Same here but its not like you had todo any work. You put the disk in a boot the computer up. [Try teaching a kid how to use VIC-20 commands to load from tape.. not fun at first].
The point is Linux is not a "boot game off disk" OS. Unless you make a GUI you're gonna have a kid at
user@room117: play game file not found user@room117: play game now file not found user@room117: I want my mommy! etc...
I say a group should put together a school edition of Linux. That would rock. e.g. get a word processor, paint program, KDE, etc... put it in an EASY to install distro and voila schools can now *begin* to think about switching over.
Teach the kids to use systems that are practically useless because "it's easier".
/me stepping on ladder to reach your high horse.
Well first off who said Windows or MacOS are useless? I do all of my x86 and GBA development on a WinXP box with zero troubles at all [in fact I use GNU tools!].
The problem is alot of the merits of Linux are meaningless to kids [even teenagers e.g. script kiddies]. I mean will an 8 yr old kid care much if the OS is pre-emptively multi-tasking math blaster?
Like I said, if someone made a gui for Linux worth while [I hear KDE is fairly well done] then I'd say "all the more reason to go". But there are still tons of problems
1. You have to re-train teachers how to use Linux now. 2. Alot of educational software runs in either MacOS or Win32 3. Kids will be without computers for at least a few weeks while the highly trained CSA's rebuild the networks.
Sure in a perfect world you'd see little kids wearing ThinkGeek instead of Tommy Hillfiger but thats just not likely to happen.
So then why do you want the memory to be even FASTER? That was your whole freakin argument!
My point [since you missed it] was that to make a gammers card "better" you have to optimized what is most used. Sure enough ram is a requirement but a fast GPU is a stronger one.
e.g. Its worth more to speed up your GPU and memory bus then it is to add more memory.
Another thing you seem to mistaken is that you can re-use textures. For example, I could have an array of say 15 different wood textures. There is nothing saying I can't re-use them.
Also another question to ask. Would quake3 be any more fun to play after the initial 10 mins of excitement if it had photorealistic graphics? I doubt it.
Gameplay gameplay gameplay. Its way more important. Personally when I play 3d games I like the sort that let you tinker with the environment. e.g. move boxes, mark walls, etc... Stupid doom clones where all you can do is bumb into walls are fun and all, but nothing "new". Look at Medal of Honor. Sure its fun at first but in the end its just a Quake3 clone with new graphics.
Textures are just BMP files. To calculate the size of a BMP file you times the height, by the width, by the color depth.
Um since when? A 8bpp image takes *1 octet* per pixel. That is... a 1024x768 8bpp image takes exactly 1024*768=768KB of ram.
I don't think you are in much position to tell me "how things are" if you can't handle simple arithmetic.
Alot of your other points are friggin moot. I mean 200fps? Well lets see. My monitor is at 75hz so 200fps is kinda a waste.
Also I'd rather pay for good gameplay than graphics. Sure graphics set the mood but games with decent graphics already exist. Just by slapping on new graphics and textures and models doesn't make new games more interesting.
Also, if you write a game that needs more than 3000 textures at a time you a very bad game designer. I mean looking around my room I can see that I can make a fairly decent reproduction with say a few hundread textures and good use of lighting/shading.
At some point graphic cards will have 4GB of ram, run at 2Ghz and consume more power than a microwave on high for 20 minutes. And you know what? At that point in time people will still be unhappy with the lack of originality in what could amount to a series of bloody quake3 arena clone games.
or a 8192x8192 16bpp texture which is still enough for 16384 64x64 16bpp textures.
On a decent 32MB card @ 1024x768x16bpp with two frame buffers you get 30408704 bytes to use for textures. That is enough room for 3712 64x64 16bpp textures.
Getting back to my original point. I'd rather see a 32MB card with super fast ram [e.g. make the speed the selling point] then a card with a b-zillion bits of ram.
Find me a [decent] game that uses more than 3712 64x64 textures at once and I'll shut up.
Yeah, as long as you never get that stupid FM transmitter from radio shack. See a little thing they didn't think of when they made an analogue tuner [with no display!]. The FM band on most radios is done in 200khz steps [or something like that] so you can never get the crappy shack tuner near the 200khz boundary.
Memory is mainly taken up by textures. You know, it how you see things in 3-D games.
Geez, thanks for the lesson, no shit they use textures.
But at 128MB you can store a 11585x11585 texture in memory [well a little less since you have to make way for the frame buffer]. Most game textures are at most 64x64 so that would ammount to 16384 unique textures. The average game has around 200 textures per map so I'd say thats ok.
When it comes to games sure a plethora of textures is nice but I doubt a game with 4000 textures would really look that much more spectacular then a game with say 200~300 textures provided that the textures are of decent quality and designed well for the task [e.g. they tile nicely, etc..]
all of which uses much more memory than a basic 3d card. If you think they are just throwing ram our for sales then you don't know much about graphics cards.
GPU memory is not just for frame buffers anymore.
42 monitors though?
I mean you'd have to go out of your way to fill the ram with textures/vert lists.
I'd still rather have 32MB of ram that is say 800Mhz with a fast GPU then say 128MB of sorta fast ram just because for everything that I will be doing [e.g. playing games, desktop tools] I don't need more. I suspect the vast majority of people who would buy it are in the same boat.
Am I the only one who thinks that is a bit overboard?
I mean at 1024x768x32bpp that is enough to store 42 full frame buffers!
Something tells me they are chucking ram at it to lure in stupid people. Really I'd rather have 32MB of super-fast memory than 128MB of sorta-fast memory.
Thats just it. A computer should be easy to use and still let you control what is going on. Because of this newbies can still screw up.
Cars for instance are fairly easy to use. Doesn't mean any idiot behind the wheel will be safe.
or more on point. I install Linux myself, I login as root and I see a joke on the web
rm -rf/
[or something like that]
Being stupid I run it and oops, I flashed my disk.
Of course an OS could hide all the details from the user but then it would be a pain in the ass todo things like installing hardware that is not currently supported [e.g. not in the kernel or in driver.cab].
I'd say Windows really strives to hit a balance between ease/safety and ability to hack things.
The trick is not to download attachments at all. 99% of the time I find attachments are viruses anyways [from dorks who get infected and are spamming me non stop]. I simply ignore all attachments all together.
Anyways my bigger point is that an idiot who runs anything is dangerous behind the wheel of Linux just as much as windows.
Also any properly setup windows box will only allow their box to be compromised not the network. Only data should be shared not apps [or they should be a from a RONLY mount].
Its all a matter of setting up your network properly. I mean if you allow anon FTP access to your website, run no firewall and give RW access to all of your network binaries, obviously you're up for trouble.
I hope you learn to write secure code. Almost all of our MS computers are turned off until our sys-admin can remove the latest virus (Klez) from them. Our Linux and (one) OS-2 computers and our (Linux) servers are fine.
Maybe you need less stupid computer users? I use windows and I've been sent the Worm.e/Klez virus like 1000 times already... Each time I get it I just delete it and move on.
This is a completely spurious counterargument which reveals an utter lack of understanding of the novel nature of digital "property". Digital property is infintely and perfectly reproducible at no cost to the distributing party (be they the originator or simply inermediaies). The effective difference is that if someone downloads and cracks software that they wouldn't otherwise have paid for anyway, this does not hurt the distributor of that software at all. (On the contrary, it could help them by exposing other potentially paying users to the software.) Clearly this is not the case with cars or cab rides or any other non-digital goods or services where someone is hurt if you don't pay for what you take.
Apples and oranges. Just because it doesn't cost them anything for you to copy it doesn't make it ok. They still wrote the software, obviously you are finding it useful [why else would you pirate it?].
I suppose its too much for the elite haxors of/. to understand what is truly "fair". The majority of posters here bitch about "fairness" when the G wants to install its latest email sniffer. Yet you guys all shy away when this question comes up.
Just because there is no direct cost to the developer doesn't mean its ok. If you use the tools you should pay for them like desired, otherwise get rid of it. In the long run propagating pirated software does cost the developers since less people will actually make the effort to buy a copy.
Telcos in Canada must be up for "five 9's" a year. Thats a law not just a slogan. ISPs do not. Its perfectly legal for an ISP to be up only twice a week for 45mins at a time.
So the reason you pay 0.05$ a minute for a long distance call with your telco and next to nothing with an ISP [e.g. using some VoIP program] is because Telcos are reliable. I mean if I go and call a buddy in British Columbia I am fairly certain of a few things
a) The call will go through b) The quality of the signal is consistent c) There is no lag or strong echoes
If I call with an ISP I may not be able to reach him [e.g. local fiber problems.. stupid rogers], or my mic/speaker setup may sound too bad, or worse there may be annoying ping times.
If all you want is an informal chat with a buddy then VoIP programs are ok. But if you need to conduct reliable communcation then telco's are about all you have to choose from.
As towards third world countries perhaps the calls are so expensive because maintaining a relibable connection is costly.
No, it's not. The cabbie provided a limited service, and my use of that service prevented him from rendering it to someone else. Copying bits deprives no one of anything. Copying is not theft.
Which is not to say it's right. Just that it's not theft.
You have something. You didn't pay for it. How exactly is that not theft?
Since when was theft limited only to physical property? It really shouldn't be. The big problem is when theft was defined computers didn't exist.
I imagine 100 years ago if you copied a script or book you'd still be called a cheat and a theif [and probably hung too...]
This "no victim" bs is completely inappropriate. That is not to say I don't pirate stuff [mainly just windows since I can free tools for pretty much anything else], I just don't think I am justified.
That doesn't mean that a pay-per-copy scheme is the best, or even a practical - or even a possible! - way for that to happen.
So what? That doesn't make piracy ok.
Thats like banks hours. They are only open certain hours, so its impractical to run a business. Now its ok to rob banks?
If some developer wants to charge for their software and you don't like it, just don't use their software. Another poster mentioned how most shareware he sees is crap. Thats true. But there exists tons of shareware/freeware/gpl stuff out there. Find alternatives.
The sooner you stop following the doctrine of elite haxors and 2600 types the better off you will be. For instance, Kevin Mitnick, the folk hero of 2600 *is* a criminal. He broke into someone elses system and copied files. He invaded the privacy of others [something 2600 religiously wants to preserve!!!?!?!] and somehow thats ok since he never physically deprived them of anything....?
Boo hoo... What you're misguidedly assuming, like so many other companies, is that people who crack your piece of software would have actually PAID for it if they couldn't crack it.
That is a very lame argument. Can you apply that to cars? "Honest officer, I didn't steal the car since I wasn't going to buy it in the first place!".
If you have software/music/video/[data in general] on your comp that is not listed as free by the author and you didn't pay for it, THAT IS STEALING. Regardless of whether you'd buy it or not.
[standard three year old argument...] While its not theft in the physical sense you are using someone elses tool and not paying them for their services. Its like cheating a cabby. You didn't physically take anything from them but its still wrong not to pay your fare. [/standard three year old argument...]
Speaking as a coder myself...
Well as a "coder" [I assume you mean someone who develops programs others actually use] you should understand how most non-trivial programs can consume time. You have to write the tools, test and test and test, and ontop of all that write a manual others can actually use! Some people want to get paid for their efforts and by all means they should.
Just cracking software because you feel your entitled to it doesn't mean you're right.
Like if you started 8 air conditioners [in one house] in USCA you wouldn't make alot of friends. I wouldn't doubt there are laws concerning power usage [there are when there are water shortages].
The problem they are trying to fix is that bandwidth is not an unlimited thing they have to give out.
Of course, I would have addressed the problem differently. Instead of banning ports I would do dynamic capping. e.g. you get 500MB a day at full bandwidth. after that you get 1/4 bandwidth [or something like that]. That way you get
a) no loss of connection b) stops bandwidth hogs c) doesn't arbitrarily block random ports
Personally if I were an ISP I would make it something like 250MB full speed [512k/256k] then the rest at a lower speed [128k/64k] [this is all per day]. 250MB is more than enough to browse through webpages and chat. Its not nearly enough to be a elite haxor or something [e.g. dork on Kazaa].
But what do I know, I'm just a kid who failed business in college...
It still gets down to the fact that ISPs are not essential services.
If a phone company had less then "five 9's" uptime they could get fined by the government. The same is not true for ISPs. My ISP for example, is well within their rights [and within the contract] to drop every 3rd packet I sent, to mis-direct every 8th and to send my computer 2^20 ICMP packets a minute.
Even if my ISP was the only one in the area [they pretty much are] it still not an essential service hence the lack of quality is just shotty business practices, not illegal.
As for "connection to the net". Its still a private network. Its like if you walk into my restaurant and I say "you can only eat melon because of the colour of your skin.". Thats not illegal [might be civil...] and perfectly within my rights as a private property owner. Your ISP can dictate [note: I don't think they should] exactly what you do with the connection.
In the end though less obtrusive ISPs will always win over.
I whole heartedly agree its not fair and shouldn't be done.
That doesn't change the fact that P2P over an ISP is still *not a right*.
Hence the section "Your Rights Online" is just over-zealous.
As far as your tenant example is concerned thats why tenants have rights. Maybe someday ISP users will have explicit rights but I don't see that any time soon. Living in a shelter is more important than being online [although sometimes I wonder...:-)]
since when is using a P2P system [or any other] over a PRIVATE network a "right"?
I agree that the ports and services should be fully open [they shouldn't only keep tabs on who uses what bandwidth] but its not upto me, or you for that matter.
If I own a network and I rent out a connection, you do not have any rights as far as what you can do with are concerned that are not listed in the TOS.
Its just like renting an apartment. you're not allowed in most cases to tear down walls and piss off the balcony. Its not that your "rights" are being infringed its that its PRIVATE property.
This is among my primary complaints about Windows: it's difficult to get useful info from the OS. On a unix system you can run netstat piped through grep to look for open connections, as a simple example.
While to a certain level this is true. You can always do this too
ipconfig -all | more
to figure out whats what in win2k.
Also, *you* can run "netstat | grep "eth0" | sendmail...etc..." but can the average user?
With most ISPs the hardest tech problem a level 1 techy will ever face is DHCP lease problems. e.g. I can't renew my lease whats up?
So paying a level 1 with a university PhD or something is a waste of money since the hardest problem they face on average is "how do I setup email?".
When the problem escalates thats when level 2 techies get involved.
As to the comment about command lines... I disagree. Just to figure out whats up with a net connection you *should* be able to point and click. In win2k I can right click on my network icon to see if I am connected. In that dialog I can click "properties" and setup my TCP settings, etc...
Ideally the users would be familiar with the command line and its neato tools [specially if you have Cygwin installed] unfortunately the average user will never need such tools.
Slashdot Mirror
Same here but its not like you had todo any work. You put the disk in a boot the computer up. [Try teaching a kid how to use VIC-20 commands to load from tape.. not fun at first].
The point is Linux is not a "boot game off disk" OS. Unless you make a GUI you're gonna have a kid at
user@room117: play game
file not found
user@room117: play game now
file not found
user@room117: I want my mommy!
etc...
I say a group should put together a school edition of Linux. That would rock. e.g. get a word processor, paint program, KDE, etc... put it in an EASY to install distro and voila schools can now *begin* to think about switching over.
Tom
Teach the kids to use systems that are practically useless because "it's easier".
/me stepping on ladder to reach your high horse.
Well first off who said Windows or MacOS are useless? I do all of my x86 and GBA development on a WinXP box with zero troubles at all [in fact I use GNU tools!].
The problem is alot of the merits of Linux are meaningless to kids [even teenagers e.g. script kiddies]. I mean will an 8 yr old kid care much if the OS is pre-emptively multi-tasking math blaster?
Like I said, if someone made a gui for Linux worth while [I hear KDE is fairly well done] then I'd say "all the more reason to go". But there are still tons of problems
1. You have to re-train teachers how to use Linux now.
2. Alot of educational software runs in either MacOS or Win32
3. Kids will be without computers for at least a few weeks while the highly trained CSA's rebuild the networks.
Sure in a perfect world you'd see little kids wearing ThinkGeek instead of Tommy Hillfiger but thats just not likely to happen.
Tom
So then why do you want the memory to be even FASTER? That was your whole freakin argument!
My point [since you missed it] was that to make a gammers card "better" you have to optimized what is most used. Sure enough ram is a requirement but a fast GPU is a stronger one.
e.g. Its worth more to speed up your GPU and memory bus then it is to add more memory.
Another thing you seem to mistaken is that you can re-use textures. For example, I could have an array of say 15 different wood textures. There is nothing saying I can't re-use them.
Also another question to ask. Would quake3 be any more fun to play after the initial 10 mins of excitement if it had photorealistic graphics? I doubt it.
Gameplay gameplay gameplay. Its way more important. Personally when I play 3d games I like the sort that let you tinker with the environment. e.g. move boxes, mark walls, etc... Stupid doom clones where all you can do is bumb into walls are fun and all, but nothing "new". Look at Medal of Honor. Sure its fun at first but in the end its just a Quake3 clone with new graphics.
Tom
Textures are just BMP files. To calculate the size of a BMP file you times the height, by the width, by the color depth.
... a 1024x768 8bpp image takes exactly 1024*768=768KB of ram.
Um since when? A 8bpp image takes *1 octet* per pixel. That is
I don't think you are in much position to tell me "how things are" if you can't handle simple arithmetic.
Alot of your other points are friggin moot. I mean 200fps? Well lets see. My monitor is at 75hz so 200fps is kinda a waste.
Also I'd rather pay for good gameplay than graphics. Sure graphics set the mood but games with decent graphics already exist. Just by slapping on new graphics and textures and models doesn't make new games more interesting.
Also, if you write a game that needs more than 3000 textures at a time you a very bad game designer. I mean looking around my room I can see that I can make a fairly decent reproduction with say a few hundread textures and good use of lighting/shading.
At some point graphic cards will have 4GB of ram, run at 2Ghz and consume more power than a microwave on high for 20 minutes. And you know what? At that point in time people will still be unhappy with the lack of originality in what could amount to a series of bloody quake3 arena clone games.
Tom
...are alternatives to M$.
Yeah there is Apple. All my schools from KG to grade 10 used Apples with System5/6/7.
I think unless you put a flashy gui on Linux no 6 yr old is going to want to use it. If anything it will push kids away from computers.
If you are going to put a flashy pretty gui on Linux you might as well use MacOS [or winXP] anyways!
The only benefit to Linux for schools is that it is free. However, being free and shitty is not a good selling point.
Tom
And seeing how you're bitching me out in a public forum without checking your math, well, that's stupidity.
Assuming 256 colors, that's
11,585*11,585*256 = 34,358,329,600 bytes
roughly 32 GIG.
Um where does that 256 come from?
SQRT(128*1024*1024)=11585.237502960394639783434
or a 8192x8192 16bpp texture which is still enough for 16384 64x64 16bpp textures.
On a decent 32MB card @ 1024x768x16bpp with two frame buffers you get 30408704 bytes to use for textures. That is enough room for 3712 64x64 16bpp textures.
Getting back to my original point. I'd rather see a 32MB card with super fast ram [e.g. make the speed the selling point] then a card with a b-zillion bits of ram.
Find me a [decent] game that uses more than 3712 64x64 textures at once and I'll shut up.
Tom
Yeah, as long as you never get that stupid FM transmitter from radio shack. See a little thing they didn't think of when they made an analogue tuner [with no display!]. The FM band on most radios is done in 200khz steps [or something like that] so you can never get the crappy shack tuner near the 200khz boundary.
POS...
Tom
Memory is mainly taken up by textures. You know, it how you see things in 3-D games.
Geez, thanks for the lesson, no shit they use textures.
But at 128MB you can store a 11585x11585 texture in memory [well a little less since you have to make way for the frame buffer]. Most game textures are at most 64x64 so that would ammount to 16384 unique textures. The average game has around 200 textures per map so I'd say thats ok.
When it comes to games sure a plethora of textures is nice but I doubt a game with 4000 textures would really look that much more spectacular then a game with say 200~300 textures provided that the textures are of decent quality and designed well for the task [e.g. they tile nicely, etc..]
Tom
Smoothvision
FSAA
Multi monitors...
all of which uses much more memory than a basic 3d card. If you think they are just throwing ram our for sales then you don't know much about graphics cards.
GPU memory is not just for frame buffers anymore.
42 monitors though?
I mean you'd have to go out of your way to fill the ram with textures/vert lists.
I'd still rather have 32MB of ram that is say 800Mhz with a fast GPU then say 128MB of sorta fast ram just because for everything that I will be doing [e.g. playing games, desktop tools] I don't need more. I suspect the vast majority of people who would buy it are in the same boat.
Tom
Am I the only one who thinks that is a bit overboard?
I mean at 1024x768x32bpp that is enough to store 42 full frame buffers!
Something tells me they are chucking ram at it to lure in stupid people. Really I'd rather have 32MB of super-fast memory than 128MB of sorta-fast memory.
Tom
10$ for a blank disc? And why wouldn't I just stick with my CDR which not only holds 200MB more but cost 9.60$ less?
I just bought a spindle of 100 80Min CD's for about 40 bucks. That is 0.40$ each.
Tom
Thats just it. A computer should be easy to use and still let you control what is going on. Because of this newbies can still screw up.
/
Cars for instance are fairly easy to use. Doesn't mean any idiot behind the wheel will be safe.
or more on point. I install Linux myself, I login as root and I see a joke on the web
rm -rf
[or something like that]
Being stupid I run it and oops, I flashed my disk.
Of course an OS could hide all the details from the user but then it would be a pain in the ass todo things like installing hardware that is not currently supported [e.g. not in the kernel or in driver.cab].
I'd say Windows really strives to hit a balance between ease/safety and ability to hack things.
Tom
Sure, well its easy to sit back and say "look how bad windows is, elite haxor ho!".
But how many servers use MSFT tools and are not hacked?
Tom
"or run linux"
A stupid user with linux is just as dangerous.
The trick is not to download attachments at all. 99% of the time I find attachments are viruses anyways [from dorks who get infected and are spamming me non stop]. I simply ignore all attachments all together.
Anyways my bigger point is that an idiot who runs anything is dangerous behind the wheel of Linux just as much as windows.
Also any properly setup windows box will only allow their box to be compromised not the network. Only data should be shared not apps [or they should be a from a RONLY mount].
Its all a matter of setting up your network properly. I mean if you allow anon FTP access to your website, run no firewall and give RW access to all of your network binaries, obviously you're up for trouble.
Tom
I hope you learn to write secure code. Almost all of our MS computers are turned off until our sys-admin can remove the latest virus (Klez) from them. Our Linux and (one) OS-2 computers and our (Linux) servers are fine.
Maybe you need less stupid computer users? I use windows and I've been sent the Worm.e/Klez virus like 1000 times already... Each time I get it I just delete it and move on.
Have yet to be infected...
Tom
This is a completely spurious counterargument which reveals an utter lack of understanding of the novel nature of digital "property". Digital property is infintely and perfectly reproducible at no cost to the distributing party (be they the originator or simply inermediaies). The effective difference is that if someone downloads and cracks software that they wouldn't otherwise have paid for anyway, this does not hurt the distributor of that software at all. (On the contrary, it could help them by exposing other potentially paying users to the software.) Clearly this is not the case with cars or cab rides or any other non-digital goods or services where someone is hurt if you don't pay for what you take.
/. to understand what is truly "fair". The majority of posters here bitch about "fairness" when the G wants to install its latest email sniffer. Yet you guys all shy away when this question comes up.
Apples and oranges. Just because it doesn't cost them anything for you to copy it doesn't make it ok. They still wrote the software, obviously you are finding it useful [why else would you pirate it?].
I suppose its too much for the elite haxors of
Just because there is no direct cost to the developer doesn't mean its ok. If you use the tools you should pay for them like desired, otherwise get rid of it. In the long run propagating pirated software does cost the developers since less people will actually make the effort to buy a copy.
Tom
Telcos in Canada must be up for "five 9's" a year. Thats a law not just a slogan. ISPs do not. Its perfectly legal for an ISP to be up only twice a week for 45mins at a time.
So the reason you pay 0.05$ a minute for a long distance call with your telco and next to nothing with an ISP [e.g. using some VoIP program] is because Telcos are reliable. I mean if I go and call a buddy in British Columbia I am fairly certain of a few things
a) The call will go through
b) The quality of the signal is consistent
c) There is no lag or strong echoes
If I call with an ISP I may not be able to reach him [e.g. local fiber problems.. stupid rogers], or my mic/speaker setup may sound too bad, or worse there may be annoying ping times.
If all you want is an informal chat with a buddy then VoIP programs are ok. But if you need to conduct reliable communcation then telco's are about all you have to choose from.
As towards third world countries perhaps the calls are so expensive because maintaining a relibable connection is costly.
Tom
No, it's not. The cabbie provided a limited service, and my use of that service prevented him from rendering it to someone else. Copying bits deprives no one of anything. Copying is not theft.
Which is not to say it's right. Just that it's not theft.
You have something. You didn't pay for it. How exactly is that not theft?
Since when was theft limited only to physical property? It really shouldn't be. The big problem is when theft was defined computers didn't exist.
I imagine 100 years ago if you copied a script or book you'd still be called a cheat and a theif [and probably hung too...]
This "no victim" bs is completely inappropriate. That is not to say I don't pirate stuff [mainly just windows since I can free tools for pretty much anything else], I just don't think I am justified.
That doesn't mean that a pay-per-copy scheme is the best, or even a practical - or even a possible! - way for that to happen.
So what? That doesn't make piracy ok.
Thats like banks hours. They are only open certain hours, so its impractical to run a business. Now its ok to rob banks?
If some developer wants to charge for their software and you don't like it, just don't use their software. Another poster mentioned how most shareware he sees is crap. Thats true. But there exists tons of shareware/freeware/gpl stuff out there. Find alternatives.
The sooner you stop following the doctrine of elite haxors and 2600 types the better off you will be. For instance, Kevin Mitnick, the folk hero of 2600 *is* a criminal. He broke into someone elses system and copied files. He invaded the privacy of others [something 2600 religiously wants to preserve!!!?!?!] and somehow thats ok since he never physically deprived them of anything....?
Tom
Boo hoo... What you're misguidedly assuming, like so many other companies, is that people who crack your piece of software would have actually PAID for it if they couldn't crack it.
That is a very lame argument. Can you apply that to cars? "Honest officer, I didn't steal the car since I wasn't going to buy it in the first place!".
If you have software/music/video/[data in general] on your comp that is not listed as free by the author and you didn't pay for it, THAT IS STEALING. Regardless of whether you'd buy it or not.
[standard three year old argument...]
While its not theft in the physical sense you are using someone elses tool and not paying them for their services. Its like cheating a cabby. You didn't physically take anything from them but its still wrong not to pay your fare.
[/standard three year old argument...]
Speaking as a coder myself...
Well as a "coder" [I assume you mean someone who develops programs others actually use] you should understand how most non-trivial programs can consume time. You have to write the tools, test and test and test, and ontop of all that write a manual others can actually use! Some people want to get paid for their efforts and by all means they should.
Just cracking software because you feel your entitled to it doesn't mean you're right.
Tom
Not only that but many business types fail at math.
A 64kbit stream both ways is at least 128kbit of bandwidth. Doesn't like much until you try getting a million users...
I'd be the first person to say that most ISPs are evil. But thats upto them not you.
The problem though is when you start abusing it.
Like if you started 8 air conditioners [in one house] in USCA you wouldn't make alot of friends. I wouldn't doubt there are laws concerning power usage [there are when there are water shortages].
The problem they are trying to fix is that bandwidth is not an unlimited thing they have to give out.
Of course, I would have addressed the problem differently. Instead of banning ports I would do dynamic capping. e.g. you get 500MB a day at full bandwidth. after that you get 1/4 bandwidth [or something like that]. That way you get
a) no loss of connection
b) stops bandwidth hogs
c) doesn't arbitrarily block random ports
Personally if I were an ISP I would make it something like 250MB full speed [512k/256k] then the rest at a lower speed [128k/64k] [this is all per day]. 250MB is more than enough to browse through webpages and chat. Its not nearly enough to be a elite haxor or something [e.g. dork on Kazaa].
But what do I know, I'm just a kid who failed business in college...
Tom
It still gets down to the fact that ISPs are not essential services.
If a phone company had less then "five 9's" uptime they could get fined by the government. The same is not true for ISPs. My ISP for example, is well within their rights [and within the contract] to drop every 3rd packet I sent, to mis-direct every 8th and to send my computer 2^20 ICMP packets a minute.
Even if my ISP was the only one in the area [they pretty much are] it still not an essential service hence the lack of quality is just shotty business practices, not illegal.
As for "connection to the net". Its still a private network. Its like if you walk into my restaurant and I say "you can only eat melon because of the colour of your skin.". Thats not illegal [might be civil...] and perfectly within my rights as a private property owner. Your ISP can dictate [note: I don't think they should] exactly what you do with the connection.
In the end though less obtrusive ISPs will always win over.
tom
I whole heartedly agree its not fair and shouldn't be done.
:-)]
That doesn't change the fact that P2P over an ISP is still *not a right*.
Hence the section "Your Rights Online" is just over-zealous.
As far as your tenant example is concerned thats why tenants have rights. Maybe someday ISP users will have explicit rights but I don't see that any time soon. Living in a shelter is more important than being online [although sometimes I wonder...
Tom
since when is using a P2P system [or any other] over a PRIVATE network a "right"?
I agree that the ports and services should be fully open [they shouldn't only keep tabs on who uses what bandwidth] but its not upto me, or you for that matter.
If I own a network and I rent out a connection, you do not have any rights as far as what you can do with are concerned that are not listed in the TOS.
Its just like renting an apartment. you're not allowed in most cases to tear down walls and piss off the balcony. Its not that your "rights" are being infringed its that its PRIVATE property.
Tom
This is among my primary complaints about Windows: it's difficult to get useful info from the OS. On a unix system you can run netstat piped through grep to look for open connections, as a simple example.
...etc..." but can the average user?
While to a certain level this is true. You can always do this too
ipconfig -all | more
to figure out whats what in win2k.
Also, *you* can run "netstat | grep "eth0" | sendmail
With most ISPs the hardest tech problem a level 1 techy will ever face is DHCP lease problems. e.g. I can't renew my lease whats up?
So paying a level 1 with a university PhD or something is a waste of money since the hardest problem they face on average is "how do I setup email?".
When the problem escalates thats when level 2 techies get involved.
As to the comment about command lines... I disagree. Just to figure out whats up with a net connection you *should* be able to point and click. In win2k I can right click on my network icon to see if I am connected. In that dialog I can click "properties" and setup my TCP settings, etc...
Ideally the users would be familiar with the command line and its neato tools [specially if you have Cygwin installed] unfortunately the average user will never need such tools.
Tom