Does anyone have any idea how much information PROVIDERS are charged for bandwidth? And why P2P is essentially massive theft of service?
The Internet is peer to peer. An internet node is not simply an "information provider" nor an "information consumer"; it is both simultaneously. If ISPs assumed otherwise, they made an error, and that error does not make anyone else's perfectly normal activities "theft of service".
If you're looking for a model with information providers and consumers, look to television or radio. The Internet ain't it.
I don't understand. What's going on at NCSU that they would provide so little detail for this release. How the hell do you covert hydrogen to methane?
Add carbon monoxide.
CO + 3H2 = CH4 + H2O
This is Fischer-Tropsch. Biological organisms probably go through a rather convoluted set of steps, and start with CO2 rather than CO.
It can be hard to figure out what they did when you are trying to analyze a variable called WC03-IDX that is used 62 times.
It's the index for the toilet on the third floor, obviously.
Don't ask me why the toilet has an index, though.
True story: my first paid-for programming job involved rewriting a COBOL program which basically aggregated and reformatted some records on tape and wrote them out to disk. The COBOL job took all weekend. My C rewrite was done in the time it took to read the tape (which at 6250ips, wasn't much time). It took me a while to convince myself I wasn't fundamentally misunderstanding the problem. Moral of the story: don't do bit manipulation in COBOL. Ever.
1) There's at least one actual instance of that sort of thing. The creator of PdfTk, for some bizarre reason, feels the content restrictions one can put on a document with Adobe Acrobat should be respected. But PdfTk is open source. Removing the restrictions is trivial.
2) Removing much non-open-source DRM works the same way. Having the source makes it easier, but it doesn't change the nature of the problem.
Or if they use a decryption key downloaded from Marlin, then before they go out of business, go into the part of the code where it downloads the decryption key, and store that key somewhere. No, wait, even better: use that key to decrypt your content, and store the plaintext and delete the original.
How is that different from the best way to handle regular closed-sourced DRM?
Oh, right, it's easier to do when you have the source code. Nevermind, I'm seeing the light already.
I hate to tell you, but you don't own any song or movie on any CD/DVD/Blu-Ray in your house. The RIAA & MPAA may let you own the physical disk, but they own the content. Their license only lets you play it on their terms and they're never gonna let you forget it. Sad but true...
Sad and false, though the xxAAs would like you to believe it. For CDs, it's unqualifiedly false. You own the copy of the song, you can do what you want with it within the bounds of copyright law (not any license). For DVDs and Blu-Ray, you still own the copy, but the (totally misguided) decision in the 2600 case said they CAN restrict what you play it on. But there's still no license between you and them. The licenses are between the DVD makers and the player makers and the DVD-CSS or Blu-Ray organization.
To those with common sense and can actually see, DRM is useless, it's cracked moments after it is realeased and the worlds' 13-22 year olds have far more programming skill and resources than all the worlds companies combined.
This is a bit unfair to the DRM creators. Cracking DRM isn't a competition between the skills of the designers of the scheme and the skills of the crackers of the scheme. It's a test of the skills of the crackers of the scheme against the already-written big fat stationary target of the scheme itself. To use a non-car analogy, it's a one-round game of hide-and-seek where the location of the hidden object (often an encryption key) is both fixed and extremely constrained.
What utter rubbish. There isn't much that causes more physical harm and dependence than heroin.
Yeah, but both the main contenders (alcohol for acute, tobacco for chronic) are legal, so clearly physical harm and dependence aren't really sufficient to outlaw something.
Alcohol probably causes more physical harm and dependence than heroin, because there's more alcoholics. As a percentage of users, obviously heroin is worse, but there's far fewer users.
Tobacco likely addicts a greater percentage of its users.
But if someone blew up a Russian maglev train, they'd just kill everyone responsible (or a likely scapegoat),and any nearby innocent bystanders and continue. There are advantages to ruthlessness.
Hell we're bailing out banks and taking an interest in other businesses, why not a biker gang?
Actually, in return for keeping their logo, the Mongols are being required to purchase subprime mortgages from banks. It should work out fairly well; not angering a motorcycle gang should be a greater incentive than merely losing the house to do what it takes to pay the mortgage.
In any case, even if you made it, you're getting into personal, possibly willful violation of the trademark.
I can't "personally" violate a trademark. If I draw a logo on a piece of paper, or stitch it onto a patch, I haven't violated a trademark.
Furthermore, if Coke sells me a T-shirt with their logo, and later Pepsi somehow acquires the trademark on the logo, they can't tell me to stop wearing the T-shirt. Trademark just isn't that powerful.
As I mentioned above, if there's a standing court order against members of the club using the insignia, there may be reason for arrest.
If there's a standing court order against members of the club using the insignia, it's unconstitutional... and not a matter of trademark law in any case.
The Hell's Angels are notoriously vigorous trademark litigants, going so far as to sue Disney for using their symbols in "Wild Hogs"
The Hells' Angels assert 'Defendant's commercial use of the Marks has and will cause dilution of the distinctive quality of the Marks by "tarnishment."'
I dunno. Effecting change on a global scale takes a very, very long time and a ton of resources.
It won't take a lot of time if you expend several megatons of resources to do it. Not that I'd guarantee a good outcome from global thermonuclear war, but the possibility does demonstrate that speedy change on a global scale is possible. Large volcanic events (e.g. Krakatoa, Pinatubo) have done it as well.
Honestly, all this fear running around and western democracies - and the Russians - are the ONLY ones who have managed them responsibly.
On the contrary, every party which has them has managed them "responsibly" in the sense of not using them against anyone. Except one. That would be the US, the only nation to use nuclear weapons in war.
They adjusted my adjustable rate mortgage so it's now over $800 per month, PLUS a bunch of bullshit fees they're tacking on. It's as if they're in the business not of financing homes, but foreclosing on them.
Then you should have read the contract back then. My mortgage company can't legally tack on a bunch of bullshit fees. And you should have realized that with interest rates at "historic lows" (as every newspaper business section proclaimed in the headlines), they were unlikely to go anywhere but up. Especially if you had a "teaser" rate.
You're blaming the victim. The banks knew what they were doing, those of us unskilled in the ways of banking didn't.
Did you not get a truth-in-lending disclosure? Did you not read the paperwork? The truth-in-lending disclosure is short and easy to understand, and sets out things like rates and fees. The rest of the paperwork is longer and more difficult, but it shouldn't be impossible for any geek type.
Unless they actually defrauded you, you're not a victim. Take some personal responsibility.
The housing crisis is largely the result of shady and illegal activity, just like the.com boom was. (Yes, it was, how else do you explain start ups convincing people they have a solid business plan and then spending all of the money on parties, furniture and lavish perks?)
Remember: The college is providing this internet FOR FREE. They wouldn't have to do that. They could just not provide any internet at all.
Oh, please, colleges and universities provide nothing for free. When I was at the University of Mediocre State, the costs for a room were comparable to the costs for an off-campus apartment. Then they required a meal plan for dorms without kitchens, which for largely-inedible food cost more than eating pizza and fast food all the time, let alone preparing one's own food. In my last year they charged a fee for telecom and data services, which cost a lot more than phone service from the local Bell had -- oh, and they didn't actually provide any data service, as that network hadn't been finished yet.
Why a student "needs" (keyword) more than 128k makes no sense to me.
The answer to this has been provided, you simply refuse to accept it. It's not unreasonable for a student to be doing work on his own computer rather than in a lab somewhere -- the lab is likely to have machines no better than his own, they will almost certainly more poorly maintained, and he'll still have to have someplace of his own to keep the data.
I currently work in an industry where we have to repair electronics that are used in Poultry processing, and the rendering process leaves deposits on the electronics that can destroy them if not tended to in a timely manner.
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer a T-888 myself. More formidable than a T-100, easier to reprogram than a T-1000.
Since that wasn't the original question (ISP is "Information Service Provider", not "Information Provider"), this is a non sequitur.
They suggested it would be a shame if searches for the military ended up bringing up goat porn. A terrible shame.
The Internet is peer to peer. An internet node is not simply an "information provider" nor an "information consumer"; it is both simultaneously. If ISPs assumed otherwise, they made an error, and that error does not make anyone else's perfectly normal activities "theft of service".
If you're looking for a model with information providers and consumers, look to television or radio. The Internet ain't it.
Add carbon monoxide. CO + 3H2 = CH4 + H2O This is Fischer-Tropsch. Biological organisms probably go through a rather convoluted set of steps, and start with CO2 rather than CO.
It's the index for the toilet on the third floor, obviously.
Don't ask me why the toilet has an index, though.
True story: my first paid-for programming job involved rewriting a COBOL program which basically aggregated and reformatted some records on tape and wrote them out to disk. The COBOL job took all weekend. My C rewrite was done in the time it took to read the tape (which at 6250ips, wasn't much time). It took me a while to convince myself I wasn't fundamentally misunderstanding the problem. Moral of the story: don't do bit manipulation in COBOL. Ever.
Your post is modded "funny", but
1) There's at least one actual instance of that sort of thing. The creator of PdfTk, for some bizarre reason, feels the content restrictions one can put on a document with Adobe Acrobat should be respected. But PdfTk is open source. Removing the restrictions is trivial.
2) Removing much non-open-source DRM works the same way. Having the source makes it easier, but it doesn't change the nature of the problem.
How is that different from the best way to handle regular closed-sourced DRM?
Oh, right, it's easier to do when you have the source code. Nevermind, I'm seeing the light already.
Sad and false, though the xxAAs would like you to believe it. For CDs, it's unqualifiedly false. You own the copy of the song, you can do what you want with it within the bounds of copyright law (not any license). For DVDs and Blu-Ray, you still own the copy, but the (totally misguided) decision in the 2600 case said they CAN restrict what you play it on. But there's still no license between you and them. The licenses are between the DVD makers and the player makers and the DVD-CSS or Blu-Ray organization.
This is a bit unfair to the DRM creators. Cracking DRM isn't a competition between the skills of the designers of the scheme and the skills of the crackers of the scheme. It's a test of the skills of the crackers of the scheme against the already-written big fat stationary target of the scheme itself. To use a non-car analogy, it's a one-round game of hide-and-seek where the location of the hidden object (often an encryption key) is both fixed and extremely constrained.
Why? It acts pretty much like any other opiate. The main difference between heroin and morphine is that heroin is more effective.
Yeah, but both the main contenders (alcohol for acute, tobacco for chronic) are legal, so clearly physical harm and dependence aren't really sufficient to outlaw something.
Alcohol probably causes more physical harm and dependence than heroin, because there's more alcoholics. As a percentage of users, obviously heroin is worse, but there's far fewer users.
Tobacco likely addicts a greater percentage of its users.
I beg to differ.
But if someone blew up a Russian maglev train, they'd just kill everyone responsible (or a likely scapegoat),and any nearby innocent bystanders and continue. There are advantages to ruthlessness.
No. Either people have room, or they live in urban ratholes.
You were crying about the current situation, and I responded with 'boo hoo'.
Actually, in return for keeping their logo, the Mongols are being required to purchase subprime mortgages from banks. It should work out fairly well; not angering a motorcycle gang should be a greater incentive than merely losing the house to do what it takes to pay the mortgage.
I can't "personally" violate a trademark. If I draw a logo on a piece of paper, or stitch it onto a patch, I haven't violated a trademark.
Furthermore, if Coke sells me a T-shirt with their logo, and later Pepsi somehow acquires the trademark on the logo, they can't tell me to stop wearing the T-shirt. Trademark just isn't that powerful.
If there's a standing court order against members of the club using the insignia, it's unconstitutional... and not a matter of trademark law in any case.
The Hells' Angels assert 'Defendant's commercial use of the Marks has and will cause dilution of the distinctive quality of the Marks by "tarnishment."'
Uh, yeah.
Boo hoo, it's the cry of the urban planner who wants everyone in urban ratholes. No thanks.
It won't take a lot of time if you expend several megatons of resources to do it. Not that I'd guarantee a good outcome from global thermonuclear war, but the possibility does demonstrate that speedy change on a global scale is possible. Large volcanic events (e.g. Krakatoa, Pinatubo) have done it as well.
Mercurial has the distributed features svn lacks, and the actual usable interface which git lacks.
On the contrary, every party which has them has managed them "responsibly" in the sense of not using them against anyone. Except one. That would be the US, the only nation to use nuclear weapons in war.
Then you should have read the contract back then. My mortgage company can't legally tack on a bunch of bullshit fees. And you should have realized that with interest rates at "historic lows" (as every newspaper business section proclaimed in the headlines), they were unlikely to go anywhere but up. Especially if you had a "teaser" rate.
Did you not get a truth-in-lending disclosure? Did you not read the paperwork? The truth-in-lending disclosure is short and easy to understand, and sets out things like rates and fees. The rest of the paperwork is longer and more difficult, but it shouldn't be impossible for any geek type.
Unless they actually defrauded you, you're not a victim. Take some personal responsibility.
Irrational exhuberance.
Oh, please, colleges and universities provide nothing for free. When I was at the University of Mediocre State, the costs for a room were comparable to the costs for an off-campus apartment. Then they required a meal plan for dorms without kitchens, which for largely-inedible food cost more than eating pizza and fast food all the time, let alone preparing one's own food. In my last year they charged a fee for telecom and data services, which cost a lot more than phone service from the local Bell had -- oh, and they didn't actually provide any data service, as that network hadn't been finished yet.
The answer to this has been provided, you simply refuse to accept it. It's not unreasonable for a student to be doing work on his own computer rather than in a lab somewhere -- the lab is likely to have machines no better than his own, they will almost certainly more poorly maintained, and he'll still have to have someplace of his own to keep the data.
I don't think it's illegal, just contrary to the terms of the merchant agreement.
Handling cash costs money too; for most larger businesses, I suspect credit is cheaper, as they mostly encourage credit card use.
Sounds like a real chickenshit job.