With network neutrality, I mean resources allocated for you on a larger WAN scale than within a company's (in this case Microsoft's) own network, by the owners of that physical network infrastructure. Are we sure this is talking about affecting actual network neutrality where e.g. network owners are affected by a classification system by Microsoft, or is this patent just describing a method for Microsoft to reduce bandwidth of e.g streaming media (the patent explicitly speaks of audio and video) for abusive accounts on a new or existing online site of theirs?
Pluto was all to much like a Kuiper belt object getting caught by gravity than a classic planet. This is LOTS better than the draft proposal going on about making all those "plutons" and pushing up the planet count. I'm happy IAU had the guts to actually demote a planet instead of doing the opposite. This is like finally fixing up a mistake made a long time ago, and I'm grateful for that. Their compromise with dwarf planets seems elegant too, as that would give recognition to unusually large celestial bodies, that however still are more like rocks compared to classic planets.
it seems to be that the movie studios are killing both HD formats with their greed and paranoia.
It would be funny if the most successful market for these formats turned out to be the warez community due to the excessive hurdles for legal customers.
1. That Microsoft with their immense market power can't even bring up a fight against any movie studios pressuring them on this. They wouldn't even violate any laws on supporting protected content on 32-bit systems. Clearly Microsoft's intents is to in the first place cater to movie studios, and only after to their users.
2. That 32-bit systems have no technical obstacles to playing this content. They usually have little problems decoding HD video in real-time.
There's no way to make this look pretty, really. It's a 100% consumer loss, in the days when movie studios are concerned about lacking revenues at least in reports about piracy. Gee, I wonder why.
I guess it's easy enough to detect for repeat offenders or people making the wildest claims, but what about a user that hasn't reported anyone else in the past and suddenly reports someone at school for being pissed at him. While it's a punishable offense, that doesn't stop the police from having to spend resources on it since they can't just dismiss it. Now take enough users doing this (you just need a fraction of a percent for a few million users) and I think it's easy to see the problems.
Case in point: if you are arrested by a government in places that permit it, they may compell you to give your encryption keys, and thus they can read whatever they want.
TrueCrypt supports two levels of plausible deniability to combat this though, and it's something that set it apart from other utilities like this.
TC can put a hidden "inner" volume inside your encrypted volume, that is simply mountable with a different password. But there's no way to prove that such a volume exist (TC volumes are indistinguishable from random data, and even file system and unused data is encrypted) and that you have more passwords than one for the "outer" regular encrypted volume.
In the end, what matters is the experience you get at the cinema before recommending it to friends. (and since friend recommendations go above any form of marketing at least in the long run, that's what matters)
And as for the quality, Rotten Tomatoes rates it at 67%, and the reviewers do seem to understand it's not to be taken too seriously. The general opinion just seem to be that it's not really a truly great silly movie.
I guess there are no real shortcuts to greatness in the box office -- it just have to be really good to rate really high.
I wouldn't be so conspirative; I just think it's to cover their asses in case Firefox would have Vista trouble. After all, ~10% browser share according to common analyst firms marks a pretty common Windows software they likely want to work for user not to go "screw Vista, even Firefox don't work!".
The argument about fish nets is real poor, because dolphins can still get stuck in those nets while being smarter than goldfish. Unless goldfish elegantly finds their way out of the equivalent of a large fish nets (which goldfish get through from physical size reasons), it doesn't prove one thing or another. Unless there are fish or marine mammals that don't get stuck from pure intelligence, it doesn't say dolphins are more stupid than any others in particular.
It's the usual advantages from online stuff with some extras. You don't need to install anything, it's automatically always the latest version, accessibility, online real-time collaboration. But I'm not saying with that that it's better, because these offline clients offer tons more features, isn't dependant on network availability, feels more safely stored on e.g. a local drive, or corporate LAN. But it's different, and Google sees a niche.
The only way to be [completely] sure the system is malware-free is to completely wipe the hard drive and reinstall the operating system
However, even that might not help if the OS in question is Windows XP and not integrated with SP2 on the same CD, and you don't know what you're doing. (like disconnecting the network until you've installed SP2 that you of course had lying on another disc so you don't need to go online for it)
Pretty annoying what a highly flawed and widely spread OS can do.
I got the impression he was talking about some demanding *warning* labels on it from mass hysteria. But sure, putting a label with <insert virus name here> as part of the ingredient listing would only sound fair.
Then, finally, show a music executive, laughing, having lunch at some expensive restaurant, drinking fine wine, getting some young artist to sign on the dotted line. "Copyright Infringement" [fade to black] "It's NOT theft."
... or just a still image of a music star's home. Would do the trick too.;-)
Another twist would going for another related target -- DRM. Putting a spin on what my sig says (which refers to the theft of legal rights btw). I can picture plenty of metaphors and comparisons that would work fairly well here, handcuffing the users trying to share something they purchased.
But here's the thing. Earth's Moon was born in a catastrophic collision more than 4 billion years ago.
So is this established fact now? I thought the that was far from proven, and even a quite debated theory. But maybe the impact hypothesis has gained traction in the science community since I heard of this?
Do the submitter somehow think it's wrong a moon is reclassified as a planet if it would gain an own orbit around a star and satisfy the size criteria to, you know, behave pretty much like a planet?
Now, if the classification would make it *remain* a moon without orbiting Earth at all, now that's what would sound stupid to me. If IAU classification helps resolve that problem, I have to thank them for that, or various star systems with similar circumstances could end up having a mess of "moons" not orbiting planets. Would we want that?
Wow, for a science show (sure, entertainment-oriented, but still) that's pretty bad... If the Cesium experiment didn't work out right, why didn't they just cut it? The rest of the reactions still look impressive, and they would've saved their image better.
Slashdot Mirror
With network neutrality, I mean resources allocated for you on a larger WAN scale than within a company's (in this case Microsoft's) own network, by the owners of that physical network infrastructure. Are we sure this is talking about affecting actual network neutrality where e.g. network owners are affected by a classification system by Microsoft, or is this patent just describing a method for Microsoft to reduce bandwidth of e.g streaming media (the patent explicitly speaks of audio and video) for abusive accounts on a new or existing online site of theirs?
Pluto was all to much like a Kuiper belt object getting caught by gravity than a classic planet. This is LOTS better than the draft proposal going on about making all those "plutons" and pushing up the planet count. I'm happy IAU had the guts to actually demote a planet instead of doing the opposite. This is like finally fixing up a mistake made a long time ago, and I'm grateful for that. Their compromise with dwarf planets seems elegant too, as that would give recognition to unusually large celestial bodies, that however still are more like rocks compared to classic planets.
It would be funny if the most successful market for these formats turned out to be the warez community due to the excessive hurdles for legal customers.
The saddest parts in this story are two-fold.
1. That Microsoft with their immense market power can't even bring up a fight against any movie studios pressuring them on this. They wouldn't even violate any laws on supporting protected content on 32-bit systems. Clearly Microsoft's intents is to in the first place cater to movie studios, and only after to their users.
2. That 32-bit systems have no technical obstacles to playing this content. They usually have little problems decoding HD video in real-time.
There's no way to make this look pretty, really. It's a 100% consumer loss, in the days when movie studios are concerned about lacking revenues at least in reports about piracy. Gee, I wonder why.
Sorry, meant "*of* a few million users", not "for". Damn prepositions!
I guess it's easy enough to detect for repeat offenders or people making the wildest claims, but what about a user that hasn't reported anyone else in the past and suddenly reports someone at school for being pissed at him. While it's a punishable offense, that doesn't stop the police from having to spend resources on it since they can't just dismiss it. Now take enough users doing this (you just need a fraction of a percent for a few million users) and I think it's easy to see the problems.
TrueCrypt supports two levels of plausible deniability to combat this though, and it's something that set it apart from other utilities like this.
TC can put a hidden "inner" volume inside your encrypted volume, that is simply mountable with a different password. But there's no way to prove that such a volume exist (TC volumes are indistinguishable from random data, and even file system and unused data is encrypted) and that you have more passwords than one for the "outer" regular encrypted volume.
"I don't really care, but it's certainly an issue."
Yeah, if you upload your stuff as plaintext.
In the end, what matters is the experience you get at the cinema before recommending it to friends.
(and since friend recommendations go above any form of marketing at least in the long run, that's what matters)
And as for the quality, Rotten Tomatoes rates it at 67%, and the reviewers do seem to understand it's not to be taken too seriously.
The general opinion just seem to be that it's not really a truly great silly movie.
I guess there are no real shortcuts to greatness in the box office -- it just have to be really good to rate really high.
I wouldn't be so conspirative; I just think it's to cover their asses in case Firefox would have Vista trouble. After all, ~10% browser share according to common analyst firms marks a pretty common Windows software they likely want to work for user not to go "screw Vista, even Firefox don't work!".
I guess "we observed phenomena consistent with a theory that claims dark matter's existence" even less headline-worthy.
;-)
If not only because that'd be a ridiculously long headline.
Or this link:o n)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluton_(disambiguati
If you thought this was bad, just wait for the French!
I'm happy to see a Linux browsexplorer carrying on Internet Explorer's heritage that was unfortunately abandoned in Windows Vista. :-)
The argument about fish nets is real poor, because dolphins can still get stuck in those nets while being smarter than goldfish. Unless goldfish elegantly finds their way out of the equivalent of a large fish nets (which goldfish get through from physical size reasons), it doesn't prove one thing or another. Unless there are fish or marine mammals that don't get stuck from pure intelligence, it doesn't say dolphins are more stupid than any others in particular.
If torrents are illegal, how can e.g. American Linux distros and Blizzard Entertainment use them?
It's the usual advantages from online stuff with some extras. You don't need to install anything, it's automatically always the latest version, accessibility, online real-time collaboration. But I'm not saying with that that it's better, because these offline clients offer tons more features, isn't dependant on network availability, feels more safely stored on e.g. a local drive, or corporate LAN. But it's different, and Google sees a niche.
No Safari support either, which may actually affect more users than the lack of Opera support, despite Firefox's popularity on Mac.
What's with the lack of a direct link? Oh right, blogvertising. Forgot.
(check the blog's title for a laugh from the author's mental age by the way)
However, even that might not help if the OS in question is Windows XP and not integrated with SP2 on the same CD, and you don't know what you're doing. (like disconnecting the network until you've installed SP2 that you of course had lying on another disc so you don't need to go online for it)
Pretty annoying what a highly flawed and widely spread OS can do.
What, are you a grammar nazi on pot or something?
I got the impression he was talking about some demanding *warning* labels on it from mass hysteria.
But sure, putting a label with <insert virus name here> as part of the ingredient listing would only sound fair.
Another twist would going for another related target -- DRM. Putting a spin on what my sig says (which refers to the theft of legal rights btw). I can picture plenty of metaphors and comparisons that would work fairly well here, handcuffing the users trying to share something they purchased.
So is this established fact now? I thought the that was far from proven, and even a quite debated theory.
But maybe the impact hypothesis has gained traction in the science community since I heard of this?
Do the submitter somehow think it's wrong a moon is reclassified as a planet if it would gain an own orbit around a star and satisfy the size criteria to, you know, behave pretty much like a planet?
Now, if the classification would make it *remain* a moon without orbiting Earth at all, now that's what would sound stupid to me. If IAU classification helps resolve that problem, I have to thank them for that, or various star systems with similar circumstances could end up having a mess of "moons" not orbiting planets. Would we want that?
Wow, for a science show (sure, entertainment-oriented, but still) that's pretty bad... If the Cesium experiment didn't work out right, why didn't they just cut it? The rest of the reactions still look impressive, and they would've saved their image better.