Net Neutrality seems to have taken on a new meaning here on Slashdot - essentially being 'anything that I disagree with, being done by someone I disagree with'. If you keep an eye out for it in comments, you can see the new meaning is quite widespread.
I have no idea what you are smoking either - I just did your 'example' and got 50fps on Vista (Home Premium), 1.2GB ram usage when running WoW and Firefox (plus system monitor). I cant do the Wine example, but from the look of your Vista example you have something seriously broken and thus it isnt a good example.
Your 'better' hypothesis makes less sense than your dismissed hypothesis.
Its simple. Sony makes money from the licenses development studios pay to them to release for the PS3 - unfettered development under Linux, with full access to all the nice hardware the PS3 has available, means development studios have a path to take while avoiding the licensing costs.
Claiming Nvidia don't want users interacting with their hardware on Sonys platform, when they can pretty much everywhere else, doesn't make the slightest sense.
Very good point:) The benefit for the developer is very niche - especially when there is no guarantee the next PlayStation architecture will follow the same lines...
Thats precisely my point - the Cells supposed technical superiority doesn't matter because it isnt being utilised to anywhere near its capability, and doesn't look to be any time soon.
At the end of the day, the argument that the Cell is harder to develop for is technically valid, but totally missing the point - the market isnt about to say 'ahhh, OK then! Lets all wait for the developers to get their shit together!'.
Or in other words, going for the technically superior solution is not necessarily the best decision when it comes to consumer items...
Have you tried eReader.coms eReader software on the iPhone or iPod Touch? Works fantastically, and takes both their own DRMed ebooks (it doesnt check back or anything, just requires you to type in your CC number to unlock the book when you first add it) and standard PDB books as well.
Big deal if M$ got their hands on a crap, slow design based on the G5 powerpc, and they made it able to execute 2 threads per core and put 3 cores on a die. It has NOTHING LIKE the gigaflops of the cell.
And the observation I have to make on that is - you are right, big deal because MS 'obviously' getting the inferior CPU has certainly affected market share against them, hasn't it? Or is it really a case of the Cell hasn't lived up to the massive hype granted it in the run up to the PS3s release?
The one item that was damaged from Amazon, out of the 30 or 40 I bought, they had the replacement in my hands 2 days after reporting it - and I haven't even returned the damaged item yet! Amazon is getting my money next year.
The Government cannot enact any penalty or threat - your defence is made to a Judge or Jury who are both independent from the Government when in session. It is the Polices job to investigate the issue to the best of their abilities - if you do not mention something and then rely on that as the basis for your defence, it will be asked in court why you did not mention it, and the prosecution will attempt to use this to undermine your usage of it in your defence.
Absolutely no different between the UK and the US in that regard - at least in the UK you are explicitly told of the fact in your caution.
The difference is complete - the police have no powers to make you talk, therefore ensuring your right to silence, and the part about relying on something later in court that you failed to mention is the truth in both the UK and the US.
Yes there is - the caution you receive when arrested in the UK is as follows:
"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court, anything you do say may be given in evidence."
You are under no requirement to answer anything during questioning - you can sit there as mute as anything and the police cannot do anything about it.
Also, if you remain silent in court this can be assumed as evidence of guilt.
No it can't, not in any court within the United Kingdom. Staying silent may harm your defence, as noted in the caution you are given, but it can never be used as a presumption of evidence of guilt.
Yeah...it seems when they sent their people out to check every purchased machine to make sure the user had updated their firmware they missed a few addresses. I bet those people didn't register their hardware or something...
This wasn't a hardware problem, it was an obscure firmware issue. My MBP updated its firmware on its own many months ago and then took 10.5.6 with no problems.
Even with that in mind, the install set that Apple needs to check is tiny compared to Microsoft - and yes, if this update relies on functionality only available after a certain firmware revision, then it should either apply it first, or block the update until the user applies the newer firmware. The same goes for the QAed version of the update - if the QA process was only applied to systems with a certain set of firmware revisions, the update should require those revisions and no other.
Israel regularly blockades Gaza ports, so the statement is true...
(IsraelNN.com) The Israeli Navy Monday morning blocked a Libyan ship trying to challenge Israeli sovereignty over Gaza coastal waters by landing at Gaza with 3,000 tons of food and medicine. The Foreign Ministry confirmed that it stopped the ship around dawn and that no force was necessary.
"The Navy warned the ship that it was approaching prohibited waters and it decided to turn back," Foreign Ministry spokesman Yossi Levi said.
In late August, two boats arrived in Gaza despite Israeli threats to stop them. Israeli Foreign Ministry officials said at the time that there had been a last-minute decision to let the boats through to avoid a public relations debacle at sea, and not to play into the hands of people they described as provocateurs.
This time, too, Israeli officials had stated that the boat would not be allowed to reach Gaza, and that the Free Gaza trips would not become routine. Yet the boat was allowed to proceed without hindrance once again.
"It was decided at the highest levels to allow them to enter," said Yigal Palmor, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, without further explanation.
Dignity, a small boat carrying activists, was allowed to sail into Gaza on Tuesday, less than a week after the navy stopped a Libyan cargo ship from entering the Palestinian port and after police prevented a group of Israeli Arabs from embarking for the Strip from Jaffa.
Palestinian fishermen welcome...
Palestinian fishermen welcome a boat carrying members of a previous activist ship, upon its arrival at Gaza port earlier this month.
The boat left Cyprus on Monday night, and was organized by the Free Gaza Movement, which has successfully sailed three ships into the Strip in recent months.
You block BitTorrent, it'll move to port 80 and look like HTTP traffic, or port 443 and then you won't know what the hell it is. Maybe it'll look like VOIP next. Maybe all of them.
The problem is, BitTorrent has a very obvious traffic pattern that can be watched for - you don't need access to the packet content...
It makes perfect sense, for precisely the reasons I stated above - transit-free data networks exist because there are a very very small number of networks capable of acting as such, about a dozen or so, verses the several hundred voice providers that need to interact. When your data goes somewhere, it is practically guaranteed to travel across one of the Tier 1 data providers, but international voice traffic between telecoms providers cannot be guaranteed to balance out, so charges remain.
Thats because there are specific laws governing elastic lending that place the onus on the credit company.
In this case, the onus is correctly on the customer - it became that way the moment legislation was passed ending the telecoms monopoly on equipment that could be connected to their lines.
If you are going to supply your own equipment, why should the telecoms industry shoulder the cost of you fucking up?
I know it goes against the Slashdot ethos, but at some point the customer has to be responsible for their own fuckups.
In most civilized countries, possession of stolen property is a criminal offense, as is selling said property. Service is also seen as the same.
How is it not fraudulent behaviour to collect on services that amounted from theft?
Because it should not be the service providers responsibility to police their customers (come on guys, doesnt that sound awfully familiar?), especially when their customers can provide their own equipment and the service provider cannot legally force equipment limitations.
In short, the telephone company in this instance did *exactly* what they were contracted to do - why the hell should they suffer (and they will suffer, they are out of pocket on the international termination charges) through no fault of their own?
Its time the customer starts taking *some* responsibility. Secure your system or pay the penalty.
if they don't get to collect on that bill, they haven't lost out on anything but a bit of network traffic.
This is a myth - when the phone company does not originate and terminate the call themselves, they get charged by the companies they pass the call on to to have it terminated. In many situations, the large phone companies agree to call it quits as they carry roughly the same amount of each others calls, but in international call markets, these agreements are much rarer.
So yes, potentially (in reality, quite likely in this case) there is a real cost to the phone company if they do not collect on the bill.
Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality seems to have taken on a new meaning here on Slashdot - essentially being 'anything that I disagree with, being done by someone I disagree with'. If you keep an eye out for it in comments, you can see the new meaning is quite widespread.
I have no idea what you are smoking either - I just did your 'example' and got 50fps on Vista (Home Premium), 1.2GB ram usage when running WoW and Firefox (plus system monitor). I cant do the Wine example, but from the look of your Vista example you have something seriously broken and thus it isnt a good example.
Your 'better' hypothesis makes less sense than your dismissed hypothesis.
Its simple. Sony makes money from the licenses development studios pay to them to release for the PS3 - unfettered development under Linux, with full access to all the nice hardware the PS3 has available, means development studios have a path to take while avoiding the licensing costs.
Claiming Nvidia don't want users interacting with their hardware on Sonys platform, when they can pretty much everywhere else, doesn't make the slightest sense.
Very good point :) The benefit for the developer is very niche - especially when there is no guarantee the next PlayStation architecture will follow the same lines...
Thats precisely my point - the Cells supposed technical superiority doesn't matter because it isnt being utilised to anywhere near its capability, and doesn't look to be any time soon.
At the end of the day, the argument that the Cell is harder to develop for is technically valid, but totally missing the point - the market isnt about to say 'ahhh, OK then! Lets all wait for the developers to get their shit together!'.
Or in other words, going for the technically superior solution is not necessarily the best decision when it comes to consumer items...
Have you tried eReader.coms eReader software on the iPhone or iPod Touch? Works fantastically, and takes both their own DRMed ebooks (it doesnt check back or anything, just requires you to type in your CC number to unlock the book when you first add it) and standard PDB books as well.
Sony's payback comes when Playstation3 programmers learn to fully utilize the Cell architecture.
Whens that going to be? How long is the customer base willing to wait for the developers to get their act together?
Big deal if M$ got their hands on a crap, slow design based on the G5 powerpc, and they made it able to execute 2 threads per core and put 3 cores on a die. It has NOTHING LIKE the gigaflops of the cell.
And the observation I have to make on that is - you are right, big deal because MS 'obviously' getting the inferior CPU has certainly affected market share against them, hasn't it? Or is it really a case of the Cell hasn't lived up to the massive hype granted it in the run up to the PS3s release?
The one item that was damaged from Amazon, out of the 30 or 40 I bought, they had the replacement in my hands 2 days after reporting it - and I haven't even returned the damaged item yet! Amazon is getting my money next year.
The Government cannot enact any penalty or threat - your defence is made to a Judge or Jury who are both independent from the Government when in session. It is the Polices job to investigate the issue to the best of their abilities - if you do not mention something and then rely on that as the basis for your defence, it will be asked in court why you did not mention it, and the prosecution will attempt to use this to undermine your usage of it in your defence.
Absolutely no different between the UK and the US in that regard - at least in the UK you are explicitly told of the fact in your caution.
The difference is complete - the police have no powers to make you talk, therefore ensuring your right to silence, and the part about relying on something later in court that you failed to mention is the truth in both the UK and the US.
There is also no right to remain silent either.
Yes there is - the caution you receive when arrested in the UK is as follows:
"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court, anything you do say may be given in evidence."
You are under no requirement to answer anything during questioning - you can sit there as mute as anything and the police cannot do anything about it.
Also, if you remain silent in court this can be assumed as evidence of guilt.
No it can't, not in any court within the United Kingdom. Staying silent may harm your defence, as noted in the caution you are given, but it can never be used as a presumption of evidence of guilt.
Then every single video store in existence is enabling censorship - damn them for separating kids films from hardcore porn films!
Yeah...it seems when they sent their people out to check every purchased machine to make sure the user had updated their firmware they missed a few addresses. I bet those people didn't register their hardware or something... This wasn't a hardware problem, it was an obscure firmware issue. My MBP updated its firmware on its own many months ago and then took 10.5.6 with no problems.
Even with that in mind, the install set that Apple needs to check is tiny compared to Microsoft - and yes, if this update relies on functionality only available after a certain firmware revision, then it should either apply it first, or block the update until the user applies the newer firmware. The same goes for the QAed version of the update - if the QA process was only applied to systems with a certain set of firmware revisions, the update should require those revisions and no other.
It should never simply assume...
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128625
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/29/mideast/mideast.php
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1228728125788
If Israel doesn't want you moving goods into Gaza, you are going to find it very difficult to do so...
See topic - MS do something which seems to be essentially *exactly* what you want, and since you are using MS Office, I would suggest giving it a try.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/rightsmgmt/default.mspx
You aren't listening correctly - this will be of great use to many many businesses out there with a Windows infrastructure.
That gives a huge leg up to potential competitors.... Something you don't want to do if you ever intend to reenter the market with another product.
You block BitTorrent, it'll move to port 80 and look like HTTP traffic, or port 443 and then you won't know what the hell it is. Maybe it'll look like VOIP next. Maybe all of them.
The problem is, BitTorrent has a very obvious traffic pattern that can be watched for - you don't need access to the packet content...
It makes perfect sense, for precisely the reasons I stated above - transit-free data networks exist because there are a very very small number of networks capable of acting as such, about a dozen or so, verses the several hundred voice providers that need to interact. When your data goes somewhere, it is practically guaranteed to travel across one of the Tier 1 data providers, but international voice traffic between telecoms providers cannot be guaranteed to balance out, so charges remain.
Thats because there are specific laws governing elastic lending that place the onus on the credit company.
In this case, the onus is correctly on the customer - it became that way the moment legislation was passed ending the telecoms monopoly on equipment that could be connected to their lines.
If you are going to supply your own equipment, why should the telecoms industry shoulder the cost of you fucking up?
I know it goes against the Slashdot ethos, but at some point the customer has to be responsible for their own fuckups.
I ask you to substantiate these claims - they aren't what I am seeing (and I look beyond the wishful thinking of most western media).
Oil prices have nothing to do with whether the current Iranian government stands or falls - and its been through a lot worse in the past.
We have no motivaiton to mess with Iran *in that way* right now. At current oil prices the current Iranian government is certain to collapse.
Why would Irans government collapse from oil prices returning to levels they had been at before?
In most civilized countries, possession of stolen property is a criminal offense, as is selling said property. Service is also seen as the same.
How is it not fraudulent behaviour to collect on services that amounted from theft?
Because it should not be the service providers responsibility to police their customers (come on guys, doesnt that sound awfully familiar?), especially when their customers can provide their own equipment and the service provider cannot legally force equipment limitations.
In short, the telephone company in this instance did *exactly* what they were contracted to do - why the hell should they suffer (and they will suffer, they are out of pocket on the international termination charges) through no fault of their own?
Its time the customer starts taking *some* responsibility. Secure your system or pay the penalty.
if they don't get to collect on that bill, they haven't lost out on anything but a bit of network traffic.
This is a myth - when the phone company does not originate and terminate the call themselves, they get charged by the companies they pass the call on to to have it terminated. In many situations, the large phone companies agree to call it quits as they carry roughly the same amount of each others calls, but in international call markets, these agreements are much rarer.
So yes, potentially (in reality, quite likely in this case) there is a real cost to the phone company if they do not collect on the bill.