In reality, I think that the setting "z" was pushed down to 1% because of a demand by the rest of the users to increase x, y, and w.
No. According to the poster in question, the percentage was set with the express purpose of crippling P2P traffic and making it feel so slow compared to ordinary traffic that users would think there's something wrong with the peers rather than the ISP.
Like I said, I don't mind it if ISPs shape traffic in a way that guarantees fair access to all users. What bugs me is when ISPs intentionally cripple particular protocols.
The actual Net Neutrality question is: "Do you think Rogers Cablesystem should be allowed to degrade Vonage's VoIP traffic if they don't similarly degrade Rogers' own VoIP traffic?"
That's your take on it, but it's not necessarily the right way to look at the problem. Some of us think ISPs should not be allowed to unfairly degrade specific protocols. It's one thing to shape traffic in a way that guarantees reliable service for all users, but some ISPs like to degrade P2P in ways that are not in proportion with actual impact on network resources.
I recall seeing a post by an ISP employee who bragged about degrading P2P performance down to unusable levels (something like 1% of available bandwidth shared among all of the ISPs users) and laughing at the fact that customers might think the problem was on the peer's side rather than the ISP's side. I find that despicable, and a true violation of the principle of net neutrality.
Initially I thought the headline read "Nasa Has Lost the Tapes", and I almost believed it. "What? Already? They lost them again? Those idiots!... oh wait."
I keep seeing this faulty argument involving the concept of "paying twice". It's not that you're being asked to pay again, it's that you didn't fully "pay" the first time. It'd be like buying a $10 product and paying $5 up-front, and having the other $5 paid by advertising it shows.
The vast majority of books do not include such advertisements, but the publishers do still turn a profit. It's not like with magazines, where the costs of a print run are typically higher than revenue from subscription fees. With books, you're usually paying for the costs of printing the book and an extra amount on top. Thus, the idea that you aren't paying for the book in full is simply false. The ads are just extra profit for the publisher.
It's greed coupled with a total disregard for the artistic integrity of a work.
What exactly is the point of having games run in The Cloud, other than the wish to remain buzzword compliant? It seems like such a waste of network resources, and a pointless centralization of computing resources as well.
Frankly, I can't wait for the "cloud computing" bubble to finally burst.
Whether Lego -- which I generally perceive as far too litigious -- was right or wrong in its action against FreeLegoPorn.com, at least that was being used to host legitimate content. What really bugs me is domain owners who buy up a bunch of domain names to extort money out of those with a legitimate interest in them, or those who buy up a bunch of domain names for no other reason than to host advertising pages (which I consider a form of DNS spam).
To answer your totally irrelevant question, no, the code that runs in a VM is still considered code...
You've misunderstood my post. When I say the code that runs in a VM is data rather than code, I mean that as far as the GPL is concerned the code being emulated is being read in as data rather than compiled and linked together with the GPL-covered executable. Thus, the code that runs under the VM isn't covered by the GPL.
Considering SCUMM is a virtual machine, wouldn't the files being interpreted by SCUMM be considered data rather than code? I'm not aware of any terms in the GPL which require the authors of a data file that's read by GPL'd software to release that data under the terms of the GPL.
In fact, lawyers have a legal responsibility to defend their client's interests to the best of their ability. I'm not concerned about Obama's appointees acting against the interests of the Obama administration. Instead, I am concerned about what Obama's picks say about the Obama administration's own goals.
Barack Obama has decided that copyright issues are a matter of national security, and has appointed a number of former RIAA lawyers to various positions in his administration. I think it's pretty clear whose side Obama is on, and it does not bode well for the future of the Internet.
Obama: Change you can believe in. It won't happen, but you sure can believe in it.
A lot of video producers like to rely on the fact that Flash makes it difficult to download videos to your hard drive. I wonder how they'd react if a major online video provider were to provide its content through a less restrictive method such as the video tag.
You may be right about my test being unfair, but the basic point is that a lot of what you see on the Internet is second-hand information derived from offline sources. Ultimately it boils down to the fact that Wikipedia is not a primary source, and that people who learn primarily through Web resources often think they know more than they actually do. Just look at Jenny McCarthy and her "Google PhD", which isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
So let's try a different exercise: look up a bunch of Wikipedia articles on various subjects and follow the references. How many of those references are available online? How many of those references would require a visit to the library (or, for those who can afford it, a book purchase)?
I don't deny you can find lots of pages on almost every topic imaginable.
I have a better test: try to make it through college without attending classes and without consulting a single offline reference. Unless you already know the material, chances are you'll not progress anywhere near as quickly as those students who rely on non-internet resources.
There's more useful information on the Internet? I think not.
While there is plenty useful information on the Internet, a lot of the useful stuff you find there comes from primary sources (printed or digital) not easily found on the public Internet.
Are they still asking for a list of each applicant's personal websites? It seems to me there is no legitimate reason to force disclosure of such information. It's one thing if a background check produces a list of an applicant's public websites on its own, but to force disclosure of an applicant's websites as part of a job application still strikes me as very much an unwarranted intrusion into the applicant's personal affairs.
- The ribosomes don't enter into it. It's stone dead!
- Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
- All right then, if he's resting, I'll wake him up! 'Ello, Flaggie! Mister Flaggie Bacterium! I've got a lovely fresh host organism for you if you wake up, Mr. Flaggie Bacterium...
- There, he moved!
- No, he didn't, that was you pushing the Petri dish!
No. In the United States, the person who writes the code automatically becomes the copyright holder unless that person is an employee and the work is within the scope of that person's employment. Otherwise, a written transfer of copyright is required. Students are not employees, so the copyright belongs to the student by default.
Some schools do require that students assign copyright to the school, but it's not at all clear whether such a contract would be legally enforceable.
I was mocking the Author's obvious biases by placing a mirror in front of him and drawing attention to the implied statement: The American Approach is superior to the European Approach. The particular example given happened to involve aircraft design, but the author's statement was obviously intended to suggest a more fundamental difference.
If my own statement seems utterly stupid to you then I must have successfully reflected the author's own bias yet perhaps have failed at making the irony obvious enough.
It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems. As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer.
Slashdot Mirror
No. According to the poster in question, the percentage was set with the express purpose of crippling P2P traffic and making it feel so slow compared to ordinary traffic that users would think there's something wrong with the peers rather than the ISP.
Like I said, I don't mind it if ISPs shape traffic in a way that guarantees fair access to all users. What bugs me is when ISPs intentionally cripple particular protocols.
That's your take on it, but it's not necessarily the right way to look at the problem. Some of us think ISPs should not be allowed to unfairly degrade specific protocols. It's one thing to shape traffic in a way that guarantees reliable service for all users, but some ISPs like to degrade P2P in ways that are not in proportion with actual impact on network resources.
I recall seeing a post by an ISP employee who bragged about degrading P2P performance down to unusable levels (something like 1% of available bandwidth shared among all of the ISPs users) and laughing at the fact that customers might think the problem was on the peer's side rather than the ISP's side. I find that despicable, and a true violation of the principle of net neutrality.
Initially I thought the headline read "Nasa Has Lost the Tapes", and I almost believed it. "What? Already? They lost them again? Those idiots! ... oh wait."
The vast majority of books do not include such advertisements, but the publishers do still turn a profit. It's not like with magazines, where the costs of a print run are typically higher than revenue from subscription fees. With books, you're usually paying for the costs of printing the book and an extra amount on top. Thus, the idea that you aren't paying for the book in full is simply false. The ads are just extra profit for the publisher.
It's greed coupled with a total disregard for the artistic integrity of a work.
What exactly is the point of having games run in The Cloud, other than the wish to remain buzzword compliant? It seems like such a waste of network resources, and a pointless centralization of computing resources as well.
Frankly, I can't wait for the "cloud computing" bubble to finally burst.
Whether Lego -- which I generally perceive as far too litigious -- was right or wrong in its action against FreeLegoPorn.com, at least that was being used to host legitimate content. What really bugs me is domain owners who buy up a bunch of domain names to extort money out of those with a legitimate interest in them, or those who buy up a bunch of domain names for no other reason than to host advertising pages (which I consider a form of DNS spam).
You've misunderstood my post. When I say the code that runs in a VM is data rather than code, I mean that as far as the GPL is concerned the code being emulated is being read in as data rather than compiled and linked together with the GPL-covered executable. Thus, the code that runs under the VM isn't covered by the GPL.
I see. In that case, I agree.
Considering SCUMM is a virtual machine, wouldn't the files being interpreted by SCUMM be considered data rather than code? I'm not aware of any terms in the GPL which require the authors of a data file that's read by GPL'd software to release that data under the terms of the GPL.
Where did I say we should disregard anything?
In fact, lawyers have a legal responsibility to defend their client's interests to the best of their ability. I'm not concerned about Obama's appointees acting against the interests of the Obama administration. Instead, I am concerned about what Obama's picks say about the Obama administration's own goals.
Barack Obama has decided that copyright issues are a matter of national security, and has appointed a number of former RIAA lawyers to various positions in his administration. I think it's pretty clear whose side Obama is on, and it does not bode well for the future of the Internet.
Obama: Change you can believe in. It won't happen, but you sure can believe in it.
I don't know. I've never used it.
Those that are freely available, anyway. Otherwise, it can get pretty expensive.
That would be done online, through the library's subscriptions to online journals and repositories too expensive for an individual user to afford.
A lot of video producers like to rely on the fact that Flash makes it difficult to download videos to your hard drive. I wonder how they'd react if a major online video provider were to provide its content through a less restrictive method such as the video tag.
You may be right about my test being unfair, but the basic point is that a lot of what you see on the Internet is second-hand information derived from offline sources. Ultimately it boils down to the fact that Wikipedia is not a primary source, and that people who learn primarily through Web resources often think they know more than they actually do. Just look at Jenny McCarthy and her "Google PhD", which isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
So let's try a different exercise: look up a bunch of Wikipedia articles on various subjects and follow the references. How many of those references are available online? How many of those references would require a visit to the library (or, for those who can afford it, a book purchase)?
I don't deny you can find lots of pages on almost every topic imaginable.
I have a better test: try to make it through college without attending classes and without consulting a single offline reference. Unless you already know the material, chances are you'll not progress anywhere near as quickly as those students who rely on non-internet resources.
There's more useful information on the Internet? I think not.
While there is plenty useful information on the Internet, a lot of the useful stuff you find there comes from primary sources (printed or digital) not easily found on the public Internet.
Are they still asking for a list of each applicant's personal websites? It seems to me there is no legitimate reason to force disclosure of such information. It's one thing if a background check produces a list of an applicant's public websites on its own, but to force disclosure of an applicant's websites as part of a job application still strikes me as very much an unwarranted intrusion into the applicant's personal affairs.
In other words...
No. In the United States, the person who writes the code automatically becomes the copyright holder unless that person is an employee and the work is within the scope of that person's employment. Otherwise, a written transfer of copyright is required. Students are not employees, so the copyright belongs to the student by default.
Some schools do require that students assign copyright to the school, but it's not at all clear whether such a contract would be legally enforceable.
Twitter coordinates, n-Cubes, and four-dimensional spaces... in a cloud?
Gee... I'm glad it's not possible to die from a hype overdose.
I was mocking the Author's obvious biases by placing a mirror in front of him and drawing attention to the implied statement: The American Approach is superior to the European Approach. The particular example given happened to involve aircraft design, but the author's statement was obviously intended to suggest a more fundamental difference.
If my own statement seems utterly stupid to you then I must have successfully reflected the author's own bias yet perhaps have failed at making the irony obvious enough.
That joke would have been funnier if you lived in California.
"I don't think I'll ever get over Macho Grande." -- Ted Striker
Lemme' guess... you're an American.