I'm still getting drastic slowdowns while copying files across a network on Windows 7 - transferring a 1GB file over G Wifi from either a Windows 2008 fileserver or a Ubuntu Server Samba fileserver gives me a maximum of 1MB/sec, with a typical transfer rate of just 700K/sec. A Mac on the same wifi network can see upward of 3MB/sec for the same file. Not good, not good at all.
Other than that, I'm thoroughly enjoying Windows 7 as my main desktop.
I'm not quite sure what scenario you are striving to put across there - if you are the sole owner and operator of the corporation, then you, in the capacity of the company, would have to sue you, in the capacity of the individual, for the unlawful distribution of company property. Highly unlikely. You do understand that Copyright Infringement suits dont 'just happen' of their own accord, right?
The second scenario I can take your post to mean is you are the sole owner but have enabled a Board of Directors to run the company, which you are a member of in the capacity of Director. The Board could have a legal basis against you for making their job of ensuring the company is well run and financially sound a hard one, and indeed infringement of copyright since your enacted Board has not allowed the companies assets to be released by yourself in that way, but what is more likely is that your Board would quit in disgust and you would have to find more patsies.
The third scenario is if you are the creator of the company, but you are not the sole owner and there are other shareholders involved. They would certainly have a case against you for infringement and potential fraud, since you yourself do not hold the rights but your company does and your actions would be of detriment to their holding in the company.
To be quite frank, your post is baffling to say the least, and seems to be a contrived effort to produce a scenario in which something bad happens to those who claim copyright infringment?
Oh, and corporations get punished all the time - they are fined, assets are siezed, restrictions are placed on them, and they are even wound up and shut down. Board members are banned from sitting on a board for a period of time, and in a lot of countries they can go to jail for certain actions (Enrons executives spent time in jail, Boeings executives spent time in jail, and there are quite a few Corporate Manslaughter charges which carry jail terms).
Again, the same falacy - no peer to peer applications demand two way traffic, so all they have to do is turn off uploading and they are not distributing in any fashion at all. Thus no copyright infringement on their part.
And no, hacking an existing application to turn the upload function off doesn't breach any copyright because they haven't necessarily distributed it - and copyright covers distribution, not usage. They could even create their own client to do exactly as they wish, including downloading from peers but never ever sending content packets out to a peer.
So yes, they *can* most certainly use the fact that you download songs, unless you do exactly the same thing. And guess what happens then? You dont get prosecuted, but the someone else who is distributing does. See how that works?
I'm sorry, but you are coming across as someone who has an extremely niave understanding of how both copyright law works, and what it takes to breach copyright law.
But thats not what you say you are doing in this case, so where you buy your carrots from is academic.
If you don't like the terms, buy something else. You are not entitled to anythign the RIAA are selling, no matter how much you tell yourself you are - all you are doing is proving them correct.
IF I "distribute" their shit when I BT it, then they "distribute" my shit when they BT it.
Thats some mighty assumption you are making there - I can easily download from BT and never, ever upload one packet of content to anyone else. And the RIAA can as well.
Thats the problem, people are jumping into BT swarms and exchanging blocks like there is no tomorrow - they *are* actually distributing the content. All an RIAA investigator needs to do to avoid the situation you are trying to place them in is leech, which can still be done with BT.
If I can't get the type or quality veggies at the local supermarket at reasonable prices, then I'll go to a different store. Or I'll go to the Farmers Market. Or I'll grow them myself. I might even end up buying some that 'fell off a truck' from a guy in an alley.
If the local supermarket wants my business, then they should lower their prices, not sue me. And certainly not get my car registration revoked.
If the RIAA/MPAA wants my business, then they should lower their prices, not sue me. And certainly not get my internet access revoked.
Thats a rather facetious argument and a hell of a bad analogy - you are not 'going else where' in this case, you are simply taking.
And thats my point - if you dislike the terms of the sale, actually go elsewhere! Find another band you like, that sells under terms you agree with. Find independent music that you can buy direct from the band. Find someone that legally distributes their music without any DRM or strings attached.
Because at the moment, you are not. You are simply taking what you think you are entitled to have. And that is still breaking copyright law, and it is certainly giving the RIAA a case against you.
So I have my friend (who has a different IP from me) seed the file.
Sheesh.
Well, I am no longer entirely sure exactly what you are trying to accomplish - are you going to sue your friend for copyright infringement? I think not...
In either case, the RIAA are not distributing your recording, and thus are not breaching copyright law, so you do not have a case against them for copyright infringement or piracy.
I prefer putting it this way: If I don't like the the way content is offered (price, ads, DRM, etc), I avoid that channel and find a different way to get that content (p2p, BT, etc).
Right, then you are actually breaching both the terms and spirit of copyright law and there is a valid case against you. Don't moan when you get caught.
I guess I'm going to get modded Troll for this post as well, since I'm not condoning your course of action...
And yet you still have a not insignificant number of high profile cases where human rights abuses were carried out by US military personnel, in some cases under orders from those above them.
Taking an oath is easy. But equally, breaking that oath is easy.
No they don't, they simply have to prove that your peer transferred a significant portion of the file to another peer - that is still distribution under Copyright Law, and enough of a case against you to procede to court under.
Slashdotters seem to absolutely love hiding behind technology when it comes to other peoples content. Heres a novel idea - if you don't like the copyright terms, or the licensing terms, avoid that content and find something else. Its that simple - you do not have to have the latest Britney Spears right now, you don't have to watch the latest TV program right now, you don't need that movie right now. Find someone else who is distributing content under terms you agree with, and work with them rather than opening yourselves up to potential harm and thinking hiding behind technology and weak beliefs shouting 'nah nah nah cant get me!' simply because you want the current mainstream content.
Fullstream encryption will never solve the issue of you and the other peer having to communicate at some point - and the moment you offer the other peer blocks, there is a good legal basis for them having a case from you.
I don't get why people think this would work, for the simple reason that *you* are distributing the recording of yourself, and thus you cannot claim piracy on the RIAA, or anyone else for that matter, for downloading from yourself. I don't think a Judge in the world, regardless of whether they are in someones pocket or not, would agree with your stance that there is piracy, or copyright infringement occuring when the copyright holder themselves are wilfully doing the distribution.
The issue the RIAA have is you are distributing their content to other people, when you do not have a distribution license to do so.
I know I'm going to get murdered on here for sticking up for the RIAA, but the vast majority of comments professing ways to catch the RIAA out are sheer fantasy. Such as yours.
Who said they would be abandonware? I think you are vastly misunderstanding the statement - Valve would be removing the reliance of your local copy on the remote Valve servers, they will *not* be granting you rights to distribute or allowing you to make that assumption.
What makes you so sure that Valve doesn't have something written into the distribution contract they have with publishers and developer houses that allows them, in the event of the unthinkable, to simply remove DRM from purchased items?
Except there have been many many military overthrows in the history of the world that shows your counter argument to be false - where there is a military, there is a military ethos, and that military ethos can be more powerful than the individuals morals and ethics, which results in the ability to follow questionable or illegal orders when pressed by the chain of command.
Is there any particular reason you consider the US military to be different?
Ok, time to voice my own dissatisfaction with a fairly major plothole...
We know that the Colonies created Cylons independently - we learn this because the Final Five arrive after the Cylons have rebelled during the original Cylon War, and after the Cylons have begun to experiment with their own hybrid technologies. We can surmise from this that the Colonial Cylons had enough intelligence, free will and sentience to have wants and desires, enough to make them go off on their own.
We also know that Cavil wants revenge on humanity for the enslavement of his original Cylon ancestors, and that want for revenge is so powerful that he will go to great lengths, including killing his creators, to get it.
So how is the enslavement of the Hybrids, Raiders and Centurions 'ok'? Sure, Cavil could just be a hypocrite of extreme proportions, but that doesn't explain how the original Colonial Cylons never did anything to prevent this enslavement. Its not as if the new Centurions were simply machines - they had limiters which prevented free will and higher thought, which when removed restored those abilities. They were artificially enslaved by the Final Five and the skinjobs.
Then, in the time honored tradition that is Slashdot commentary, does that not make the add-on developers business model fundamentally broken? Relying on spamming people in-game to solicit funds because your tool needs to be downloaded from a third party site which you have no control over?
Geothermal is location specific, you can't just dig into the ground and expect heat. Solar thermal is time and weather dependent, so it can't be relied on.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you have to buy two licenses, I'm guessing you are going to have to buy two upgrades...
I'm still getting drastic slowdowns while copying files across a network on Windows 7 - transferring a 1GB file over G Wifi from either a Windows 2008 fileserver or a Ubuntu Server Samba fileserver gives me a maximum of 1MB/sec, with a typical transfer rate of just 700K/sec. A Mac on the same wifi network can see upward of 3MB/sec for the same file. Not good, not good at all.
Other than that, I'm thoroughly enjoying Windows 7 as my main desktop.
So, punish companies that are too successful? Yup, thats a great plan.
I'm not quite sure what scenario you are striving to put across there - if you are the sole owner and operator of the corporation, then you, in the capacity of the company, would have to sue you, in the capacity of the individual, for the unlawful distribution of company property. Highly unlikely. You do understand that Copyright Infringement suits dont 'just happen' of their own accord, right?
The second scenario I can take your post to mean is you are the sole owner but have enabled a Board of Directors to run the company, which you are a member of in the capacity of Director. The Board could have a legal basis against you for making their job of ensuring the company is well run and financially sound a hard one, and indeed infringement of copyright since your enacted Board has not allowed the companies assets to be released by yourself in that way, but what is more likely is that your Board would quit in disgust and you would have to find more patsies.
The third scenario is if you are the creator of the company, but you are not the sole owner and there are other shareholders involved. They would certainly have a case against you for infringement and potential fraud, since you yourself do not hold the rights but your company does and your actions would be of detriment to their holding in the company.
To be quite frank, your post is baffling to say the least, and seems to be a contrived effort to produce a scenario in which something bad happens to those who claim copyright infringment?
Oh, and corporations get punished all the time - they are fined, assets are siezed, restrictions are placed on them, and they are even wound up and shut down. Board members are banned from sitting on a board for a period of time, and in a lot of countries they can go to jail for certain actions (Enrons executives spent time in jail, Boeings executives spent time in jail, and there are quite a few Corporate Manslaughter charges which carry jail terms).
Again, the same falacy - no peer to peer applications demand two way traffic, so all they have to do is turn off uploading and they are not distributing in any fashion at all. Thus no copyright infringement on their part.
And no, hacking an existing application to turn the upload function off doesn't breach any copyright because they haven't necessarily distributed it - and copyright covers distribution, not usage. They could even create their own client to do exactly as they wish, including downloading from peers but never ever sending content packets out to a peer.
So yes, they *can* most certainly use the fact that you download songs, unless you do exactly the same thing. And guess what happens then? You dont get prosecuted, but the someone else who is distributing does. See how that works?
I'm sorry, but you are coming across as someone who has an extremely niave understanding of how both copyright law works, and what it takes to breach copyright law.
But thats not what you say you are doing in this case, so where you buy your carrots from is academic.
If you don't like the terms, buy something else. You are not entitled to anythign the RIAA are selling, no matter how much you tell yourself you are - all you are doing is proving them correct.
IF I "distribute" their shit when I BT it, then they "distribute" my shit when they BT it.
Thats some mighty assumption you are making there - I can easily download from BT and never, ever upload one packet of content to anyone else. And the RIAA can as well.
Thats the problem, people are jumping into BT swarms and exchanging blocks like there is no tomorrow - they *are* actually distributing the content. All an RIAA investigator needs to do to avoid the situation you are trying to place them in is leech, which can still be done with BT.
If I can't get the type or quality veggies at the local supermarket at reasonable prices, then I'll go to a different store. Or I'll go to the Farmers Market. Or I'll grow them myself. I might even end up buying some that 'fell off a truck' from a guy in an alley.
If the local supermarket wants my business, then they should lower their prices, not sue me. And certainly not get my car registration revoked.
If the RIAA/MPAA wants my business, then they should lower their prices, not sue me. And certainly not get my internet access revoked.
Thats a rather facetious argument and a hell of a bad analogy - you are not 'going else where' in this case, you are simply taking.
And thats my point - if you dislike the terms of the sale, actually go elsewhere! Find another band you like, that sells under terms you agree with. Find independent music that you can buy direct from the band. Find someone that legally distributes their music without any DRM or strings attached.
Because at the moment, you are not. You are simply taking what you think you are entitled to have. And that is still breaking copyright law, and it is certainly giving the RIAA a case against you.
So I have my friend (who has a different IP from me) seed the file.
Sheesh.
Well, I am no longer entirely sure exactly what you are trying to accomplish - are you going to sue your friend for copyright infringement? I think not...
In either case, the RIAA are not distributing your recording, and thus are not breaching copyright law, so you do not have a case against them for copyright infringement or piracy.
I prefer putting it this way: If I don't like the the way content is offered (price, ads, DRM, etc), I avoid that channel and find a different way to get that content (p2p, BT, etc).
Right, then you are actually breaching both the terms and spirit of copyright law and there is a valid case against you. Don't moan when you get caught.
I guess I'm going to get modded Troll for this post as well, since I'm not condoning your course of action...
And yet you still have a not insignificant number of high profile cases where human rights abuses were carried out by US military personnel, in some cases under orders from those above them.
Taking an oath is easy. But equally, breaking that oath is easy.
No they don't, they simply have to prove that your peer transferred a significant portion of the file to another peer - that is still distribution under Copyright Law, and enough of a case against you to procede to court under.
Slashdotters seem to absolutely love hiding behind technology when it comes to other peoples content. Heres a novel idea - if you don't like the copyright terms, or the licensing terms, avoid that content and find something else. Its that simple - you do not have to have the latest Britney Spears right now, you don't have to watch the latest TV program right now, you don't need that movie right now. Find someone else who is distributing content under terms you agree with, and work with them rather than opening yourselves up to potential harm and thinking hiding behind technology and weak beliefs shouting 'nah nah nah cant get me!' simply because you want the current mainstream content.
Fullstream encryption will never solve the issue of you and the other peer having to communicate at some point - and the moment you offer the other peer blocks, there is a good legal basis for them having a case from you.
I don't get why people think this would work, for the simple reason that *you* are distributing the recording of yourself, and thus you cannot claim piracy on the RIAA, or anyone else for that matter, for downloading from yourself. I don't think a Judge in the world, regardless of whether they are in someones pocket or not, would agree with your stance that there is piracy, or copyright infringement occuring when the copyright holder themselves are wilfully doing the distribution.
The issue the RIAA have is you are distributing their content to other people, when you do not have a distribution license to do so.
I know I'm going to get murdered on here for sticking up for the RIAA, but the vast majority of comments professing ways to catch the RIAA out are sheer fantasy. Such as yours.
Who said they would be abandonware? I think you are vastly misunderstanding the statement - Valve would be removing the reliance of your local copy on the remote Valve servers, they will *not* be granting you rights to distribute or allowing you to make that assumption.
What makes you so sure that Valve doesn't have something written into the distribution contract they have with publishers and developer houses that allows them, in the event of the unthinkable, to simply remove DRM from purchased items?
Except there have been many many military overthrows in the history of the world that shows your counter argument to be false - where there is a military, there is a military ethos, and that military ethos can be more powerful than the individuals morals and ethics, which results in the ability to follow questionable or illegal orders when pressed by the chain of command.
Is there any particular reason you consider the US military to be different?
Salesmen would be the perfect example - if Salesman A brings in more trade than Salesman B, why should they receive the same compensation?
you can in fact with a tech net subscription- trial EVERYTHING Microsoft produces for $349 a year--
An MSDN account gives you full licensing for development and also covers UAT by other people as well. Very handy.
Shelly Godfrey.
Ok, time to voice my own dissatisfaction with a fairly major plothole...
We know that the Colonies created Cylons independently - we learn this because the Final Five arrive after the Cylons have rebelled during the original Cylon War, and after the Cylons have begun to experiment with their own hybrid technologies. We can surmise from this that the Colonial Cylons had enough intelligence, free will and sentience to have wants and desires, enough to make them go off on their own.
We also know that Cavil wants revenge on humanity for the enslavement of his original Cylon ancestors, and that want for revenge is so powerful that he will go to great lengths, including killing his creators, to get it.
So how is the enslavement of the Hybrids, Raiders and Centurions 'ok'? Sure, Cavil could just be a hypocrite of extreme proportions, but that doesn't explain how the original Colonial Cylons never did anything to prevent this enslavement. Its not as if the new Centurions were simply machines - they had limiters which prevented free will and higher thought, which when removed restored those abilities. They were artificially enslaved by the Final Five and the skinjobs.
Then, in the time honored tradition that is Slashdot commentary, does that not make the add-on developers business model fundamentally broken? Relying on spamming people in-game to solicit funds because your tool needs to be downloaded from a third party site which you have no control over?
Diddums. Poor poor developers. Really.
There are add-ins - http://www.ieaddons.com/en/ which is linked to from the IE8 home page at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/default.aspx
The article just basically got it wrong on that front.
The add-ins comment makes no sense - http://www.ieaddons.com/en/ (linked to from http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/default.aspx). Add-ins are there...
All counting systems start with zero - after all, you aren't '1' the moment you are born, are you?
Geothermal is location specific, you can't just dig into the ground and expect heat. Solar thermal is time and weather dependent, so it can't be relied on.
No, it isn't - you really do not want broad definitions on that sort of thing.