like you were dumb enough to buy a 15kW tankless electric water heater (idiot should have bought gas) that's sucking down 130 amps when in use.
That's really not all that bad. At a typical rate of 10 cents/KWh that's only about $1.5 per hour to run. Since it only runs when hot water is in use, I suspect most household would use well under 1 hour of hot water a day (10-30 minutes for showers, another < 5 minutes for a laundry, < 5 minutes for a dishwasher,+ misc use). And although I don't know for certain, I presume these don't have to run at full power draw when water is flowing through at partial rate (presumably you mix cold water in with your shower water). Yes, gas would still be more efficient but it's not without issues of its own. From what I've heard, the gas demand of tankless gas water heaters typically requires running brand new, higher capacity natural gas lines to support it (otherwise your furnace and stove may be starved when running the water heater). They also require additional venting to be installed. I have no idea what the cost of that installation would be, but I wouldn't be surprised to find it would eat into a lot of the savings. Also, from a quick search, it appears that the gas models are considerably more expensive for the unit itself (not even including installation).
I agree that it is an unfortunate name, but I was more thinking for the sake of non-hip parents everywhere, and for the sake of their kids.
Mom: "Little Jimmy said he wants one of those iPad things for Christmas" Dad: "You mean the iPod" Mom: "Uhh, yeah, I guess that's what he said" Dad: "No problem honey, they're only $100"
No big deal. I've been meaning to let my membership lapse anyway. I've been looking for years and haven't found any interesting benefits that it gives me.
for believing (or stating as if you believed) that there is some clerk writting down the data of your bank accounts in a government formulary.
First, it was just an example. Second, I wouldn't be surprised if at some small, community banks stuff like this may go on (especially when there were errors on an account and somebody had to go back later and correct a mistake manually...maybe a teller error, or reversing charges from a stolen debit card, etc). Third, in my interactions with major banks over the years, I have been completely taken by surprise at the number of things that they haven't implemented. As someone who hasn't paid a dime of credit card interest in 7 or 8 years, but rather has taken the banks for a ride by exploiting their 0% for 1 year offers, pulling out > $100K, keeping it for a year and pocketing the interest, then paying it back, I've always expected them to catch on. There were countless times I've contacted them to try and weasel something out of them (higher credit limit, shifting available credit between cards, waiving the fee on a balance transfer, etc). Nearly every time I'm thinking "they're not gonna do this...that have to see by now they aren't making a penny from me...I've been exploiting them for years". Yet very rarely did they turn me down. If they can't even detect a completely and utterly unprofitable customer......well, I suppose that might explain their current crisis.
What if it isn't something that you can explicitly choose to hide. Lets say your bank account has earned you $4100 in interest over the course of the year, but when it gets reported to the IRS, somebody screws up and enters $1400. Given that you know the IRS thinks it is the incorrect amount, I'd bet a fair number of people would be more than willing to just play along and save themselves $500+ in taxes (actually...knowing how poorly people understand taxation, they'd probably be thinking they are saving themselves the entire $2700).
Anything that was created with the purpose of being art is, intrinsically, art.
Very sad what is sometimes considered art, but what you (or rather, Zappa) said is correct. However, I do take issue with the "artist" in this story, and what HIS definition of art is. From the auction rules:
12. Any failure to follow these terms without prior consent of Artist will forfeit the status of the Artwork as a legitimate work of art. The item will no longer be considered a genuine work by the Artist and any value associated with it will be reduced to its value as a material object and not a work of art.
So this artist thinks that, merely by his own word, he can revoke the status of this item being art. It's art now, but once he changes his mind it's no longer art. Somehow, I don't think that's how art works.
How is making a copy "taking". The original wasn't even touched! If I had a really cool camera that could make perfect copies of objects I take "pictures" of...
Funny...you just used the word "take" in a way that doesn't involved touching the original. Take is not synonymous with removing from possession, but if you want to disagree with my 3 word summary (where I wasn't quoting exact definitions) then please see my reply the the other poster: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1521258&cid=30866780
Second it's a bit ridiculous to be anal about the legal definition of stealing when even the plaintiff in this case admits copyright infringement is not part of it.
Uhhhh...I wasn't saying a damn thing about this specific case. Whether the guy did or didn't do anything doesn't matter. I was responding to a person who was basically saying "it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement" by telling them copyright infringement IS stealing.
He's not suing to force the DA to charge with theft, is he? No. He's suing in a civil court.
Do you really not understand the difference between the two? You don't press an issue in criminal court when don't believe you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminal court requires a much higher burden of proof, because of the believe that it is better to let the guilty go free than jail the innocent (though unfortunately it fails at that anyway). It almost sounds to me like you are suggesting that the burden of proof should be the same or higher for a civil case than it is for a criminal case.
Also, in this particular case, I'm not even sure that criminal copyright infringement could apply, as that would require an intent of commercial advantage or financial gain, or a total retail value of $1000, or releasing unreleased material. The first and last definitely don't apply, and I'm not clear on whether the $1000 value condition could be met in this case. But just because the criminal conditions haven't been met doesn't mean infringement didn't take place.
I've figured it out. You need to figure out how to read the dictionary, because theft doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. According to Merriam-Webster.
Steal: "to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully"
Appropriate: "to take or make use of without authority or right"
Combine the two and you have stealing being to make use of without authority or right and with the intent to make use of wrongfully. What part of that isn't a perfectly appropriate description of copyright infringement? Figure it out.
I think you're wrong. So far as I'm aware, copyright infringement has not (yet) been equated to theft
I never said it was. I'm saying when people keep saying "it's not stealing because they didn't deprive you of anything", what they really should be saying is "it's not theft". Theft is a legally defined word which deals with depriving someone. Stealing doesn't have a legal definition (again, as far as I can tell), and the common use definition doesn't require the depriving of anything. People get all anal about how the word "steal" is used, but ironically they are the ones using it incorrectly.
I take issue with the language used. If I download and then upload a song, that's copyright infringement. If I walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD, that's stealing.
Ahhhh! Give it a rest, will you (and everyone who brings this up in every thread like this)? The common definition of stealing does not having anything to do with DEPRIVING. It's merely about TAKING WITHOUT PERMISSION. And as for the legal definition of stealing? Well...as far as I can tell, there doesn't appear to be one. The legal term you are looking for is theft. Of all the legal definition websites I checked (dictionary.law.com, definitions.uslegal.com, www.nolo.com , and several others), not a single one had a legal definition for the word steal. The closest I could find was definitions of things like "possession of stolen goods". Granted IANAL, so I may be mistaken on this, but if it had a specific legal meaning I would expect at least one of the major legal websites to cover it.
And I'm pretty sure judges are allowed to use non-legally defined words when speaking in court...otherwise they wouldn't have too many options for speaking grammatically correct sentences.
That's where it falls apart. If the design CALLS FOR a bad sector, and its there, the disc meets the design. Thus, its NOT defective. Its also not a CD and doesn't meet specs, but it was manufactored as they intended (the design is the intent).
Very good job. After I just explained how it wasn't a defect in the manufacturing but rather in the design, you go on to tell me all about how it was manufactured exactly as it was designed. And you accuse me of lack of critical thinking?
Its not a literal definition; its a phrase said by dumb people wanting to sound intelligent while disparaging something they don't like.
Like the way you disparage people who say something you don't like (ex: "defective by design") by calling them "dumb", "retarded 13 yr old boys", and "Orwellean[sic]"? I guess you would know all about it, so I will yield to your expertise on the matter.
1) WTF does my age have to do with that? If I were 20 then it couldn't be Orwellean[sic], but since I'm 30...oh yeah, definitely some 1984 shit going down.
You're the one that mentioned you were 30. I would hope someone your age would be better at critical thinking, but I suppose its too much to ask for today.
Apparently you are the one lacking critical thinking. Let me summarize the post to you: 1) You suggested it was a term used by 13 year olds. 2) I point out I'm well beyond 13. 3) You use my age to somehow indicate that my actions are Orwellian.
Well that's what you want isn't it? After all, if something really can be defective by design, to the layperson that must be bad right? So we should make companies not do that anymore... right? Because it's bad.
Wow, suddenly you know me so well...you can see right into my soul, apparently. I simply use the term to describe my opinions on a product, much as you might tell someone your opinion on an item is that it is a piece of junk. Is that "Orwellian" of you to tell someone not to buy something because it's a piece of junk, conjuring up pictures of some feces encrusted item buried in a landfill along with dirty diapers, used tampons, and rotting meat? No, it's just a term you use to convey your feelings. That's all it is for me. I don't go our spreading propaganda trying to rally people. Someone simply asked how DRM was a defect and I was simply familiarizing them with a somewhat common term, and then out of nowhere you started attacking me. If you had used critical thinking skills which you apparently have and I apparently do not, you would have even seen in my VERY FIRST POST ON THE MATTER that I even admitted it's not a perfectly applicable term and that it applies only "on some level".
if you making a Britney Spears CD, and 1 in a 1000 has a bad sector, that is a defect
A bad sector is a defect. Yes.
PURPOSEFULLY putting a bad sector on each one
...is a defective design. Yes they were purposefully there, so it's not a MANUFACTURING defect, but it can reasonably be considered a DESIGN defect.
It's not like I ever said that a court of law will rule that it is indeed a defect. I can't believe you want to sit and argue literal definitions on this. When somebody says their car is a piece of shit, do you tend to reply "no, I don't think so...it doesn't smell like excrement at all".
The fact that you're 30 and decided to go with a nonsense term like that shows that you're willing to use Orwellean tactics to disparage something you don't like too.
1) WTF does my age have to do with that? If I were 20 then it couldn't be Orwellean[sic], but since I'm 30...oh yeah, definitely some 1984 shit going down. 2) Orwellian? Really? I thought that was about controlling the people, and I'm not sure who I'm supposedly trying to control here. I've got an opinion on an product and use a term that describes my opinion. 3) Crap, I realized too late...I'm being trolled, aren't I.
Legally it is false advertising. From a technical or manufacturing aspect, they look very much like defective items. They just about meet the spec but not quite in some small but important way. Especially when you look at the bad sector thing.
Think about it...if you are manufacturing discs, and 1 out of every 1000 ended up with bad sectors, those would be considered defects. If you intended to make a legit disc but screwed up something in the process (maybe a machine was out of calibration) and 1000 out of 1000 had bad sectors, those would still be manufacturing defects (and scrapped accordingly).
Now, back to the 1 in 1000 defect thing....if the company decided to sell those anyway, because they hope most people wouldn't encounter the error of the defective disc (since most players work fine with it), and if they did they'd just exchange it, I think most people would still consider those defects. But now when it's 1000 out of 1000, and they decide to sell them anyway because they figure most people won't have problems...it's not a defect anymore? There may be other terms that apply just as well, but defective is also accurate.
If a 13 year old came up with the term...well, congrats to them on being clever (perhaps they have a future in comedy). For me though, the first time I heard it was in my 30s, and I thought it was appropriately descriptive, so I've adopted the term.
I guess you've never heard of the term "Defective by Design". It's somewhat of an oxymoron, but on some level it is a very accurate description. Especially with CDs and DVDs where they achieved the DRM by creating discs that were intentionally defective...either they violated the spec in a way that just happened to work with most players, or they made invalid sectors which would not cause problems for dumb players but trip up players that tried to do error correction (ie: computers), or whatever else the flavor of the month was. The term doesn't apply in the technical sense to newer stuff like BluRay, where the DRM currently used is entirely built into the specification. However, many people (myself included) consider DRM to be an outright defect anyway, even if it was intentionally built into the design specification.
Although I may not have worded it very well, that's pretty much what I meant. I was thinking that others might be under the incorrect impression that it could offload code bound for the CPU and run it on the GPU instead.
Without more details, I suspect they've just made a more capable language that lets you write your shaders and stuff in something that looks just like C++.
So we've had this long history with nvidia part numbers gradually increasing. 5000 series, 6000 series, etc. up until the 9000 series. At that point they needed to go to 10000, and the numbers were getting a bit unwieldy. So understandably, the decided to restart with the GT100 series and GT200 series. So now instead of continuing with a 300 series, we're going back to a 100. So we had the GT100 series and now we get the GF100 series? And GF? Serieously? People already abbreviates GeForce as GF, so now when someone says GF we can't be sure what they are talking about. Terrible marketing decision IMHO.
And my calculator says that I already pointed out my own mistake 2 hours and 9 minutes before you did. Try reading the replies before posting a redundant one.
Oh, and also...the +2 insightful I received says the mods don't bother to check math.
If they have minimal bandwidth, then pop probably isn't ideal because of the back and forth communication. Also, I would suspect that to minimize transfer time, their file transfer mechanism uses compression (email is HIGHLY compressible). As far as I know, there's no way to do pop compression (though if the compression were implemented at the connection/tunneling level, then I suppose that would be transparent)
As for your other question, there are resumable file upload/download methods.
The point is the frequent cross-pollination between big agribusiness/GMO interests and public safety and regulation departments of the us govt. The revolving door between Monsanto and the USDA is one of many.
If it is so frequent (and I'm not saying that it isn't) then it should be easy enough to find some relevant articles from the prior years when it was kept quiet, rather than more recent ones that almost suggest the opposite (Monsanto guy is chosen, causing the truth to come out).
Wait...so the president's actions in 2009 is responsible for information remaining hidden from 2000 through 2008? For crying out loud, he didn't even make US Senate until 2004. But yes, I suppose the corruption of a member of the Illionois Senate has its reach all the way down into the state of Missouri (where Monsanto is based). Or maybe Obama has a time machine.
Slashdot Mirror
like you were dumb enough to buy a 15kW tankless electric water heater (idiot should have bought gas) that's sucking down 130 amps when in use.
That's really not all that bad. At a typical rate of 10 cents/KWh that's only about $1.5 per hour to run. Since it only runs when hot water is in use, I suspect most household would use well under 1 hour of hot water a day (10-30 minutes for showers, another < 5 minutes for a laundry, < 5 minutes for a dishwasher,+ misc use). And although I don't know for certain, I presume these don't have to run at full power draw when water is flowing through at partial rate (presumably you mix cold water in with your shower water). Yes, gas would still be more efficient but it's not without issues of its own. From what I've heard, the gas demand of tankless gas water heaters typically requires running brand new, higher capacity natural gas lines to support it (otherwise your furnace and stove may be starved when running the water heater). They also require additional venting to be installed. I have no idea what the cost of that installation would be, but I wouldn't be surprised to find it would eat into a lot of the savings. Also, from a quick search, it appears that the gas models are considerably more expensive for the unit itself (not even including installation).
Considering how much it is like the iPhone, I'm really disappointed that you can't use it as a phone. It had serious sidetalking potential.
I agree that it is an unfortunate name, but I was more thinking for the sake of non-hip parents everywhere, and for the sake of their kids.
Mom: "Little Jimmy said he wants one of those iPad things for Christmas"
Dad: "You mean the iPod"
Mom: "Uhh, yeah, I guess that's what he said"
Dad: "No problem honey, they're only $100"
Your nerd card has been revoked
No big deal. I've been meaning to let my membership lapse anyway. I've been looking for years and haven't found any interesting benefits that it gives me.
for believing (or stating as if you believed) that there is some clerk writting down the data of your bank accounts in a government formulary.
First, it was just an example. Second, I wouldn't be surprised if at some small, community banks stuff like this may go on (especially when there were errors on an account and somebody had to go back later and correct a mistake manually...maybe a teller error, or reversing charges from a stolen debit card, etc). Third, in my interactions with major banks over the years, I have been completely taken by surprise at the number of things that they haven't implemented. As someone who hasn't paid a dime of credit card interest in 7 or 8 years, but rather has taken the banks for a ride by exploiting their 0% for 1 year offers, pulling out > $100K, keeping it for a year and pocketing the interest, then paying it back, I've always expected them to catch on. There were countless times I've contacted them to try and weasel something out of them (higher credit limit, shifting available credit between cards, waiving the fee on a balance transfer, etc). Nearly every time I'm thinking "they're not gonna do this...that have to see by now they aren't making a penny from me...I've been exploiting them for years". Yet very rarely did they turn me down. If they can't even detect a completely and utterly unprofitable customer......well, I suppose that might explain their current crisis.
What if it isn't something that you can explicitly choose to hide. Lets say your bank account has earned you $4100 in interest over the course of the year, but when it gets reported to the IRS, somebody screws up and enters $1400. Given that you know the IRS thinks it is the incorrect amount, I'd bet a fair number of people would be more than willing to just play along and save themselves $500+ in taxes (actually...knowing how poorly people understand taxation, they'd probably be thinking they are saving themselves the entire $2700).
Anything that was created with the purpose of being art is, intrinsically, art.
Very sad what is sometimes considered art, but what you (or rather, Zappa) said is correct. However, I do take issue with the "artist" in this story, and what HIS definition of art is. From the auction rules:
12. Any failure to follow these terms without prior consent of Artist will forfeit the status of the Artwork as a legitimate work of art. The item will no longer be considered a genuine work by the Artist and any value associated with it will be reduced to its value as a material object and not a work of art.
So this artist thinks that, merely by his own word, he can revoke the status of this item being art. It's art now, but once he changes his mind it's no longer art. Somehow, I don't think that's how art works.
How is making a copy "taking". The original wasn't even touched! If I had a really cool camera that could make perfect copies of objects I take "pictures" of...
Funny...you just used the word "take" in a way that doesn't involved touching the original. Take is not synonymous with removing from possession, but if you want to disagree with my 3 word summary (where I wasn't quoting exact definitions) then please see my reply the the other poster:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1521258&cid=30866780
Second it's a bit ridiculous to be anal about the legal definition of stealing when even the plaintiff in this case admits copyright infringement is not part of it.
Uhhhh...I wasn't saying a damn thing about this specific case. Whether the guy did or didn't do anything doesn't matter. I was responding to a person who was basically saying "it's not stealing, it's copyright infringement" by telling them copyright infringement IS stealing.
He's not suing to force the DA to charge with theft, is he? No. He's suing in a civil court.
Do you really not understand the difference between the two? You don't press an issue in criminal court when don't believe you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminal court requires a much higher burden of proof, because of the believe that it is better to let the guilty go free than jail the innocent (though unfortunately it fails at that anyway). It almost sounds to me like you are suggesting that the burden of proof should be the same or higher for a civil case than it is for a criminal case.
Also, in this particular case, I'm not even sure that criminal copyright infringement could apply, as that would require an intent of commercial advantage or financial gain, or a total retail value of $1000, or releasing unreleased material. The first and last definitely don't apply, and I'm not clear on whether the $1000 value condition could be met in this case. But just because the criminal conditions haven't been met doesn't mean infringement didn't take place.
I've figured it out. You need to figure out how to read the dictionary, because theft doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. According to Merriam-Webster.
Steal:
"to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully"
Appropriate:
"to take or make use of without authority or right"
Combine the two and you have stealing being to make use of without authority or right and with the intent to make use of wrongfully. What part of that isn't a perfectly appropriate description of copyright infringement? Figure it out.
I think you're wrong. So far as I'm aware, copyright infringement has not (yet) been equated to theft
I never said it was. I'm saying when people keep saying "it's not stealing because they didn't deprive you of anything", what they really should be saying is "it's not theft". Theft is a legally defined word which deals with depriving someone. Stealing doesn't have a legal definition (again, as far as I can tell), and the common use definition doesn't require the depriving of anything. People get all anal about how the word "steal" is used, but ironically they are the ones using it incorrectly.
I take issue with the language used. If I download and then upload a song, that's copyright infringement. If I walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD, that's stealing.
Ahhhh! Give it a rest, will you (and everyone who brings this up in every thread like this)? The common definition of stealing does not having anything to do with DEPRIVING. It's merely about TAKING WITHOUT PERMISSION. And as for the legal definition of stealing? Well...as far as I can tell, there doesn't appear to be one. The legal term you are looking for is theft. Of all the legal definition websites I checked (dictionary.law.com, definitions.uslegal.com, www.nolo.com , and several others), not a single one had a legal definition for the word steal. The closest I could find was definitions of things like "possession of stolen goods". Granted IANAL, so I may be mistaken on this, but if it had a specific legal meaning I would expect at least one of the major legal websites to cover it.
And I'm pretty sure judges are allowed to use non-legally defined words when speaking in court...otherwise they wouldn't have too many options for speaking grammatically correct sentences.
That's where it falls apart. If the design CALLS FOR a bad sector, and its there, the disc meets the design. Thus, its NOT defective. Its also not a CD and doesn't meet specs, but it was manufactored as they intended (the design is the intent).
Very good job. After I just explained how it wasn't a defect in the manufacturing but rather in the design, you go on to tell me all about how it was manufactured exactly as it was designed. And you accuse me of lack of critical thinking?
Its not a literal definition; its a phrase said by dumb people wanting to sound intelligent while disparaging something they don't like.
Like the way you disparage people who say something you don't like (ex: "defective by design") by calling them "dumb", "retarded 13 yr old boys", and "Orwellean[sic]"? I guess you would know all about it, so I will yield to your expertise on the matter.
1) WTF does my age have to do with that? If I were 20 then it couldn't be Orwellean[sic], but since I'm 30...oh yeah, definitely some 1984 shit going down.
You're the one that mentioned you were 30. I would hope someone your age would be better at critical thinking, but I suppose its too much to ask for today.
Apparently you are the one lacking critical thinking. Let me summarize the post to you:
1) You suggested it was a term used by 13 year olds.
2) I point out I'm well beyond 13.
3) You use my age to somehow indicate that my actions are Orwellian.
Well that's what you want isn't it? After all, if something really can be defective by design, to the layperson that must be bad right? So we should make companies not do that anymore... right? Because it's bad.
Wow, suddenly you know me so well...you can see right into my soul, apparently. I simply use the term to describe my opinions on a product, much as you might tell someone your opinion on an item is that it is a piece of junk. Is that "Orwellian" of you to tell someone not to buy something because it's a piece of junk, conjuring up pictures of some feces encrusted item buried in a landfill along with dirty diapers, used tampons, and rotting meat? No, it's just a term you use to convey your feelings. That's all it is for me. I don't go our spreading propaganda trying to rally people. Someone simply asked how DRM was a defect and I was simply familiarizing them with a somewhat common term, and then out of nowhere you started attacking me. If you had used critical thinking skills which you apparently have and I apparently do not, you would have even seen in my VERY FIRST POST ON THE MATTER that I even admitted it's not a perfectly applicable term and that it applies only "on some level".
if you making a Britney Spears CD, and 1 in a 1000 has a bad sector, that is a defect
A bad sector is a defect. Yes.
PURPOSEFULLY putting a bad sector on each one
...is a defective design. Yes they were purposefully there, so it's not a MANUFACTURING defect, but it can reasonably be considered a DESIGN defect.
It's not like I ever said that a court of law will rule that it is indeed a defect. I can't believe you want to sit and argue literal definitions on this. When somebody says their car is a piece of shit, do you tend to reply "no, I don't think so...it doesn't smell like excrement at all".
The fact that you're 30 and decided to go with a nonsense term like that shows that you're willing to use Orwellean tactics to disparage something you don't like too.
1) WTF does my age have to do with that? If I were 20 then it couldn't be Orwellean[sic], but since I'm 30...oh yeah, definitely some 1984 shit going down.
2) Orwellian? Really? I thought that was about controlling the people, and I'm not sure who I'm supposedly trying to control here. I've got an opinion on an product and use a term that describes my opinion.
3) Crap, I realized too late...I'm being trolled, aren't I.
Legally it is false advertising. From a technical or manufacturing aspect, they look very much like defective items. They just about meet the spec but not quite in some small but important way. Especially when you look at the bad sector thing.
Think about it...if you are manufacturing discs, and 1 out of every 1000 ended up with bad sectors, those would be considered defects. If you intended to make a legit disc but screwed up something in the process (maybe a machine was out of calibration) and 1000 out of 1000 had bad sectors, those would still be manufacturing defects (and scrapped accordingly).
Now, back to the 1 in 1000 defect thing....if the company decided to sell those anyway, because they hope most people wouldn't encounter the error of the defective disc (since most players work fine with it), and if they did they'd just exchange it, I think most people would still consider those defects. But now when it's 1000 out of 1000, and they decide to sell them anyway because they figure most people won't have problems...it's not a defect anymore? There may be other terms that apply just as well, but defective is also accurate.
If a 13 year old came up with the term...well, congrats to them on being clever (perhaps they have a future in comedy). For me though, the first time I heard it was in my 30s, and I thought it was appropriately descriptive, so I've adopted the term.
I guess you've never heard of the term "Defective by Design". It's somewhat of an oxymoron, but on some level it is a very accurate description. Especially with CDs and DVDs where they achieved the DRM by creating discs that were intentionally defective...either they violated the spec in a way that just happened to work with most players, or they made invalid sectors which would not cause problems for dumb players but trip up players that tried to do error correction (ie: computers), or whatever else the flavor of the month was. The term doesn't apply in the technical sense to newer stuff like BluRay, where the DRM currently used is entirely built into the specification. However, many people (myself included) consider DRM to be an outright defect anyway, even if it was intentionally built into the design specification.
Although I may not have worded it very well, that's pretty much what I meant. I was thinking that others might be under the incorrect impression that it could offload code bound for the CPU and run it on the GPU instead.
Without more details, I suspect they've just made a more capable language that lets you write your shaders and stuff in something that looks just like C++.
So we've had this long history with nvidia part numbers gradually increasing. 5000 series, 6000 series, etc. up until the 9000 series. At that point they needed to go to 10000, and the numbers were getting a bit unwieldy. So understandably, the decided to restart with the GT100 series and GT200 series. So now instead of continuing with a 300 series, we're going back to a 100. So we had the GT100 series and now we get the GF100 series? And GF? Serieously? People already abbreviates GeForce as GF, so now when someone says GF we can't be sure what they are talking about. Terrible marketing decision IMHO.
And my calculator says that I already pointed out my own mistake 2 hours and 9 minutes before you did. Try reading the replies before posting a redundant one.
Oh, and also...the +2 insightful I received says the mods don't bother to check math.
Ahh, crap...typed the numbers wrong into my calculator. Joke ruined
Really? Seems to me that it factors into 5, 887, and -1
Steely Dan? Oh, I thought he fucked up the Phil Collins song.
If they have minimal bandwidth, then pop probably isn't ideal because of the back and forth communication. Also, I would suspect that to minimize transfer time, their file transfer mechanism uses compression (email is HIGHLY compressible). As far as I know, there's no way to do pop compression (though if the compression were implemented at the connection/tunneling level, then I suppose that would be transparent)
As for your other question, there are resumable file upload/download methods.
You could give that to everybody and there dog and they could use NetFlix on their PC.
Only if "everybody and there [sic] dog" amounts to no more than 6, because that's how many devices netflix only lets you register.
The point is the frequent cross-pollination between big agribusiness/GMO interests and public safety and regulation departments of the us govt. The revolving door between Monsanto and the USDA is one of many.
If it is so frequent (and I'm not saying that it isn't) then it should be easy enough to find some relevant articles from the prior years when it was kept quiet, rather than more recent ones that almost suggest the opposite (Monsanto guy is chosen, causing the truth to come out).
Wait...so the president's actions in 2009 is responsible for information remaining hidden from 2000 through 2008? For crying out loud, he didn't even make US Senate until 2004. But yes, I suppose the corruption of a member of the Illionois Senate has its reach all the way down into the state of Missouri (where Monsanto is based). Or maybe Obama has a time machine.