve needs to know that they're getting a 9/10 at least from most reviewers.
Your statement that the last .5GB is not running at 1150MHz is as factually correct as Nvidia's statement that the card had 64 ROPs...
The issue isn't with the speed of the RAM, it's with the setup of the connections between the RAM and the GM204 GPU, the entire last 1GB of RAM is accessed using a single L2 interface, while the other six L2 interfaces only handle .5GB each.
Each of the seven L2 interfaces in the GPU can handle roughly 22GB/s bandwidth to RAM and data in RAM is interleaved between interfaces, so to reach peak bandwidth (~150GB/s) the last L2 interface dedicates its full bandwidth to just its first .5GB of RAM. Otherwise the first six L2 interfaces (3GB VRAM) would spend half their time waiting for the last interface (1GB) to catch up, since it's reading or writing twice as much data, netting us a peak bandwidth of only ~75GB/s total. Only when 3.5GB is already used does the seventh L2 interface start splitting its performance to use the remaining .5GB. Fortunately NVidia is at least competent enough the least bandwidth intensive stuff on that last .5GB so it doesn't slow down the whole system anywhere close to its the worst case scenario would have predicted.
Source: TFA
False advertising requires that the false information, amongst other things, would have affected the purchase decision and resulted in some sort of lose -- usually the amount spent on the item that would otherwise have been used differently.
So given that requirement I'll go ahead and fix your statement.
If you bought 970 because it has 64 ROP and it only has 56, then fix it.
That solves the browser issue, but many apps (especially those that have in app advertising) remain vulnerable whenever they load an ad. So people using the free versions of many popular apps can still fall victim to this vulnerability.
No, blame for this is on Google, because Android is designed as a firmware but marketed as an operating system.
Darn it, I feel a bit pedantic saying this but...
...No matter how I look at it, Android is definitely an operating system, not a firmware (especially as it doesn't reside in any sort of ROM, you just don't have write permissions as the end-user). It happens to be most commonly updated all at once, rather than in bits and pieces like Windows or OS X, but it is not in anyway necessary for an OS to provide a streamlined update mechanism to perform the function of an OS.
Then again, everyone refers to anything that gets updated in this manner as firmware even when it's not so maybe us techies will just have to start accepting that the meaning of the word is changing.
Umm... you can stop compiling for ARMv7 based Windows RT...
MS in their infinite wisdom is still making an x86 based Windows 10 version so you can't just start developing everything as 64-bit just yet.
Okay, I actually think it was a good idea for MS to keep a 32-bit version of Win10, but only to give the poor Win8.1 32-bit users a chance to upgrade to something with a usable desktop. I don't foresee the same need with a hypothetical Windows 11, so maybe this will be the last time we ever see a 32-bit Windows release?
It's not like the Windows RT based devices are losing out. Their primary limitation is the inability to install desktop apps in the first place, and almost all of the changes in Windows 10 are focused on making the desktop UI usable again. Let's take a look at some of the changes, shall we?
-Intelligently starting up to the desktop UI instead of the silly Windows 8/8.1 UI doesn't help. (MS Office and IE10/11 are the only commonly used programs you might use in the Desktop UI, everything else is an app)
-The new start menu is a desktop centric upgrade so it doesn't really apply (and by default it would open the Start Screen on a Surface device anyways, so no change from Windows 8/8.1 RT behavior for Surface RT.
-Virtual desktops don't help on a device that almost exclusively runs Windows Store apps since they tend to be full screen, switching between apps is about as difficult as switching between desktops would be.
The only thing we lose out on is the new web browser, which is so far completely untested. Basically as long as Windows 10 doesn't introduce compatibility issues with Windows store apps continuing to run on Windows 8/8.1 nothing of value has been lost by not getting an upgrade.
IANAL but the system could be designed such that your system CAN'T have child porn on it even if someone else has added child porn to the distributed network.
Imagine for a moment that all files are encrypted in 64KB blocks, then imagine that the peer-to-peer system, lets say it's torrent based, stores them in 32KB chunks. Lastly, the system does not store any two sequential chunks on the same computer (effectively the even chucks would be like one torrent, the odd chucks a second torrent, and only the originator of the data even would know which torrents correspond to each other). Since 32KB of the 64KB block are not on your computer (and your computer doesn't even know how to find the corresponding other 32KB chunks), the data on your computer cannot be processed in such a way as to result in child porn, thus you are not in possession of, nor distributing illegal content.
Well, it's a pipedream anyway. A lawyer would probably say that since it can be turned into child porn by adding a specific set of additional data and then decrypting the resulting file it constitutes child porn itself. Which would sort of imply that in a more general case that any set of binary data that can be found in a larger but illegal set of binary data is illegal to share if it's likely that someone somewhere will combine the two sets of data at some point in the future. Dang, when I word it like that it even starts to sound reasonable because of the 'likely' clause.
Why is that bad? It drives down the cost or storage for the rest of us, and incentivizes people to secure their systems. It is certainly better than them using compromised systems as spambots.
Who said that they wouldn't also mine for Bitcoins, send spam, and zombify your computer for their DDoS attacks. They already managed to get the Trojan onto the target computer, no need to limit themselves.
Anyways, while it's definitely good to have a secure system, that doesn't suddenly make the 'incentive' for having a secure system a good thing. It's like saying that living in a bad neighborhood is a good thing because it teaches people to consistently lock their doors and latch their windows.
Broadband networks are the modern-day microphone by which their owners [e.g. Verizon] engage in First Amendment speech
Wouldn't web pages and services hosted on servers be the "microphones" and the broadband network itself is just a phone line or audio cable?
Or does the broadband network include the servers that deliver the content?
If the second ones the case then did Verizon somehow buy up all of the servers that I use their network to access?
IANAL, I'm just sayin' it seems like I'm accessing the "speech" of whoever produced the content and put it on a server somewhere, not the one that gives me access to the server, especially when I would have access to the same servers even if I used a different network.