It doesn't have to be remote; I've working in places with 10's or 100's of physical sites where a lot of the time the old "I'm from IT, can I use one of your machines for a few minutes" is sufficient to get access.
Something is bricked when it is, to all intents and purposes, interchangeable with a brick. Not simply when it doesn't work properly any more or has less functionality.
The supposed biggest market for going to see movies is the 12-18 market - lots of free time and disposable income I guess - which is why they always try and shoehorn some obnoxious teenagers into every movie, even when there's no justification for doing so, so that this mythical audience have someone to "identify with".
As opposed to what, ignoring the loony? Just letting him spew his ignorance without any kind of rebuttal?
The fact of the matter is that he's on national TV, publishing books, and presenting some truly deranged stuff as "truth".
If he was just some kind of comedian and everybody laughed and went on with their lives, that'd be one thing. But people believe him. Folks base their world view on what he says. They cast their votes based on his insane rantings.
The point is that people are very good at reinforcing their own beliefs; having people rail against them, regardless of the evidence, only further convinces them that they're in the right. The vast majority of Glen Beck's "core" viewers are never going to be persuaded that they're wrong, no matter how hard you try, because all attempts to convince them of that fact are simply part of the liberal conspiracy (and please don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm singling out Glen Beck viewers; the majority of the population are guilty of exactly the same behaviour, but we are discussing Beck here).
It was one of the things I really liked about the game; not the motion sickness, obviously, but the fact that you felt like a person rather than the camera-on-wheels effect that most FP(S) games seem to go for.
...the onus is suddenly placed right on the copyright creator to prove the infringement.
Isn't that kind of how the law is supposed to work? You know, the guy making the accusation has to prove that the other person did it (to whatever standard is required by the court), otherwise you end up with things like the retarded libel system we have in the UK where you can accuse anyone you like of anything you want and if they can't prove that they're not guilty then you win, regardless of what evidence you have.
It gives you the option to save the details on a given machine for 30 days, so if you just want to use it to "authorise" a specific PC rather than every time you log on, then you can do.
That's more to do with the fact that all the LCD production lines are churning out huge numbers of 16:9 panels for TVs at 720p and 1080p, so it makes sense to do so for PCs as well (made easier in no small part because the public have now been successfully sold on the idea that 16:9 = HD = Better than a 4:3 monitor somehow).
I managed to track down a pair of 21" 4:3 LCDs that do 1600x1200 for my PC and I will hold onto them as long as humanly possible because I know that it's going to be extremely hard to get a decent sized 4:3 replacement in a few year time. 16:9 for a PC is just a massive waste of screen space for most things because 90% of apps and web pages are designed, if not with 4:3 in mind, then to support 4:3 and so you end up with horizontal letterboxing all the time.
Which is great except where you're fixing reliability and security issues. Phones aren't simple any more and these things are - for better or worse - potentially significant issues these days.
Being in the UK it took a couple of months between 2.2 being rolled out in the US and it hitting my Nexus One, but I did still get it well before all of my HTC-wielding friends.
I know Google don't want to impose too many controls over the handset manufacturers, but they really need to do something to encourage them to upgrade the OS where the hardware can handle it.
Net Neutrality is the principle that traffic on the internet is treated equally regardless of source or destination.
i.e. Traffic from Google to you or Bing to you (or vice versa) should both be assigned the same priority and treated in the same way.
That is not to say that you can't give higher priority to, say, VoIP than to Bittorrent as long as you give that higher priority to *all* VoIP traffic and not just Skype (for example).
The basic problem is that you pay Cox money to provide an internet connection. Google pays their upstream provider for the same service (yes, it's more complicated with orgs of Google's size, but it's the same principle). They meet in the middle and you can both send data to each other. What Cox wants to do is levy a charge on Google for using the connection that *you're* already paying for, you know, to make sure those nice packets don't get lost along the way amongst all the ones from Bing.
Because, to extend your analogy rather badly, there's only so much room in the mail van and if it's full of Priority Mail then your First Class stuff will have to wait for the next van - and don't make the naive assumption that they'll use all that Priority Mail money to buy more vans, because we all know that won't happen.
There are a sizeable group of people who can't be vaccinated, either due to allergies to ingredients in the vaccines or because they are immuno-compromised as a result of illness or cancer treatments. *Those* are the people who need everyone else to be vaccinated, not some moron who is incapable of logical thought.
Well to be fair, who would have thought that making essentially unfounded legal threats against people, trying to extort money from them and threatening to "expose" their alleged "illegal" porn downloading in the hope that they'll choose a cash settlement over having their life ruined would upset people in any way?
I don't know, the judge in this case seemed pretty pissed off at the way ACS:Law have been behaving and their attempts to drop cases and close their business aren't going to help endear them to him.
Bear in mind that they're also being investigated by pretty much every legal regulatory body and consumer protection organisation in the UK, not just as ACS:Law but also Andrew Crossley himself, so there's still a good chance they won't get away with it.
The amount of *new* networking kit and software that still doesn't support IPv6 is frankly depressing. Microsoft's Forefront TMG (Their ISA replacement), for example, requires Server 2008/2008 R2 (which have full IPv6 support out of the box) but doesn't actually support IPv6 routing itself and it's only ~1 year old.
It'd barely make any difference as you need contiguous blocks and the rate at which we're using them means that even reclaiming whole/8 blocks only extends the life of IPv4 by a few months at best.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't have to be remote; I've working in places with 10's or 100's of physical sites where a lot of the time the old "I'm from IT, can I use one of your machines for a few minutes" is sufficient to get access.
I believe that's known as guilt by association.
Lifetime of the service, not of the box or your lifetime.
Well, technically they offer 10Mb, 30Mb, 50Mb & 100Mb (In some areas, they're still rolling that one out), so in places they do offer 10MB+ broadband.
I don't get this, surely it's not hard.
Something is bricked when it is, to all intents and purposes, interchangeable with a brick. Not simply when it doesn't work properly any more or has less functionality.
The supposed biggest market for going to see movies is the 12-18 market - lots of free time and disposable income I guess - which is why they always try and shoehorn some obnoxious teenagers into every movie, even when there's no justification for doing so, so that this mythical audience have someone to "identify with".
It's hard to trust locks from a company that hand out copies of the key to anyone who says "that's my lock" and gives them $50.
As opposed to what, ignoring the loony? Just letting him spew his ignorance without any kind of rebuttal?
The fact of the matter is that he's on national TV, publishing books, and presenting some truly deranged stuff as "truth".
If he was just some kind of comedian and everybody laughed and went on with their lives, that'd be one thing. But people believe him. Folks base their world view on what he says. They cast their votes based on his insane rantings.
The point is that people are very good at reinforcing their own beliefs; having people rail against them, regardless of the evidence, only further convinces them that they're in the right. The vast majority of Glen Beck's "core" viewers are never going to be persuaded that they're wrong, no matter how hard you try, because all attempts to convince them of that fact are simply part of the liberal conspiracy (and please don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm singling out Glen Beck viewers; the majority of the population are guilty of exactly the same behaviour, but we are discussing Beck here).
It was one of the things I really liked about the game; not the motion sickness, obviously, but the fact that you felt like a person rather than the camera-on-wheels effect that most FP(S) games seem to go for.
...the onus is suddenly placed right on the copyright creator to prove the infringement.
Isn't that kind of how the law is supposed to work? You know, the guy making the accusation has to prove that the other person did it (to whatever standard is required by the court), otherwise you end up with things like the retarded libel system we have in the UK where you can accuse anyone you like of anything you want and if they can't prove that they're not guilty then you win, regardless of what evidence you have.
What about the other 1%?
It gives you the option to save the details on a given machine for 30 days, so if you just want to use it to "authorise" a specific PC rather than every time you log on, then you can do.
You're only cheating yourself.
Nobody cares that you have a degree if you can't even answer simple questions about your subject in an interview.
That's more to do with the fact that all the LCD production lines are churning out huge numbers of 16:9 panels for TVs at 720p and 1080p, so it makes sense to do so for PCs as well (made easier in no small part because the public have now been successfully sold on the idea that 16:9 = HD = Better than a 4:3 monitor somehow).
I managed to track down a pair of 21" 4:3 LCDs that do 1600x1200 for my PC and I will hold onto them as long as humanly possible because I know that it's going to be extremely hard to get a decent sized 4:3 replacement in a few year time. 16:9 for a PC is just a massive waste of screen space for most things because 90% of apps and web pages are designed, if not with 4:3 in mind, then to support 4:3 and so you end up with horizontal letterboxing all the time.
Unlikely, these guys were probably behind 7 proxies.
Which is great except where you're fixing reliability and security issues. Phones aren't simple any more and these things are - for better or worse - potentially significant issues these days.
Being in the UK it took a couple of months between 2.2 being rolled out in the US and it hitting my Nexus One, but I did still get it well before all of my HTC-wielding friends.
I know Google don't want to impose too many controls over the handset manufacturers, but they really need to do something to encourage them to upgrade the OS where the hardware can handle it.
Net Neutrality is the principle that traffic on the internet is treated equally regardless of source or destination.
i.e. Traffic from Google to you or Bing to you (or vice versa) should both be assigned the same priority and treated in the same way.
That is not to say that you can't give higher priority to, say, VoIP than to Bittorrent as long as you give that higher priority to *all* VoIP traffic and not just Skype (for example).
The basic problem is that you pay Cox money to provide an internet connection. Google pays their upstream provider for the same service (yes, it's more complicated with orgs of Google's size, but it's the same principle). They meet in the middle and you can both send data to each other. What Cox wants to do is levy a charge on Google for using the connection that *you're* already paying for, you know, to make sure those nice packets don't get lost along the way amongst all the ones from Bing.
Because, to extend your analogy rather badly, there's only so much room in the mail van and if it's full of Priority Mail then your First Class stuff will have to wait for the next van - and don't make the naive assumption that they'll use all that Priority Mail money to buy more vans, because we all know that won't happen.
There are a sizeable group of people who can't be vaccinated, either due to allergies to ingredients in the vaccines or because they are immuno-compromised as a result of illness or cancer treatments. *Those* are the people who need everyone else to be vaccinated, not some moron who is incapable of logical thought.
Well to be fair, who would have thought that making essentially unfounded legal threats against people, trying to extort money from them and threatening to "expose" their alleged "illegal" porn downloading in the hope that they'll choose a cash settlement over having their life ruined would upset people in any way?
I don't know, the judge in this case seemed pretty pissed off at the way ACS:Law have been behaving and their attempts to drop cases and close their business aren't going to help endear them to him.
Bear in mind that they're also being investigated by pretty much every legal regulatory body and consumer protection organisation in the UK, not just as ACS:Law but also Andrew Crossley himself, so there's still a good chance they won't get away with it.
You already said that here
The amount of *new* networking kit and software that still doesn't support IPv6 is frankly depressing. Microsoft's Forefront TMG (Their ISA replacement), for example, requires Server 2008/2008 R2 (which have full IPv6 support out of the box) but doesn't actually support IPv6 routing itself and it's only ~1 year old.
It'd barely make any difference as you need contiguous blocks and the rate at which we're using them means that even reclaiming whole /8 blocks only extends the life of IPv4 by a few months at best.