Imho, TFA refers to a protocol for finding out who is billable. If you're not billable, they'd go upstream one, and bill whoever broadcast, etc...
It's not feasible/politically desirable for them to bill individuals per track so far. Heck, if they did, they'd encourage piracy like you wouldn't believe... "What? I've got to pay 5 cents for every single song that plays, no matter if I like it or not? What's this? a scam? You gotta be kidding me, I'm taking my business elsewhere..."
Only, by then, there's no elsewhere to take it to...
A free meme for you: "You must be new here" (or there actually since I'm in a neighbouring country).
I think a democracy that signs a secret treaty with its neighbours stops being a democracy. I doubt it's the first such secret treaty, draw your own conclusions.
Google checkout and most of the payment processors have a fee structure.
IMHO he's objecting to the fact that once a provider like amazon or google has the public's trust, they can both profit from it, and abuse it, usually at the same time. A "They're too big to be benevolent anymore, downsize them" theory.
I saw the article summary, and I thought to myself: "Ridiculously overpriced unlimited" What are they? On crack?
However, I've yet to see a provider actually even tolerate actual unlimited usage on its network.
A lot of people seem to confuse "you don't have to wait to reconnect" with "You can use it until your modem turns another color from heat".
My definition of unlimited is the latter. With that definition of unlimited, 1 megabit per second times 3600 seconds times 24 hours, time 30 days Is some 300 Gigabytes. I've yet to see a dataplan that includes more than 150.
However, I saw the article, and they only said "the maximum overcharge is 75 $" Not that an actual unlimited plan was that amount. They'd still throw people off much faster than this.
I'm using fail2ban and it configurably allows you to set how long you want to ban, and permanently isn't the default. You must be thinking of some other tool
Laws are created by humans, self-interested, no-more and no-less competent humans than in many other fields.
On the other hand, Laws are also removed by humans, those same humans.
Saying the less laws a people have automatically makes it better is just as short-sighted as saying the same as saying the people with the most laws must live better.
The humans removing the laws will remove the best laws first, unless some other process is at work.
Finagle's law of unintended consequences means... the people with the best laws... have an average amount of them... and got there entirely by accident.
I hesitate to point out the newspaper might start to improve, right after the unstoppable process that leads to their deaths, and not a picosecond before.
Being paid more to be less accurate than the Internet worked for them until this point.
On the other hand, slashdot had a story, I believe last week, but I'm too lazy to check, that spoke of growing rounds of mergers/mergers due to financial problems, in the fair realms of newspapers. Perhaps their heat death has started.
I got excited at the original announcement, because I was under the mistaken impression Apple had strongarmed the labels into it. If I had known the labels decided which albums get lower priced, I'd have saved my saliva. I was under the impression every album out of print was automatically at 0.69, despite the fact they had never described the actual mechanism. I still think it makes sense, if they won't sell it in stores, I think it makes sense that it be lower-priced. However much the labels outwardly resisted the idea, Apple managed to put the fox in charge of the henhouse.
Have you considered that how "hermetic" they are might be just why they're called "hard" sci-fi(the steeped in the genre's forms and traditions bit especially). I always felt the formalism has been added to move away from space opera, and prevent confusion between the genres.
That makes them dependant on Microsoft's goodwill. Microsoft's past actions(Symantec, and others) was that partners can and should be sacrificed to prevent Microsoft from hurting. Obviously, Intel doesn't like the idea much.
If the FBI seizes the colo, then it's acting on the warrant and seizing EVIDENCE. If it's seizing equipment belonging to all the clients of a colo, then either the mandate didn't tell it which client had done the crime, so they have to seize them all, get the evidence, and convict the one, maybe apologize to the other, or else they're operating on a theory that they were all conspiring to either commit the crime together, or help hide it.
I won't say we don't have a bias against the FBI doing anything but arresting "Criminals" with a narrow definition that mostly includes violent offenders. So far I find non-geeks do too. On the other hand, I find seizing a whole colo to be an awful lot of combing the desert(yay space balls reference). It leaves the impression(it can be mistaken) that it's sloppy work. It does a lot of geek-offensive collateral damage. The FBI wouldn't let allegations of frauds against all the companies in a building escape, because they can't be sure each one. The businesses in a colo are all co-tenants, why aren't they treated the same?
Yes, us geeks have our own biases, one of them is that we believe if law enforcement can't understand something, it can't prosecute it, and needs to go back to school, not prosecuting everyone until it understands. That's our bias, and it's as irrational as everyone else's.
Yeah, if they intended to force cellphones to open up and work like the Internet, we'd only have data plans, and voip over them. One advantage is that we'd pay less for "silences" in a conversation. Mostly, you wouldn't pay more for voice, transmitted over gsm, than for voice over ip. SMS would also become MUCH cheaper...
Nor would the only rational alternative. They don't like google, they can block google. They don't have to ask government to intervene in an area it has neither knowledge, skill nor particular legitimacy.
And some of us actually expect an OS with a certification logo program to send lawyer letters to Marvell telling them to recall that driver. Sheesh, get with the program, badly written, certified drivers make Microsoft look bad, deservedly.
That presumes that they can sublimate their urges with the piece of paper. I'm no expert but I've seen precious evidence of that(or the opposing view that seeing the piece of paper makes them more likely to act out). Humans are just too complicated to agree on a reaction to a single stimulus.
I don't know about the others, but the reason I think you're wrong is that ActiveX support in IE is so bad, they had to break outlook express too, just to prevent massive exploit.
It might be easier to write a malicious firefox plugin, but your firefox plugin doesn't install itself in thunderbird.
I put it into quotes for many reasons, not the least of which I don't think they should be lumped together. On the other hand, their past actions seem to indicate an interest in having more and more interconnect between trademark and copyright, specifically, and harsher, less definite laws governing them.
Slashdot Mirror
Imho, TFA refers to a protocol for finding out who is billable. If you're not billable, they'd go upstream one, and bill whoever broadcast, etc...
It's not feasible/politically desirable for them to bill individuals per track so far. Heck, if they did, they'd encourage piracy like you wouldn't believe... "What? I've got to pay 5 cents for every single song that plays, no matter if I like it or not? What's this? a scam? You gotta be kidding me, I'm taking my business elsewhere..."
Only, by then, there's no elsewhere to take it to...
A free meme for you: "You must be new here" (or there actually since I'm in a neighbouring country).
I think a democracy that signs a secret treaty with its neighbours stops being a democracy. I doubt it's the first such secret treaty, draw your own conclusions.
Google checkout and most of the payment processors have a fee structure.
IMHO he's objecting to the fact that once a provider like amazon or google has the public's trust, they can both profit from it, and abuse it, usually at the same time. A "They're too big to be benevolent anymore, downsize them" theory.
I do believe when they had Halle Berry as a bond girl(in Cuba, part of the West Indies, IIRC) she makes a reference to birds and ornitology...
Wish I had mod points, that's so funny
I saw the article summary, and I thought to myself: "Ridiculously overpriced unlimited" What are they? On crack?
However, I've yet to see a provider actually even tolerate actual unlimited usage on its network.
A lot of people seem to confuse "you don't have to wait to reconnect" with "You can use it until your modem turns another color from heat".
My definition of unlimited is the latter. With that definition of unlimited, 1 megabit per second times 3600 seconds times 24 hours, time 30 days Is some 300 Gigabytes.
I've yet to see a dataplan that includes more than 150.
However, I saw the article, and they only said "the maximum overcharge is 75 $" Not that an actual unlimited plan was that amount. They'd still throw people off much faster than this.
I'm using fail2ban and it configurably allows you to set how long you want to ban, and permanently isn't the default.
You must be thinking of some other tool
Well Amazon already has succeeded in getting mindshare, before starting.
Seems to me abunga might have failed to gather enough interest, regardless of family friendly or not, and just got selected out of the market.
Laws are created by humans, self-interested, no-more and no-less competent humans than in many other fields.
On the other hand, Laws are also removed by humans, those same humans.
Saying the less laws a people have automatically makes it better is just as short-sighted as saying the same as saying the people with the most laws must live better.
The humans removing the laws will remove the best laws first, unless some other process is at work.
Finagle's law of unintended consequences means... the people with the best laws... have an average amount of them... and got there entirely by accident.
Anything else is just unprovable.
I hesitate to point out the newspaper might start to improve, right after the unstoppable process that leads to their deaths, and not a picosecond before.
Being paid more to be less accurate than the Internet worked for them until this point.
On the other hand, slashdot had a story, I believe last week, but I'm too lazy to check, that spoke of growing rounds of mergers/mergers due to financial problems, in the fair realms of newspapers. Perhaps their heat death has started.
It's not a weird industry myth, but anyone who hires a COBOL Coder can't call it a Cobol job if they wanna migrate OFF Cobol either. It's a catch-22.
I got excited at the original announcement, because I was under the mistaken impression Apple had strongarmed the labels into it. If I had known the labels decided which albums get lower priced, I'd have saved my saliva. I was under the impression every album out of print was automatically at 0.69, despite the fact they had never described the actual mechanism. I still think it makes sense, if they won't sell it in stores, I think it makes sense that it be lower-priced. However much the labels outwardly resisted the idea, Apple managed to put the fox in charge of the henhouse.
Have you considered that how "hermetic" they are might be just why they're called "hard" sci-fi(the steeped in the genre's forms and traditions bit especially). I always felt the formalism has been added to move away from space opera, and prevent confusion between the genres.
That makes them dependant on Microsoft's goodwill. Microsoft's past actions(Symantec, and others) was that partners can and should be sacrificed to prevent Microsoft from hurting. Obviously, Intel doesn't like the idea much.
If the FBI seizes the colo, then it's acting on the warrant and seizing EVIDENCE. If it's seizing equipment belonging to all the clients of a colo, then either the mandate didn't tell it which client had done the crime, so they have to seize them all, get the evidence, and convict the one, maybe apologize to the other, or else they're operating on a theory that they were all conspiring to either commit the crime together, or help hide it.
I won't say we don't have a bias against the FBI doing anything but arresting "Criminals" with a narrow definition that mostly includes violent offenders. So far I find non-geeks do too. On the other hand, I find seizing a whole colo to be an awful lot of combing the desert(yay space balls reference). It leaves the impression(it can be mistaken) that it's sloppy work. It does a lot of geek-offensive collateral damage. The FBI wouldn't let allegations of frauds against all the companies in a building escape, because they can't be sure each one. The businesses in a colo are all co-tenants, why aren't they treated the same?
Yes, us geeks have our own biases, one of them is that we believe if law enforcement can't understand something, it can't prosecute it, and needs to go back to school, not prosecuting everyone until it understands. That's our bias, and it's as irrational as everyone else's.
Yeah, if they intended to force cellphones to open up and work like the Internet, we'd only have data plans, and voip over them. One advantage is that we'd pay less for "silences" in a conversation. Mostly, you wouldn't pay more for voice, transmitted over gsm, than for voice over ip. SMS would also become MUCH cheaper...
Nor would the only rational alternative. They don't like google, they can block google. They don't have to ask government to intervene in an area it has neither knowledge, skill nor particular legitimacy.
And some of us actually expect an OS with a certification logo program to send lawyer letters to Marvell telling them to recall that driver. Sheesh, get with the program, badly written, certified drivers make Microsoft look bad, deservedly.
That presumes that they can sublimate their urges with the piece of paper. I'm no expert but I've seen precious evidence of that(or the opposing view that seeing the piece of paper makes them more likely to act out). Humans are just too complicated to agree on a reaction to a single stimulus.
This should be in politics, not science.
Some time ago, you could run RAC on twin-tailed firewire... Now I can't find the article.
I don't know about the others, but the reason I think you're wrong is that ActiveX support in IE is so bad, they had to break outlook express too, just to prevent massive exploit.
It might be easier to write a malicious firefox plugin, but your firefox plugin doesn't install itself in thunderbird.
There was a solution, but it got abused...
The solution: send the same policemen to arrest every criminal. The ones that protest(hopefully the least nice) get thrown in jail longer.
The politicians kinda put the kibosh on it since. Maybe they didn't understand it.
I put it into quotes for many reasons, not the least of which I don't think they should be lumped together. On the other hand, their past actions seem to indicate an interest in having more and more interconnect between trademark and copyright, specifically, and harsher, less definite laws governing them.
They're both based on "intellectual property". So they're gambling that laws protecting "IP" will be good for them.