I believe some of the I/O schedulers do include a process's priority into the disk I/O schedule. That might explain why it works; CFQ, of course, uses a separate I/O priority setting, a definite improvement. Another possibility, perhaps in addition to the first, is that I/O access is stalling for lack of CPU time to process the requests, and running the CPU-intensive parts at low priorities allows for requests to be processed in a more timely fashion.
Interesting point w/ the I/O schedulers... and the second idea I know to be true, though not always for the better when you really need to maximize use of available CPU and disk bandwidth.
I guess my perspective (ie needs) have been very different... I just found timeslicing tweaks were not sufficient when writing 2 19mbps MPEG2 streams to a disk and reading 2 more back, reading PNGs/JPEGs to display in a UI, and possibly streaming an MP3 to a PC - all using a 300 MHz MIPS CPU with 128MB RAM. It actually is possible, on Linux - just not with the stock CPU & I/O schedulers:) There were a few cases where it helped - but most of it was through very careful use of POSIX RT along with a few interesting (but uncommitted) patches out there like SOFT_RR, SCHED_IDLE, and a custom (userspace) I/O scheduler using direct I/O.
I think my (and Con Kolivas', it sounds like) issue is that on modern x86 CPUs with fast SATA drives, it really is a fault (or bad design decisions/optimization goals) in the stock CPU & I/O scheduling that it's even possible to do things like skip decode/playback of a 128kbps MP3 (that needs a TINY amount of CPU and disk bandwidth to do these days) or bring your desktop responsiveness to a grinding halt just by running a disk backup unless the *user* tells the kernel how to timeslice (and of course only if it's decreasing... gotta be root to increase it!)
"nice -n19" just puts it at the minimum timeslice, ie I believe in the stock Linux kernel it's nice 0 = 200ms, nice -20 = 400ms, nice 19 = 10 ms.
So, now do a video encoding and backup at the same time. Now try to play video, or even an mp3 off the disk as well. It quickly becomes impossible to fix with timeslice changes alone. Using nice to work around a crappy (or, I should say "not-designed for desktop interactivity") I/O scheduler is a hack. It's not that hacks don't sometimes get the job done, it's that recommending hacks instead of proper solutions is part of the reason Con gave up, of course...
Nice doesn't do much for disk I/O issues, which is why Linux video players like Totem, MythTV, etc, read a lot of data from disk before decoding (ie waste memory).
Nice is not a solution to latency, either - it just gives the process a large timeslice in case it needs a larger share of the CPU than other processes running along side it. This is why said players also pre-decode an absurd number of video frames ahead of time (ie waste a LOT of memory), so that they can better manage latency and limit the critical low latency operations just to flipping pages/blitting buffers when they need to be displayed (ie every 15-30ms).
There are a lot of ugly solutions (like your suggestion) but Kon's point is that the user is left to ugly solutions, not proper design for desktop/interactive latency concerns. It's really disappointing to hear that he has given up on the -ck patches - IMO he has done more to fight for making the Linux kernel usable in a desktop OS (and indirectly in embedded devices) than anyone.
Um, no.... Sorry, I don't read "arguments" that begin with "um".
I was so tempted just to reply "I don't read 'arguments' that begin with 'um' *or* 'sorry'" - but I decided that it was only slightly wittier than either of the originals, and witty they were not.
I find it hilarious that an article mentioning (focused on is too strong - despite the title it was about 4 paragraphs) an extremely low level process (ie possible mitochondrial-related rapid apoptosis of neurons after oxygen short-term deprivation as a leading cause of death in cardiac arrest) has resulted in some moronic moral battle between "keep what you kill" and "meat is murder".
Your argument is stupidly off-topic for this article. So, here are two fun trains of thought to get you guys back on track:
1) Your mitochondria, after millions of years, have not realized that we can usually revive the rest of your body after 10 minutes of cardiac arrest. Don't we wish they could figure that out. Maybe we could rise above other base "evolutionary" traits as well and learn to be more ethical to other living beings. Meat is murder!
2) Your mitochondria, after millions of years, are the result of an amazing evolutionary process likely descended from symbiotic prokaryotes that now constitute the major energy-producing components of our bodies. Thanks to said little helpers and many other evolutionary advantages, we can enjoy a higher standard of living, often grow over 6' tall with the plentiful supply of meat and dairy, and even entertain the luxury of pondering ethics and morality on slashdot. Meat, it's what's for dinner!
Pick your pseudo-religious viewpoint, and go at it!
The bet is good until HDDs can handle 15GB/s:) I'll start worrying when they perfect the 1,000,000RPM spindle. If we ever get to 15GB/s storage it'll have to be some solid state/holographic/whatever storage. Not to mention the network I/F, processor, etc.
Anyway, OF COURSE I am not saying it's USELESS. I'd LOVE to have said theoretical 40Gbps to my home, because then at least I'd be guaranteed that my last mile of Internet access won't be the bottleneck. It would be one of the 100 other bottlenecks on both ends that can't handle that rate.
Let's focus on getting 40Mbps to 1000 homes before worrying about 40Gbps to 1 home.
Exactly! Why is everyone posting this bullshit that is just WRONG!? If I was charged more for going beyond 6MB/month I think:
1) it would have been in my contract, and
2) I would have a lot higher phone bills...
Besides, the iPhone is using AT&T EDGE, and is going to cause a LOT more than 6MB a month usage for a lot more casual users. Unfortunately, I'm guessing this is going to hammer their network. But they are NOT charging extra for usage over 6MB.
Some operators provide a certain allowance (in the UK this is ~40MB a day) into their mobile contracts, but they don't have anything approaching the infrastructure to provide true flat-rate GPRS service to even a fraction of their subscribers.
I pay $20 a month for unlimited data over GPRS (EDGE, in fact, which is based on GPRS). You can argue that the carriers are oversubscribing their GPRS networks, or that if I somehow abused that unlimited plan I would be warned/etc for that abuse, but you can't say I don't pay flat rate. $20. Doesn't change. FLAT.
because to provide a complete service in London alone would involve putting a mast on every single street corner.
There are already cameras on every corner, I'm sure they can handle antennas as well...
This is why GPRS is charged per packet, not for time "online" (technically, you're always online with GPRS). Each packet goes to every phone signed on that mast. Think of the multiplexing.
That's what the Internet is all about. IP is packet based and multiplexed. Do you think you have your own dedicated connection to slashdot servers? Also: yes, GPRS is packet based, but not necessarily charged per packet. Many people pay a flat rate for GPRS, just like Internet access.
This is the same argument people use to claim DSL is better than cable. Well, I can't get more than 3mbps DSL with their "dedicated line". I just switched to cable for the same price and get bursts of 20Mbps, with 6+Mbps continuous.
Basically, this really fact-free article is claiming that fiber is "cost effective" but doesn't say the slightest about the cost. I guarantee it costs thousands of dollars to install per home, and that's just the last mile, not the massive changes and upgrades that would be required to support this bandwidth that has no useful application to the home for 99.9% of the public. Download an HD-DVD in 2 seconds? To WHERE? Try copying a 30GB file between 2 PCs with GiGE on the same LAN (or even 2 HDDs on the same computer). If it takes 2 seconds, I will pay for your FTTH installation.
Just as the OP said, this is purely a Cisco-sponsored publicity stunt.
Actually, @Home *built* all of the cable companies' network infrastructures and provided the broadband service for pretty much every major cable co except Time Warner. They had about 4.5M customers paying $40+ a month (which was about half of the total US broadband market at the time!) Can't lose, you'd think? Well, the catch is said cable co's also owned a significant stake in @Home, and once they decided they could make more money doing it themselves, they let it die...
Here's a decent post mortem (sounds surprisingly like "Who Killed the Electric Car?...):
I was so excited to see AT&T all but disappear as a public company... until SBC goes and builds a new Deathstar three times the size of the original...
The post is basically about how Comcast, against all previous expectations based on their crappy service, has actually provided MORE than promised? And that makes it time to bash them again?
Hey, I can't stand Comcast as much as the next poor customer (probably more, since I used to work at @Home, which was killed by these damn cable companies) but give be a break, they have actually done something that benefits the average customer (give them huge initial download bandwidth to make web browsing FAST, but excessive P2P, etc, traffic only "as advertised"). And that is interpreted by many here as "manipulating the bandwidth tests"?? Yeah, I'm sure Comcast also helped fake the Moon landings.
Even sadder - anyone who waited 36 hours in line for a product that still hasn't sold out 3 days later needs to stop whining about waiting in line for 36 hours.
Ha. Say even the *slightest* positive thing about Bill Gates (even if it's in the same sentence as "I'm sure he's an asshole in person") and there's always mindless zealot at/. to mod you down. "Overrated"? By whom? That was the only rating my post got...
That cell, anticipating Bill Gates by three billion years, separated itself from the community and refused to share...
I'm not a particular fan of Microsoft business practices, but come on, when are people going to give up this crap. Sure, Bill Gates is the richest man on the planet, but he has also given away more money to philanthropy than any man on the planet. I'm sure personality-wise he's just as much an asshole as Steve Jobs in person, but one thing he is NOT is stingy.
I read TFA, and there is a big difference. Aligning pixels, etc, via software is doable. But there is no way some external software is going to know how to go through the ususally manual step of color calibrating projectors from a half a dozen manufacturers so the combined image looks anything but a crazed patchwork quilt. Sure, they probably bought a bunch of identical projectors and set up up with identical settings. Really useful idea for their proposal of a "projector party".
Someone with $12,000 to waste. There are plenty, I'm sure. So long as this is idiot-proof and projector prices drop, I can see this one really taking off. I've seen many a screen where the projected image is made too large and comes out all pixilated. They'd be better suited by four smaller resolution projectors melded into a single screen of 2x2 images. We'll see.
1080p HD movies with a top quality projector like a Marantz or Sony Ruby with good screen (even a large one ie 100") are not the least bit pixelated when viewing from the proper distance. Though that setup would also cost you a lot more then $12k - try $20k, and that doesn't even include sources, processor, amps, speakers/subs, etc.
Still that's a lot more reasonable than the moronic article that suggests people will try to bring over 12 cheap projectors and somehow align them all, calibrate, etc and in the end enjoy a movie over the now deafening noise and heat generated by 12 projectors in your living room.
Do you really want to give the Chinese another opportunity to dissect a surveillance aircraft? Or maybe we could fly 'em over Russian airspace... I'm sure Putin would love that.
Perhaps I'm being overly snarky, but I don't really see any other good alternative to the existing network of spy satellites.
If we ever get to the point where China is actually shooting down US spy satellites, I wouldn't worry about it much anyway, because we'd probably be in WW3.
Exactly. And in fact plasma TVs were first sold to the consumer public in 1997 - TEN YEARS AGO. At that point, maybe I would believe someone would take out a mortgage to buy one, since it cost about $30k (or not that they WOULD, just that the would HAVE TO to afford it). Today you can get a decent 42" plasma for 1/20th of that price. So, nope, I just don't see it.
In any case, what I really don't see is how this is any different from people buying luxury cars they can't really afford, and living hand to mouth to pay them off. I know several people who have done that over the years...
This only can happen with NFL games; the rest (namely MLB and NHL) are stipulated by the league and the broadcaster's contract
As a (almost former, at this point) Chicago Blackhawks fan, I guarantee you this happens with the NHL, too, at least for regular season games (which is all the Hawks will ever see!) Then again, they may have given up on any kind of "sellout" rule since they haven't sold out a home game in years.
Okay, but every day in the sports pages (or in the sports segment on the news), reporters "describe" what happened in the game. Are they licensed, or is this somehow okay since the description occurred after the game?
Exactly, the difference is that live coverage and broadcast of these events is licensed differently from print reporters and photographers (not that you have to be "licensed" to write about an event... if you want a front row seat to snap photos you will definitely have to be issued press credentials, though...)
They make money by selling tickets to the event or licensing broadcasts of the event (I'm sure CBS Sportline, ESPN, etc pay for their live Internet coverage as well). The was they see it, putting an article and photo in the paper does not take away their revenues, but providing live coverage might. And if they license Internet live coverage to some people, they have to restrict those who are not licensed, otherwise they won't keep that revenue for long...
This is the same motivation by which professional teams black out their local coverage when a game is not sold out.
I'm not necessarily saying I agree with this policy, but as a money-making business (and yes, the NCAA is a huge money making business) they certainly have the right to do this if they want.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe some of the I/O schedulers do include a process's priority into the disk I/O schedule. That might explain why it works; CFQ, of course, uses a separate I/O priority setting, a definite improvement. Another possibility, perhaps in addition to the first, is that I/O access is stalling for lack of CPU time to process the requests, and running the CPU-intensive parts at low priorities allows for requests to be processed in a more timely fashion.
:) There were a few cases where it helped - but most of it was through very careful use of POSIX RT along with a few interesting (but uncommitted) patches out there like SOFT_RR, SCHED_IDLE, and a custom (userspace) I/O scheduler using direct I/O.
Interesting point w/ the I/O schedulers... and the second idea I know to be true, though not always for the better when you really need to maximize use of available CPU and disk bandwidth.
I guess my perspective (ie needs) have been very different... I just found timeslicing tweaks were not sufficient when writing 2 19mbps MPEG2 streams to a disk and reading 2 more back, reading PNGs/JPEGs to display in a UI, and possibly streaming an MP3 to a PC - all using a 300 MHz MIPS CPU with 128MB RAM. It actually is possible, on Linux - just not with the stock CPU & I/O schedulers
I think my (and Con Kolivas', it sounds like) issue is that on modern x86 CPUs with fast SATA drives, it really is a fault (or bad design decisions/optimization goals) in the stock CPU & I/O scheduling that it's even possible to do things like skip decode/playback of a 128kbps MP3 (that needs a TINY amount of CPU and disk bandwidth to do these days) or bring your desktop responsiveness to a grinding halt just by running a disk backup unless the *user* tells the kernel how to timeslice (and of course only if it's decreasing... gotta be root to increase it!)
"nice -n19" just puts it at the minimum timeslice, ie I believe in the stock Linux kernel it's nice 0 = 200ms, nice -20 = 400ms, nice 19 = 10 ms.
So, now do a video encoding and backup at the same time. Now try to play video, or even an mp3 off the disk as well. It quickly becomes impossible to fix with timeslice changes alone. Using nice to work around a crappy (or, I should say "not-designed for desktop interactivity") I/O scheduler is a hack. It's not that hacks don't sometimes get the job done, it's that recommending hacks instead of proper solutions is part of the reason Con gave up, of course...
Nice doesn't do much for disk I/O issues, which is why Linux video players like Totem, MythTV, etc, read a lot of data from disk before decoding (ie waste memory).
Nice is not a solution to latency, either - it just gives the process a large timeslice in case it needs a larger share of the CPU than other processes running along side it. This is why said players also pre-decode an absurd number of video frames ahead of time (ie waste a LOT of memory), so that they can better manage latency and limit the critical low latency operations just to flipping pages/blitting buffers when they need to be displayed (ie every 15-30ms).
There are a lot of ugly solutions (like your suggestion) but Kon's point is that the user is left to ugly solutions, not proper design for desktop/interactive latency concerns. It's really disappointing to hear that he has given up on the -ck patches - IMO he has done more to fight for making the Linux kernel usable in a desktop OS (and indirectly in embedded devices) than anyone.
They give you a virus that infects others, we give them herpes.
You are volunteering to give him herpes? That's a brave admission, man.
Um, no....
Sorry, I don't read "arguments" that begin with "um".
I was so tempted just to reply "I don't read 'arguments' that begin with 'um' *or* 'sorry'" - but I decided that it was only slightly wittier than either of the originals, and witty they were not.
I find it hilarious that an article mentioning (focused on is too strong - despite the title it was about 4 paragraphs) an extremely low level process (ie possible mitochondrial-related rapid apoptosis of neurons after oxygen short-term deprivation as a leading cause of death in cardiac arrest) has resulted in some moronic moral battle between "keep what you kill" and "meat is murder".
Your argument is stupidly off-topic for this article. So, here are two fun trains of thought to get you guys back on track:
1) Your mitochondria, after millions of years, have not realized that we can usually revive the rest of your body after 10 minutes of cardiac arrest. Don't we wish they could figure that out. Maybe we could rise above other base "evolutionary" traits as well and learn to be more ethical to other living beings. Meat is murder!
2) Your mitochondria, after millions of years, are the result of an amazing evolutionary process likely descended from symbiotic prokaryotes that now constitute the major energy-producing components of our bodies. Thanks to said little helpers and many other evolutionary advantages, we can enjoy a higher standard of living, often grow over 6' tall with the plentiful supply of meat and dairy, and even entertain the luxury of pondering ethics and morality on slashdot. Meat, it's what's for dinner!
Pick your pseudo-religious viewpoint, and go at it!
Well, mine is AT&T so you get what you pay for :) (didn't that used to be a POSITIVE when mentioning AT&T!?!)
The bet is good until HDDs can handle 15GB/s :) I'll start worrying when they perfect the 1,000,000RPM spindle. If we ever get to 15GB/s storage it'll have to be some solid state/holographic/whatever storage. Not to mention the network I/F, processor, etc.
Anyway, OF COURSE I am not saying it's USELESS. I'd LOVE to have said theoretical 40Gbps to my home, because then at least I'd be guaranteed that my last mile of Internet access won't be the bottleneck. It would be one of the 100 other bottlenecks on both ends that can't handle that rate.
Let's focus on getting 40Mbps to 1000 homes before worrying about 40Gbps to 1 home.
Exactly! Why is everyone posting this bullshit that is just WRONG!? If I was charged more for going beyond 6MB/month I think:
1) it would have been in my contract, and
2) I would have a lot higher phone bills...
Besides, the iPhone is using AT&T EDGE, and is going to cause a LOT more than 6MB a month usage for a lot more casual users. Unfortunately, I'm guessing this is going to hammer their network. But they are NOT charging extra for usage over 6MB.
No one pays flat-rate for GPRS.
Some operators provide a certain allowance (in the UK this is ~40MB a day) into their mobile contracts, but they don't have anything approaching the infrastructure to provide true flat-rate GPRS service to even a fraction of their subscribers.
I pay $20 a month for unlimited data over GPRS (EDGE, in fact, which is based on GPRS). You can argue that the carriers are oversubscribing their GPRS networks, or that if I somehow abused that unlimited plan I would be warned/etc for that abuse, but you can't say I don't pay flat rate. $20. Doesn't change. FLAT.
because to provide a complete service in London alone would involve putting a mast on every single street corner.
There are already cameras on every corner, I'm sure they can handle antennas as well...
This is why GPRS is charged per packet, not for time "online" (technically, you're always online with GPRS). Each packet goes to every phone signed on that mast. Think of the multiplexing.
That's what the Internet is all about. IP is packet based and multiplexed. Do you think you have your own dedicated connection to slashdot servers? Also: yes, GPRS is packet based, but not necessarily charged per packet. Many people pay a flat rate for GPRS, just like Internet access.
This is the same argument people use to claim DSL is better than cable. Well, I can't get more than 3mbps DSL with their "dedicated line". I just switched to cable for the same price and get bursts of 20Mbps, with 6+Mbps continuous.
Basically, this really fact-free article is claiming that fiber is "cost effective" but doesn't say the slightest about the cost. I guarantee it costs thousands of dollars to install per home, and that's just the last mile, not the massive changes and upgrades that would be required to support this bandwidth that has no useful application to the home for 99.9% of the public. Download an HD-DVD in 2 seconds? To WHERE? Try copying a 30GB file between 2 PCs with GiGE on the same LAN (or even 2 HDDs on the same computer). If it takes 2 seconds, I will pay for your FTTH installation.
Just as the OP said, this is purely a Cisco-sponsored publicity stunt.
Actually, @Home *built* all of the cable companies' network infrastructures and provided the broadband service for pretty much every major cable co except Time Warner. They had about 4.5M customers paying $40+ a month (which was about half of the total US broadband market at the time!) Can't lose, you'd think? Well, the catch is said cable co's also owned a significant stake in @Home, and once they decided they could make more money doing it themselves, they let it die...
i cle/archive/2001/12/17/BU23049.DTL
l easeDetail.ashx?PRID=152
Here's a decent post mortem (sounds surprisingly like "Who Killed the Electric Car?...):
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chron
And I think agreeing to pay $340M to the @Home bondholders is as good as AT&T admitting blame...
http://www.comcast.com/About/PressRelease/PressRe
I was so excited to see AT&T all but disappear as a public company... until SBC goes and builds a new Deathstar three times the size of the original...
The post is basically about how Comcast, against all previous expectations based on their crappy service, has actually provided MORE than promised? And that makes it time to bash them again?
Hey, I can't stand Comcast as much as the next poor customer (probably more, since I used to work at @Home, which was killed by these damn cable companies) but give be a break, they have actually done something that benefits the average customer (give them huge initial download bandwidth to make web browsing FAST, but excessive P2P, etc, traffic only "as advertised"). And that is interpreted by many here as "manipulating the bandwidth tests"?? Yeah, I'm sure Comcast also helped fake the Moon landings.
Since iPhones don't have any kind of access that makes this "discovery" meaningful
That pretty much sums up how useless this article was.
By the way, if anyone wants it, you can have the combination to my luggage.
Apparently not. Without the Chutney Squishee, what's the point of this farce!?
At least tell me they will let you order an "all syrup Squishee"...
Even sadder - anyone who waited 36 hours in line for a product that still hasn't sold out 3 days later needs to stop whining about waiting in line for 36 hours.
Ha. Say even the *slightest* positive thing about Bill Gates (even if it's in the same sentence as "I'm sure he's an asshole in person") and there's always mindless zealot at /. to mod you down. "Overrated"? By whom? That was the only rating my post got...
That cell, anticipating Bill Gates by three billion years, separated itself from the community and refused to share...
I'm not a particular fan of Microsoft business practices, but come on, when are people going to give up this crap. Sure, Bill Gates is the richest man on the planet, but he has also given away more money to philanthropy than any man on the planet. I'm sure personality-wise he's just as much an asshole as Steve Jobs in person, but one thing he is NOT is stingy.
I read TFA, and there is a big difference. Aligning pixels, etc, via software is doable. But there is no way some external software is going to know how to go through the ususally manual step of color calibrating projectors from a half a dozen manufacturers so the combined image looks anything but a crazed patchwork quilt. Sure, they probably bought a bunch of identical projectors and set up up with identical settings. Really useful idea for their proposal of a "projector party".
Someone with $12,000 to waste. There are plenty, I'm sure. So long as this is idiot-proof and projector prices drop, I can see this one really taking off. I've seen many a screen where the projected image is made too large and comes out all pixilated. They'd be better suited by four smaller resolution projectors melded into a single screen of 2x2 images. We'll see.
1080p HD movies with a top quality projector like a Marantz or Sony Ruby with good screen (even a large one ie 100") are not the least bit pixelated when viewing from the proper distance. Though that setup would also cost you a lot more then $12k - try $20k, and that doesn't even include sources, processor, amps, speakers/subs, etc.
Still that's a lot more reasonable than the moronic article that suggests people will try to bring over 12 cheap projectors and somehow align them all, calibrate, etc and in the end enjoy a movie over the now deafening noise and heat generated by 12 projectors in your living room.
Like what?
Spy planes?
Do you really want to give the Chinese another opportunity to dissect a surveillance aircraft? Or maybe we could fly 'em over Russian airspace... I'm sure Putin would love that.
Perhaps I'm being overly snarky, but I don't really see any other good alternative to the existing network of spy satellites.
If we ever get to the point where China is actually shooting down US spy satellites, I wouldn't worry about it much anyway, because we'd probably be in WW3.
I'm handing in my geek card. I actually thought this story was referring to food.
That's ok, you were closer than me, I thought it meant that honkeys took over the Pentagon!
Exactly. And in fact plasma TVs were first sold to the consumer public in 1997 - TEN YEARS AGO. At that point, maybe I would believe someone would take out a mortgage to buy one, since it cost about $30k (or not that they WOULD, just that the would HAVE TO to afford it). Today you can get a decent 42" plasma for 1/20th of that price. So, nope, I just don't see it.
In any case, what I really don't see is how this is any different from people buying luxury cars they can't really afford, and living hand to mouth to pay them off. I know several people who have done that over the years...
This only can happen with NFL games; the rest (namely MLB and NHL) are stipulated by the league and the broadcaster's contract
As a (almost former, at this point) Chicago Blackhawks fan, I guarantee you this happens with the NHL, too, at least for regular season games (which is all the Hawks will ever see!) Then again, they may have given up on any kind of "sellout" rule since they haven't sold out a home game in years.
Okay, but every day in the sports pages (or in the sports segment on the news), reporters "describe" what happened in the game. Are they licensed, or is this somehow okay since the description occurred after the game?
Exactly, the difference is that live coverage and broadcast of these events is licensed differently from print reporters and photographers (not that you have to be "licensed" to write about an event... if you want a front row seat to snap photos you will definitely have to be issued press credentials, though...)
They make money by selling tickets to the event or licensing broadcasts of the event (I'm sure CBS Sportline, ESPN, etc pay for their live Internet coverage as well). The was they see it, putting an article and photo in the paper does not take away their revenues, but providing live coverage might. And if they license Internet live coverage to some people, they have to restrict those who are not licensed, otherwise they won't keep that revenue for long...
This is the same motivation by which professional teams black out their local coverage when a game is not sold out.
I'm not necessarily saying I agree with this policy, but as a money-making business (and yes, the NCAA is a huge money making business) they certainly have the right to do this if they want.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.