Your math is horrible, I'm not sure if I even want to know how you came up with 15/day.
300kbps is 37.5kbyte/s and at that speed it takes about 96 seconds to upload 3.5mb (3584kbytes / 37.5kbytes/s). That means around 904 songs per day, or 27,120 per month.
At your 10% figure that'd still be 2,712 downloads per month.
It's like flipping an equilateral triangle, it actually only needs the height of the triangle as a width to follow a path. the path it follows, as far as the legs are concerned, is straight. The central body does move in a zig-zag method, but that doesn't matter for navigating tight spaces.
Basically, the directions it travels in are in line with one of it's sides, not in line with the direction one corner is pointing as you were trying to illustrate. Their videos on the article page rather nicely visualized it moving i a straight line.
The main problem I see is that it can't do any turn by a a 60 degree turn. It can travel in 6 directions only... Makes me feel like I'm playing a hex board game...
Now that I'm reading the paper I see it covers basically what I described, but in much further detail and with some models/questions and test results to back it up.
Except its not like this at all with Bittorrent. Bittorrent has the benefit of having a swarm per each specific torrent. Thus, the haves/haves not pool is contained to usually one file or a set of related files. Also, most bittorent clients do use some optimistic trading. Basically, a new peer they will optimistically give some credit and they will optimistically periodically give all peers a small fraction of their upload bandwidth in credit. Thus, they're not so paranoid but they meter how much free credit they give out such that if there are any free-loaders, they get a tiny fraction of the bandwidth as compared to the other ones.
The whole point to this BitTyrant is that they took this a step further and improved Azureus's algorithm for determining which peers to send to. For efficiency most p2p clients only let so many connections be actively sending data at a time. BitTyrant optimizes this by seeking out the peers who send back to you fastest and giving them preferential treatment. I assume they didn't get rid of the already existing algorithm where 1 of the send slots is considered to be a probe slot, basically giving a client some free data in hopes to prod it into sending some back. Then periodically it looks at all the peers it is sending to and drops the least performing upload slot to try probing another peer. BitTyrant basically researched and has been testing an improved methodology of choosing the peers for those upload slots, and metering how much data it sends to each of those peers also based on how much they've given to you.
It doesn't seem like a drastic change, but based on things I've witnessed in Azureus current behavior I see how it could improve things. I've had peers I'm getting a nice 100kb/s down from, but I'm not giving them much back because most of the bandwidth is going elsewhere. Because of that, I have an increased risk of losing that source. With BitTyrant, it might try and allocate more of my upload and possibly try and match that 100kb/s with 100kb/s of my upload to insure I keep that peer for as long as possible. Unless of course it finds peers that are offering up data even faster.
I guess in a way BitTyrant will benefit the haves over the haves not, but in this case its not who has data or not, but who has bandwidth or not. Those of us with more upload bandwidth stand to benefit more from BitTyrant. However its not like we're getting an advantage, the system is just being more fair. Right now those above the average upload speed of a swarm tend to have far higher up:down ratios than those below the median upload speed. Thus, they were being exploited in the current algorithms. Basically, someone with 200kb/s of upload will now have much closer to 2x the download speed as someone with 100kb/s of upload than previously. This has the end effect of giving people much more encouragement to not cap their upload to low rates as it will have more of an impact on their download speed when dealing with other BitTyrant clients.
Anyways, I think I've ranted enough and probably said the same thing 5 or 6 times now.
I guess I don't see this as being too impressive as it's not a huge leap beyond what's already out there. The National Archives of Japan has a digital collection online that is pretty impressive. I guess many of the images aren't quite as big, but there's quite a few ranging from 1-2 billion pixels.
One scroll I looked at was 7,164x279,984 pixels = 2,005,805,376 pixels, about 1/4th the size of this image. Was one other scroll that was slightly less wide. They're all shown through JPIP and an activex viewer, which unfortunately means IE only. Or you can do like I do and pull out the jpip url from the html and use it with a jpeg2k viewer capable of jpip.
If anything it'd be nice if the system just hit the coral cache itself once to populate the cache, and then maybe included a side link to the page via the cache. Just hitting it once though to make sure the cache is populated pre-slashdotting would be very nice.
"TV networks are in dire need of a better marketing model that better serves the consummer of their product."
You forget, the consumer of their products are the companies buying ad slots. Their "product" is us, their viewers. They have been aggressively trying to find ways to better serve advertisers, their consumers. The money they get, if any, via the cable company isn't really enough to probably even play re-runs. Basically they wouldn't just be changing how they market their product, they'd be completely changing the product itself, and who they're selling it to. How companies like HBO run vs ABC is like comparing apples and oranges.
Re:Level scaling is truely insipid
on
Living In Oblivion
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You apparently haven't played the game because it doesn't work like this. Those rodents of unusual size become trivial later in the game. One hit kills, or maybe some fun for a skill you usually don't use like hand-to-hand. Then there's some mobs that are like your dragons and are damn near impossible at low levels like Umbra.
The only difference is that they aren't completely impossible, you always have some sort of chance, its just when something is 5 levels above you and you're level 1-5, that guys massively more powerful than you. When you're level 20 though, he's only 25% more powerful. He's still a challenge but nowhere near as much as he used to be. After 80 hours of gameplay, i'm pretty satisfied with this end of things, it's not perfect but its pretty well done. It certainly doesn't suck like morrowind, I never got far in that game because the combat annoyed me.
I imagine an iMac does use less power than the average desktop pc, but citing the peak wattage rating of their respective power supplies is a very poor indication of actual power consumption. My Gaming pc with 6 hard drives seems to use about 110 watts idle, and up to 160 watts when gaming. LCD display takes about 60 watts. I imagine a lesser pc could use much less.
I think you need to brush up on reading cromprehension. This has nothing to do with child pronographers. COPA has to do with preventing children from viewing pronography. Has nothing to do with finding criminals, but supposedly proving that filtering would not be as effective as COPA would be.
I recently got the 15/2 home plan for $45/month. In reality I get a max of around 14.5mbps down, but only rarely use all of that. For upload I consistently max it out at about 1.88mbps. I don't like that they block port 80 on the home account, but otherwise service has been pretty good. One problem I ran into that required calling them is that the ONT box on the side of the house had to be reset after a power outage. If this problem repeats itself, I think I might just install a switch on the power cable going out to the box from inside my house.
Your analogy wasn't all that great, and definately is not solid. So more people visit an individual bank than an individual house. However, there is a LOT more houses than banks. In a given period of time a lot more people visit any house than any bank. And looking at those stastics, yes residences are robbed more frequently than a bank.
Looking at that same data, banks still get robbed a decent ammount despite there being a lot less of them than houses. This is probably because the reward is much greater. All that cash in one place gives a greater reward, and hence more people go for it. Having better security decreases how many people are willing to go for it, or are succesful, but it still happens.
In the most basic terms it's based on difficulty, reward, and risk. In the case of worms, the larger the set of possible vulnerable machines the greater the reward. If linux really is more difficult it helps, but as the reward gets bigger there's more incentive.
So please, stop trying to ignore variables in the equation. Reward is most definately part of it. If someone is trying to expand a botnet, then a greater number of pc's to infect is most definately an incentive. As such an incentive grows, of course more people are going to attempt it. Sure, better security raises the difficulty and can help decrease this, but it definately isn't the only part of the equation.
Re:*Real cash*
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm willing to "bet" that online gambling makes more hard cash every day than pr0n. However, I agree that profits for these 2 probably eclipses most other online business.
"In creating its rankings, the Tax Foundation measures as a percentage of per capita income what residents pay in income, property, sales and other personal taxes levied at the state and local levels. It also factors in the portion of business taxes passed along to state residents through higher prices, lower wages or lower profits."
Quite a bit of information that helps you understand how they came to their rankings right off the "Behind the rankings" link. It seems like a fairly credible report based on a lot of hard numbers. They cover everything in your list, and probably the more you didn't have time to list.
The "Economic Freedom Index" report seems like it would more appropiately be titled "Freedom Index". Plenty of its data is barely economic in nature. I'm not sure how "strictness of gun laws," ties into economic freedom. Sure, this index probably includes more overall numbers, but plenty of those numbers I don't care as much about.
"For example, data set 1 had 51 fiscal-sector variables. A state's fiscal-sector score for data set 1 was calculated by ranking each fiscal variable from 1 to 50 and then calculating an average ranking from these 51-variable rankings."
That seems like a horrible way to calculate statistics. The tax foundation gives a final per capita % value for the states, and THEN ranks the states. This report ranks them on a ton of categories, and then averages those ranks. All the proportional differences between each state get lost. I'm sure someone more versed in statistics might know the technical term for this, but it is a very flawed way of representing data.
Yes, Massachusetts probably does have regulation and taxes on more things than other states, but the overall tax burden per capita is lower.
What are you doing to your cd's to get them so scratched up? Even my oldest cd's are in fine condition, you just have to handle them with a bit of care. The only people I know with scratched up discs leave them outside a case or binder all the time stacking them one cd on top of another. Also its better to wipe dust off a cd with a damp cloth, using a dry cloth insures you will scratch it.
I like that cd's don't have some bulky container attached to them. You can store them however you want, if its some cd you want to keep in good condition you can keep it in some nice case. If it's just an alright disc, you can keep it in some binder. The ammount of discs you can store in an easily portable binder is great. I have a 72-disc binder, it's easy to pickup and bring places with me. Now I don't know about you, but the thought of all 72 of those discs being in cartridges seems horrible to me. In cartridges I'd need a big box to lug around all 72 of them.
It more of has to do with the quality of projectors at theatres and how they are maintained. In most theatres I go to, the image is not properly in focus and the glass window etc. is dirty. Hollywood should really try and push theatres to actually have good, well maintained, equipment.
Used to be they could get away with not maintaining any of their equipment and installing cheaper stuff, but now that the home theatre has taken off... People notice the sound is cutting out of the rear speakers, or that the image is out of focus, or there is too much dust on the lense, now that at home they've gotten used to not having any of that.
Personally, I get really pissed when I pay $9.50 to see amovie, and the surround-sound keeps cutting in and out, or the sound is distorted because the theatre bought the cheapest sound system they could.
I've been using a linux server as my router for roughly 5 years now. I don't think I could ever stand being limited to a generic hardware router. Advanced Routing & Traffic Control certainly isn't that simple to understand and use in advanced ways, but for those who want to you can do some rather nice things.
I use my linux router to split my upload bandwidth 50/50 between myself and a roommate. I've also setup various bandwidth guarantees to certain software, making voice-chat always work well, despite running many bittorrents. While I believe some custom firmware for one of these routers might do everything I'm doing currently, they never seem as reliable or customizable.
I don't watch much tv, but those shows I have watched, had one new episode every week. The only times they skipped a week was for schedule conflicts. Was rather annoyed to see Alias postponed because of some silly state of the union address. What shows do you know of that do skip a week between every new episode?
I'd really appreciate more competition for Cable internet. I'm too far for any DSL options, and i've gotten really annoyed with the cable connection from Charter. When I forst got the service, I was really happy with it. 1.5mbps down and 768kbps up. You'd like to think that years after the original service prices would decrease, and faster bandwidth options would open up. Instead the reverse has happened. Prices gradually went up, and bandwidth varied. For a while I was getting 2mbps down and 128kbps up. The increase in down bandwidth I didn't really care about, but cutting upload bandwidth to 1/6th, that was horrid! They finally relented and changed it to 3mbps down and 256kbps up. The change in download bandwidth hasn't really mattered to me, and the upload bandwidth is still 1/3rd the original rate.
I assume this likely occured because in the first few years, they didn't have too many customers and had plenty of room on the infrastructure, but now that its getting more crowded. I'd hope competition would hopefully encourage spending effort on increasing bandwidth options, even if that requires laying down more lines.
I guess there's a section of the dvd market I don't have much exposure too. Anime dvd's at one point did something similar, consumers complained to the companies and they stopped the practice.
If atleast next chapter is allowed, it only takes a few seconds to skip even 5 previews, but being able to press the menu button is definately preferable. I'd suggest sending in a complaint to the company.
Well you see my player has this nifty button called "Next Chapter" and another one called "Menu". I've watched disney dvd's, and lots of other dvd's. Worst case, I can't skip the copy warning, but I've always been able to skip all previews by either hitting menu to go straight to the menu, or hitting next chapter to skip through each preview.
Some players either by default or through modified firmware will ignore all such restrictions, but in my experience it's extremely rare for a dvd to lock you out from skipping the opening previews.
Sigh, you don't understand. They do NOT have to send any data to other users, if all they're after is people's ip addresses they can just query the tracker repeatedly and get a random list of other people who have connected to the tracker.
With this information of course they can't prove that person was actually downloading the files, they could just be feeding the tracker bogus information as much as they are. Yet it's still enough to send off a request to the isp informing them of possible illegal activity. If it did go to court, they'd need logs from the isp that would show actual flow of the data to the users ip.
From what I remember with a friend's iPod this was definately possible, but the filenames are all garbage, I'm guessing hash values. If you've got good tags on all your mp3's renaming them would be pretty simple, but still it's far from a straight copy.
(E) TVs typically have better resolution then computer screens, and movie watching is often a "family" event. Thus it makes more sense for most people to download movies on to your TV then on to your computer.
Incorrect, the exact opposite is true. Standard NTSC is only 720x480 and that is what is stored on dvd's. While there is HDTV which gets up into higher resolutions that's far rarer than people with 1600x1200 on their monitor. So I'd heavily disagree on TV's typically having better resolution. Now if you really meant screen SIZE that'd be rather different, most TV's have a much larger physical screen size.
(C) though is a perfectly good point. Most of the movies I saw on the site were going for about $4-5 and was a 500mb file size. So definately these video's will be lower quality then the dvd's you could rent, but possibly similar quality to vhs. Of course an action flick will look a lot worse crammed to this size. I'd rather just spend the extra effort to go rent a dvd or just buy it outright.
Slashdot Mirror
Your math is horrible, I'm not sure if I even want to know how you came up with 15/day.
300kbps is 37.5kbyte/s and at that speed it takes about 96 seconds to upload 3.5mb (3584kbytes / 37.5kbytes/s). That means around 904 songs per day, or 27,120 per month.
At your 10% figure that'd still be 2,712 downloads per month.
It's like flipping an equilateral triangle, it actually only needs the height of the triangle as a width to follow a path. the path it follows, as far as the legs are concerned, is straight. The central body does move in a zig-zag method, but that doesn't matter for navigating tight spaces.
Basically, the directions it travels in are in line with one of it's sides, not in line with the direction one corner is pointing as you were trying to illustrate. Their videos on the article page rather nicely visualized it moving i a straight line.
The main problem I see is that it can't do any turn by a a 60 degree turn. It can travel in 6 directions only... Makes me feel like I'm playing a hex board game...
Now that I'm reading the paper I see it covers basically what I described, but in much further detail and with some models/questions and test results to back it up.
B itTyrant.pdf
http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/piatek/papers/
Except its not like this at all with Bittorrent. Bittorrent has the benefit of having a swarm per each specific torrent. Thus, the haves/haves not pool is contained to usually one file or a set of related files. Also, most bittorent clients do use some optimistic trading. Basically, a new peer they will optimistically give some credit and they will optimistically periodically give all peers a small fraction of their upload bandwidth in credit. Thus, they're not so paranoid but they meter how much free credit they give out such that if there are any free-loaders, they get a tiny fraction of the bandwidth as compared to the other ones.
The whole point to this BitTyrant is that they took this a step further and improved Azureus's algorithm for determining which peers to send to. For efficiency most p2p clients only let so many connections be actively sending data at a time. BitTyrant optimizes this by seeking out the peers who send back to you fastest and giving them preferential treatment. I assume they didn't get rid of the already existing algorithm where 1 of the send slots is considered to be a probe slot, basically giving a client some free data in hopes to prod it into sending some back. Then periodically it looks at all the peers it is sending to and drops the least performing upload slot to try probing another peer. BitTyrant basically researched and has been testing an improved methodology of choosing the peers for those upload slots, and metering how much data it sends to each of those peers also based on how much they've given to you.
It doesn't seem like a drastic change, but based on things I've witnessed in Azureus current behavior I see how it could improve things. I've had peers I'm getting a nice 100kb/s down from, but I'm not giving them much back because most of the bandwidth is going elsewhere. Because of that, I have an increased risk of losing that source. With BitTyrant, it might try and allocate more of my upload and possibly try and match that 100kb/s with 100kb/s of my upload to insure I keep that peer for as long as possible. Unless of course it finds peers that are offering up data even faster.
I guess in a way BitTyrant will benefit the haves over the haves not, but in this case its not who has data or not, but who has bandwidth or not. Those of us with more upload bandwidth stand to benefit more from BitTyrant. However its not like we're getting an advantage, the system is just being more fair. Right now those above the average upload speed of a swarm tend to have far higher up:down ratios than those below the median upload speed. Thus, they were being exploited in the current algorithms. Basically, someone with 200kb/s of upload will now have much closer to 2x the download speed as someone with 100kb/s of upload than previously. This has the end effect of giving people much more encouragement to not cap their upload to low rates as it will have more of an impact on their download speed when dealing with other BitTyrant clients.
Anyways, I think I've ranted enough and probably said the same thing 5 or 6 times now.
I guess I don't see this as being too impressive as it's not a huge leap beyond what's already out there. The National Archives of Japan has a digital collection online that is pretty impressive. I guess many of the images aren't quite as big, but there's quite a few ranging from 1-2 billion pixels.
http://www.digital.archives.go.jp/index_e.html
One scroll I looked at was 7,164x279,984 pixels = 2,005,805,376 pixels, about 1/4th the size of this image. Was one other scroll that was slightly less wide. They're all shown through JPIP and an activex viewer, which unfortunately means IE only. Or you can do like I do and pull out the jpip url from the html and use it with a jpeg2k viewer capable of jpip.
If anything it'd be nice if the system just hit the coral cache itself once to populate the cache, and then maybe included a side link to the page via the cache. Just hitting it once though to make sure the cache is populated pre-slashdotting would be very nice.
"TV networks are in dire need of a better marketing model that better serves the consummer of their product."
You forget, the consumer of their products are the companies buying ad slots. Their "product" is us, their viewers. They have been aggressively trying to find ways to better serve advertisers, their consumers. The money they get, if any, via the cable company isn't really enough to probably even play re-runs. Basically they wouldn't just be changing how they market their product, they'd be completely changing the product itself, and who they're selling it to. How companies like HBO run vs ABC is like comparing apples and oranges.
You apparently haven't played the game because it doesn't work like this. Those rodents of unusual size become trivial later in the game. One hit kills, or maybe some fun for a skill you usually don't use like hand-to-hand. Then there's some mobs that are like your dragons and are damn near impossible at low levels like Umbra.
The only difference is that they aren't completely impossible, you always have some sort of chance, its just when something is 5 levels above you and you're level 1-5, that guys massively more powerful than you. When you're level 20 though, he's only 25% more powerful. He's still a challenge but nowhere near as much as he used to be. After 80 hours of gameplay, i'm pretty satisfied with this end of things, it's not perfect but its pretty well done. It certainly doesn't suck like morrowind, I never got far in that game because the combat annoyed me.
I imagine an iMac does use less power than the average desktop pc, but citing the peak wattage rating of their respective power supplies is a very poor indication of actual power consumption. My Gaming pc with 6 hard drives seems to use about 110 watts idle, and up to 160 watts when gaming. LCD display takes about 60 watts. I imagine a lesser pc could use much less.
I think you need to brush up on reading cromprehension. This has nothing to do with child pronographers. COPA has to do with preventing children from viewing pronography. Has nothing to do with finding criminals, but supposedly proving that filtering would not be as effective as COPA would be.
http://biz.verizon.net/pands/fios/features.asp
lists the business plans.
I recently got the 15/2 home plan for $45/month. In reality I get a max of around 14.5mbps down, but only rarely use all of that. For upload I consistently max it out at about 1.88mbps. I don't like that they block port 80 on the home account, but otherwise service has been pretty good. One problem I ran into that required calling them is that the ONT box on the side of the house had to be reset after a power outage. If this problem repeats itself, I think I might just install a switch on the power cable going out to the box from inside my house.
Your analogy wasn't all that great, and definately is not solid. So more people visit an individual bank than an individual house. However, there is a LOT more houses than banks. In a given period of time a lot more people visit any house than any bank. And looking at those stastics, yes residences are robbed more frequently than a bank.
Looking at that same data, banks still get robbed a decent ammount despite there being a lot less of them than houses. This is probably because the reward is much greater. All that cash in one place gives a greater reward, and hence more people go for it. Having better security decreases how many people are willing to go for it, or are succesful, but it still happens.
In the most basic terms it's based on difficulty, reward, and risk. In the case of worms, the larger the set of possible vulnerable machines the greater the reward. If linux really is more difficult it helps, but as the reward gets bigger there's more incentive.
So please, stop trying to ignore variables in the equation. Reward is most definately part of it. If someone is trying to expand a botnet, then a greater number of pc's to infect is most definately an incentive. As such an incentive grows, of course more people are going to attempt it. Sure, better security raises the difficulty and can help decrease this, but it definately isn't the only part of the equation.
I'm willing to "bet" that online gambling makes more hard cash every day than pr0n. However, I agree that profits for these 2 probably eclipses most other online business.
Sorry, you fail.
"In creating its rankings, the Tax Foundation measures as a percentage of per capita income what residents pay in income, property, sales and other personal taxes levied at the state and local levels. It also factors in the portion of business taxes passed along to state residents through higher prices, lower wages or lower profits."
Quite a bit of information that helps you understand how they came to their rankings right off the "Behind the rankings" link. It seems like a fairly credible report based on a lot of hard numbers. They cover everything in your list, and probably the more you didn't have time to list.
The "Economic Freedom Index" report seems like it would more appropiately be titled "Freedom Index". Plenty of its data is barely economic in nature. I'm not sure how "strictness of gun laws," ties into economic freedom. Sure, this index probably includes more overall numbers, but plenty of those numbers I don't care as much about.
"For example, data set 1 had 51 fiscal-sector variables. A state's fiscal-sector score for data set 1 was calculated by ranking each fiscal variable from 1 to 50 and then calculating an average ranking from these 51-variable rankings."
That seems like a horrible way to calculate statistics. The tax foundation gives a final per capita % value for the states, and THEN ranks the states. This report ranks them on a ton of categories, and then averages those ranks. All the proportional differences between each state get lost. I'm sure someone more versed in statistics might know the technical term for this, but it is a very flawed way of representing data.
Yes, Massachusetts probably does have regulation and taxes on more things than other states, but the overall tax burden per capita is lower.
What are you doing to your cd's to get them so scratched up? Even my oldest cd's are in fine condition, you just have to handle them with a bit of care. The only people I know with scratched up discs leave them outside a case or binder all the time stacking them one cd on top of another. Also its better to wipe dust off a cd with a damp cloth, using a dry cloth insures you will scratch it.
I like that cd's don't have some bulky container attached to them. You can store them however you want, if its some cd you want to keep in good condition you can keep it in some nice case. If it's just an alright disc, you can keep it in some binder. The ammount of discs you can store in an easily portable binder is great. I have a 72-disc binder, it's easy to pickup and bring places with me. Now I don't know about you, but the thought of all 72 of those discs being in cartridges seems horrible to me. In cartridges I'd need a big box to lug around all 72 of them.
Definately doesn't have to do with the framerate.
It more of has to do with the quality of projectors at theatres and how they are maintained. In most theatres I go to, the image is not properly in focus and the glass window etc. is dirty. Hollywood should really try and push theatres to actually have good, well maintained, equipment.
Used to be they could get away with not maintaining any of their equipment and installing cheaper stuff, but now that the home theatre has taken off... People notice the sound is cutting out of the rear speakers, or that the image is out of focus, or there is too much dust on the lense, now that at home they've gotten used to not having any of that.
Personally, I get really pissed when I pay $9.50 to see amovie, and the surround-sound keeps cutting in and out, or the sound is distorted because the theatre bought the cheapest sound system they could.
Microsoft Bob? Looks like the MS Office Paper Clip's ancestor. I guess microsoft didn't learn with Bob and had to just try it one more time...
I've been using a linux server as my router for roughly 5 years now. I don't think I could ever stand being limited to a generic hardware router. Advanced Routing & Traffic Control certainly isn't that simple to understand and use in advanced ways, but for those who want to you can do some rather nice things.
I use my linux router to split my upload bandwidth 50/50 between myself and a roommate. I've also setup various bandwidth guarantees to certain software, making voice-chat always work well, despite running many bittorrents. While I believe some custom firmware for one of these routers might do everything I'm doing currently, they never seem as reliable or customizable.
I don't watch much tv, but those shows I have watched, had one new episode every week. The only times they skipped a week was for schedule conflicts. Was rather annoyed to see Alias postponed because of some silly state of the union address. What shows do you know of that do skip a week between every new episode?
I'd really appreciate more competition for Cable internet. I'm too far for any DSL options, and i've gotten really annoyed with the cable connection from Charter. When I forst got the service, I was really happy with it. 1.5mbps down and 768kbps up. You'd like to think that years after the original service prices would decrease, and faster bandwidth options would open up. Instead the reverse has happened. Prices gradually went up, and bandwidth varied. For a while I was getting 2mbps down and 128kbps up. The increase in down bandwidth I didn't really care about, but cutting upload bandwidth to 1/6th, that was horrid! They finally relented and changed it to 3mbps down and 256kbps up. The change in download bandwidth hasn't really mattered to me, and the upload bandwidth is still 1/3rd the original rate.
I assume this likely occured because in the first few years, they didn't have too many customers and had plenty of room on the infrastructure, but now that its getting more crowded. I'd hope competition would hopefully encourage spending effort on increasing bandwidth options, even if that requires laying down more lines.
I guess there's a section of the dvd market I don't have much exposure too. Anime dvd's at one point did something similar, consumers complained to the companies and they stopped the practice.
If atleast next chapter is allowed, it only takes a few seconds to skip even 5 previews, but being able to press the menu button is definately preferable. I'd suggest sending in a complaint to the company.
Well you see my player has this nifty button called "Next Chapter" and another one called "Menu". I've watched disney dvd's, and lots of other dvd's. Worst case, I can't skip the copy warning, but I've always been able to skip all previews by either hitting menu to go straight to the menu, or hitting next chapter to skip through each preview.
Some players either by default or through modified firmware will ignore all such restrictions, but in my experience it's extremely rare for a dvd to lock you out from skipping the opening previews.
Sigh, you don't understand. They do NOT have to send any data to other users, if all they're after is people's ip addresses they can just query the tracker repeatedly and get a random list of other people who have connected to the tracker.
With this information of course they can't prove that person was actually downloading the files, they could just be feeding the tracker bogus information as much as they are. Yet it's still enough to send off a request to the isp informing them of possible illegal activity. If it did go to court, they'd need logs from the isp that would show actual flow of the data to the users ip.
From what I remember with a friend's iPod this was definately possible, but the filenames are all garbage, I'm guessing hash values. If you've got good tags on all your mp3's renaming them would be pretty simple, but still it's far from a straight copy.
(E) TVs typically have better resolution then computer screens, and movie watching is often a "family" event. Thus it makes more sense for most people to download movies on to your TV then on to your computer.
Incorrect, the exact opposite is true. Standard NTSC is only 720x480 and that is what is stored on dvd's. While there is HDTV which gets up into higher resolutions that's far rarer than people with 1600x1200 on their monitor. So I'd heavily disagree on TV's typically having better resolution. Now if you really meant screen SIZE that'd be rather different, most TV's have a much larger physical screen size.
(C) though is a perfectly good point. Most of the movies I saw on the site were going for about $4-5 and was a 500mb file size. So definately these video's will be lower quality then the dvd's you could rent, but possibly similar quality to vhs. Of course an action flick will look a lot worse crammed to this size. I'd rather just spend the extra effort to go rent a dvd or just buy it outright.