Sure, there is the potential for it to be improperly coded, or downright misrepresented. However, don't count it as a failure before it's even seen the light of day.
The first 100 times I heard of similar schemes, I thought maybe they were onto something. The second 900 times, I grew skeptical.
Your reading comprehension sucks. There's a vast difference between technical requirements and legal restrictions, and the GP was implying that there's some legal reason why you couldn't run it under Wine. There isn't, other than some nebulous non-negotiable EULA that you don't get to see until you've bought (yes, bought!) a copy and opened it.
You have every legal right to try to make it work on a unsupported system. Whether that proves to be technically possible is an entirely different conversation that no one but you was having.
Listing supported configurations is one thing, and honestly, I don't expect them to care whether it runs under Wine. That's a totally different issue of whether you're legally allowed to try to run it under Wine, as the GP poster is claiming.
4 a: lacking in knowledge or expertise <a simple amateur of the arts> b (1): stupid (2): mentally retarded c: not socially or culturally sophisticated : naive; also : credulous
You may not be aware of this, but the Pope speaks only for the Catholic church. There are many Christian groups (read: every Protestant denomination, Mormons, and others) that use the standard Bible - the same one you can buy at Borders - as the ultimate basis of their theology.
With my proposal, people would be forced to use less bandwidth.
...thus raising the cost of bandwidth through the roof. What? You thought the law of supply and demand didn't apply to the Internet?
The Golden Days of the Over Sell are coming to a close one way or the other.
We've already told you why ISPs oversell. To continue to ignore the facts is either hopeless ignorance or deliberate stupidity.
Let me make this clear: if the average usage jumped from ~10% to 90%, then the smart ISPs will realize that they can still oversell by 10% and will buy bandwidth accordingly. The instant 10% profit margin over their will let them drop prices to win more customers and/or pay the owners that much more.
You want to see things change? Then US voters (as if they had any power to change anything) would demand that it be ILLEGAL to sell bandwidth that DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST. That would change things in a hurry.
You're right! It would erase America from the Internet in about a week. I worked for an ISP, and the reason we oversold (by about 10x) was that the typical peak load to our upstream was less than 10% of what it could have been if everyone started a big download simultaneously. After all, my connection is mostly idle as I sit here typing this, and unless you're actively download something in the background, yours is also idle as you read it.
For reasons you mentioned, bandwidth is expensive. It's the single biggest cost in providing Internet access. If you pass a law that effectively increases Internet access fees by 900%, then don't be surprised when you can no longer buy it from American companies at any price.
On the other hand, it'd be a great opportunity for a non-American entrepreneur to park a satellite on the equator south of America and provide then-reasonable prices for access to the rest of the world.
It's Sunday morning and my coffee hasn't kicked in yet, but what would a curve look like with 50% of it's area from [0,.95] and 50% from (.95, 1]? I mean, the long tail of people who only come in to check their email once a day or so must be enormously long, so I imagine it'd be pretty easy to land in that top 5% just by watching a few YouTube videos.
Assuming you use mirror or raidz, you are, aren't you?
Neither of those are particularly useful when you have a 750GB, 320GB, and 120GB drive at your disposal, since you'd end up with the smallest of the sizes. I wanted to play with JBOD to see what a terabyte filesystem was like, and was dismayed to find that I was stuck with it.
Some of our English speaking members come from island nations where interpersonal relations of an ovine or porcine nature are not always frowned on save by the Kirk.
Yeah, that's the one think I dislike about ZFS. I was screwing around and adding drives to a 700GB pool to push it over 1TB just to see what a 1TB pool would look like (oh, come on, you know you'd all do it too). I was unamused to find that I was stuck with the old, slow drives in the pool.
But note that shrinking pools is not yet supported.
I'm not sure exactly what he meant by "shrinkable" in this context, or why he'd want to shrink the video storage on his MythTV. My guess is that he had a file sharing directory that grew bigger than expected and he wanted to make more room for it. If that's the case, then ZFS would be perfect.
The Windows OEM EULA leaves the refund/return policy up to the manufacturer. While some manufacturers have paid out to placate angry customers, they're not required to give refunds.
Sue Microsoft and Dell together in small claims court. Let the judge decide who owes you.
That's highly dependent on how many filesystems you have, and across how many drives. I got by just fine with AMD64/2GB on a 750GB SATA drive and maybe 20 filesystems.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, there is the potential for it to be improperly coded, or downright misrepresented. However, don't count it as a failure before it's even seen the light of day.
The first 100 times I heard of similar schemes, I thought maybe they were onto something. The second 900 times, I grew skeptical.
You're probably right, but I've heard other people say the same thing with all sincerity.
And this time we really mean it!
Your reading comprehension sucks. There's a vast difference between technical requirements and legal restrictions, and the GP was implying that there's some legal reason why you couldn't run it under Wine. There isn't, other than some nebulous non-negotiable EULA that you don't get to see until you've bought (yes, bought!) a copy and opened it.
You have every legal right to try to make it work on a unsupported system. Whether that proves to be technically possible is an entirely different conversation that no one but you was having.
Listing supported configurations is one thing, and honestly, I don't expect them to care whether it runs under Wine. That's a totally different issue of whether you're legally allowed to try to run it under Wine, as the GP poster is claiming.
Technically, you probably have no right to play the game on WINE.
Strangely enough, I don't see that contract clause on the outside of the box so that I can give informed consent.
Pretty worthless 'rights management' if it prevents a legitimate customer from using it.
Many of us define DRM more accurately as "digital restrictions management".
No way can it be simple.
Think not?
You may not be aware of this, but the Pope speaks only for the Catholic church. There are many Christian groups (read: every Protestant denomination, Mormons, and others) that use the standard Bible - the same one you can buy at Borders - as the ultimate basis of their theology.
All religions believe that.
That's the dumbest thing I will have read today. When was the last time you heard of, say, the Quakers declaring jihad against unbelievers?
You're exactly correct. It boggles my mind that people can't grasp this fairly basic idea.
With my proposal, people would be forced to use less bandwidth.
...thus raising the cost of bandwidth through the roof. What? You thought the law of supply and demand didn't apply to the Internet?
The Golden Days of the Over Sell are coming to a close one way or the other.
We've already told you why ISPs oversell. To continue to ignore the facts is either hopeless ignorance or deliberate stupidity.
Let me make this clear: if the average usage jumped from ~10% to 90%, then the smart ISPs will realize that they can still oversell by 10% and will buy bandwidth accordingly. The instant 10% profit margin over their will let them drop prices to win more customers and/or pay the owners that much more.
You want to see things change? Then US voters (as if they had any power to change anything) would demand that it be ILLEGAL to sell bandwidth that DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST. That would change things in a hurry.
You're right! It would erase America from the Internet in about a week. I worked for an ISP, and the reason we oversold (by about 10x) was that the typical peak load to our upstream was less than 10% of what it could have been if everyone started a big download simultaneously. After all, my connection is mostly idle as I sit here typing this, and unless you're actively download something in the background, yours is also idle as you read it.
For reasons you mentioned, bandwidth is expensive. It's the single biggest cost in providing Internet access. If you pass a law that effectively increases Internet access fees by 900%, then don't be surprised when you can no longer buy it from American companies at any price.
On the other hand, it'd be a great opportunity for a non-American entrepreneur to park a satellite on the equator south of America and provide then-reasonable prices for access to the rest of the world.
It's Sunday morning and my coffee hasn't kicked in yet, but what would a curve look like with 50% of it's area from [0, .95] and 50% from (.95, 1]? I mean, the long tail of people who only come in to check their email once a day or so must be enormously long, so I imagine it'd be pretty easy to land in that top 5% just by watching a few YouTube videos.
She hasn't been to Alaska or even to her neighbours has she?
You're right. She governs by remote control from Hawaii.
Pity she doesn't support *those*, favoring abstinence instead. That really worked out well for her daughter...
And Obama must be pro-divorce because he came from a broken family. Dick Cheney has a gay daughter so I wonder where he failed as a parent?
See how stupid those sound? Honestly, find better things to do than pick apart a candidate's non-1950's-ideal family.
Assuming you use mirror or raidz, you are, aren't you?
Neither of those are particularly useful when you have a 750GB, 320GB, and 120GB drive at your disposal, since you'd end up with the smallest of the sizes. I wanted to play with JBOD to see what a terabyte filesystem was like, and was dismayed to find that I was stuck with it.
I mean, the PSF needs good, experienced developers, and, um, that's all.
So you'd inflict them with the guy who congealed MySQL, of all things? What'd they ever do to you?
That is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, and as a Youtube junkie, that's saying a lot. Seriously, how much cash did they blow on that stupid thing?
I'm gonna go try to find Paris Hilton insulting someone to wash the taste of pointlessness out of my brain.
Some of our English speaking members come from island nations where interpersonal relations of an ovine or porcine nature are not always frowned on save by the Kirk.
And trust me, Kirk certainly frowns on them.
Yeah, that's the one think I dislike about ZFS. I was screwing around and adding drives to a 700GB pool to push it over 1TB just to see what a 1TB pool would look like (oh, come on, you know you'd all do it too). I was unamused to find that I was stuck with the old, slow drives in the pool.
But note that shrinking pools is not yet supported.
I'm not sure exactly what he meant by "shrinkable" in this context, or why he'd want to shrink the video storage on his MythTV. My guess is that he had a file sharing directory that grew bigger than expected and he wanted to make more room for it. If that's the case, then ZFS would be perfect.
It seems that mini-laptops such as these almost REQUIRE the user to carry extra/external storage media/um.
My Eee seems to assume that the Internet is your external storage.
The Windows OEM EULA leaves the refund/return policy up to the manufacturer. While some manufacturers have paid out to placate angry customers, they're not required to give refunds.
Sue Microsoft and Dell together in small claims court. Let the judge decide who owes you.
That's highly dependent on how many filesystems you have, and across how many drives. I got by just fine with AMD64/2GB on a 750GB SATA drive and maybe 20 filesystems.