Not possible at this moment in time - the changes in the download speed were brought about as a result of heavy investment in NTL's HFC network to make it ready for the Video On-Demand launch this month which has had the side effect of giving a *lot* more available bandwidth in the "last mile" area.
That said, their UBRs are already under a lot of pressure when it comes to the upload speeds and thus would require a *lot* of money to fit additional UBRs to cope with increased upload speeds - an investment which all things considered with NTL's financial position and strategy isn't exactly high on the priority list right now.
The only problem with this statement being that in my experience I've always found MS Office a very able set of programs, whereas it's "clone" OpenOffice is the office suite which tries so hard to be MS Office but fails in most respects.
Out of curiousity I checked Apple's UK Store and it looks like the price for the basic model will be £339, which brings the Mac Mini into the commodity hardware price range.
Similar to yourself, I've also got the feeling I'll be a Mac owner pretty soon.
Could you please explain what censorship is taking place here? Other than the obvious removal of illegally distributed content.
If this was to be implemented I don't see why it would only affect corporations and business entities. It would provide extra protection for GPL'd software copyright holders in the event of their copyright being infringed amongst others.
The problem with abolishing all copyright laws is that things such as the GPL would no longer work for "Free Software" as it's based upon copyright law.
With no copyright holders, code released as open source could freely be copied into proprietary software - that's right, companies such as Microsoft would be free to take whatever code from Linux they wanted and include it in a closed source product.
Like it or lump it, copyright infringement must be dealt with the same on all sides - if a GPL'd app owner's copyright is violated then quite rightly they should take what action they see necessary. And if a movie's copyright owner sees fit to take action against citizens who infringe upon their copyright then this is totally correct too.
Free in terms of money perhaps, however as the saying goes, there is no such thing as a "free lunch".
Looking at Gmail, sure it's free of charge but there is the cost of privacy invasion in some people's eyes. I don't personally have a problem with that myself as Gmail is a nice little tool and worth the "cost" involved. And it really is the same with the high majority of services and products.
Using an offline example, commercial Digital Radio in the UK is completely free of charge, but the cost of broadcasting the stations is funded in the most part by advertisers.
You want a calculator? Buy a calculator.
You want a text editor? Buy a dedicated word processor.
You want to watch DVDs or other media? Buy a DVD player. You want to send an e-mail? Buy a dedicated e-mailer.
So, based upon your way of thinking I'm assuming your above post was made via a WebTV or similar dedicated Internet-only terminal, right?
That's not what he said at all. He said that someone who advocates infringing copyrights held by the MPAA et al has no right to complain if someone else infringes the copyright of something licensed under the GPL. And he's 100% right.
C'mon, you know and I know he's 100% wrong.
You see, the companies represented by organisations such as MPAA etc are rich companies and profit greatly from selling copies of their copyrighted material and as such that makes it absolutely acceptable for their material to be illegally copied whereas a company who infringes the copyright of an application licensed under the GPL is evil and has no right to infringe on copyrights in a similar manner
Customers can now pay for a crippled version of the operating system with no media playback facilities or they can pay exactly the same price for a version which contains the best media player available for the Windows Operating System (IMO, of course).
Alternatively, they can choose one of the many Linux or BSD distributions.
Living outside the US, I've no idea what sort of marketshare NYTimes has or which market it targets, though I do recognise it to be a "famous" newspaper and one that is respected.
That said, the article itself is a brilliant advert for FireFox and gives an excellent overview of the circumstances in which Internet Explorer overtook Netscape and how that compares to what is happening in the browser market right now.
And assuming NYTimes is not a technical journal (which I don't think it is) it doesn't have the problem of "preaching to the choir" as so many articles have had in the past.
Why is this modded as redundant? I don't see any other posts saying the same thing, and it is an interesting point.
I'd suspect it was modded as redundant because it doesn't meet the Slashdot "groupthink" criteria and doesn't bash Microsoft.
And I have to say, I have the same experience. I run Win2K with mozilla as my browser and e-mail client and have _never_ had trouble. And that's not through lack of checking for it, or for lack of doing things that are typically seen as "risky" activities.
I have similar experiences too. Having decided not to run Linux for the timebeing due to usability issues which I don't feel have been solved to my satisfaction, I'm left with the choice of running Windows.
I've never encountered Virus's, Spyware, or the like.
Maybe I just know how to maintain my computer system?
The iPod was designed to play their DRM'd AAC files and MP3 files. There was never any intention of supporting other DRM schemes and therefore the removal of the ability to play Real's files would merely be classified as an optional bug fix.
Not being a computer scientist or coder by any means, I have a couple of questions.
1. Are these the only bugs to be found in the Linux kernel?
2. Now that these bugs have been identified, should these bugs be fixed would that mean that Linux itsself could truthfully be classified as "bug-free" or am I missing something?
Out of curiousity, when did it become the user's job to code in new features?
I use open source software where I feel it's the right tool for the job, I do not (can not) code. The bottom line is, as the developers' "customer" it is their job to make the software usable for their customers.
British Telecom's ISP blocks certain underage porn sites which are found on an IWF black list, however this is not a legal requirement by any means and AFAIK they are the only British ISP currently to do such a thing.
NTL's broadband internet via digital set top box used to use NAT and users were assigned a non-public IP, however this was "fixed" a few years ago. The actual boxes they use contain a fully DOCSIS compliant cable modem which is used for both ETV applications and your broadband connection.
I would however recommend an actual proper cable modem rather than via a set top box for the simple reason that digital TV services is not shall we say NTL's strongpoint.
Sounds precisely like how commonly used P2P software works at the moment. Except, you actually pay for content which would be illegal on other P2P apps - a novel concept, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
That said, their UBRs are already under a lot of pressure when it comes to the upload speeds and thus would require a *lot* of money to fit additional UBRs to cope with increased upload speeds - an investment which all things considered with NTL's financial position and strategy isn't exactly high on the priority list right now.
ex-NTL Techie. ;)
The only problem with this statement being that in my experience I've always found MS Office a very able set of programs, whereas it's "clone" OpenOffice is the office suite which tries so hard to be MS Office but fails in most respects.
Similar to yourself, I've also got the feeling I'll be a Mac owner pretty soon.
If this was to be implemented I don't see why it would only affect corporations and business entities. It would provide extra protection for GPL'd software copyright holders in the event of their copyright being infringed amongst others.
Must be the same kind of problem as the frequent "Service Unavailable" pages I get on Slashdot. ;)
"Limited" purely means the company in question has a limited liability of what each shareholder has invested into the business and nothing more.
With no copyright holders, code released as open source could freely be copied into proprietary software - that's right, companies such as Microsoft would be free to take whatever code from Linux they wanted and include it in a closed source product.
Like it or lump it, copyright infringement must be dealt with the same on all sides - if a GPL'd app owner's copyright is violated then quite rightly they should take what action they see necessary. And if a movie's copyright owner sees fit to take action against citizens who infringe upon their copyright then this is totally correct too.
Looking at Gmail, sure it's free of charge but there is the cost of privacy invasion in some people's eyes. I don't personally have a problem with that myself as Gmail is a nice little tool and worth the "cost" involved. And it really is the same with the high majority of services and products.
Using an offline example, commercial Digital Radio in the UK is completely free of charge, but the cost of broadcasting the stations is funded in the most part by advertisers.
Sorry if it takes a little bit of work, but to find out this information you'll have to type in a few search terms - I'll help give you a start.
Try: "mobile phone" +"virus"
You want a text editor? Buy a dedicated word processor.
You want to watch DVDs or other media? Buy a DVD player.
You want to send an e-mail? Buy a dedicated e-mailer.
So, based upon your way of thinking I'm assuming your above post was made via a WebTV or similar dedicated Internet-only terminal, right?
C'mon, you know and I know he's 100% wrong.
You see, the companies represented by organisations such as MPAA etc are rich companies and profit greatly from selling copies of their copyrighted material and as such that makes it absolutely acceptable for their material to be illegally copied whereas a company who infringes the copyright of an application licensed under the GPL is evil and has no right to infringe on copyrights in a similar manner
[/sarcasm]
Customers can now pay for a crippled version of the operating system with no media playback facilities or they can pay exactly the same price for a version which contains the best media player available for the Windows Operating System (IMO, of course).
Alternatively, they can choose one of the many Linux or BSD distributions.
They might even choose to put on IMO the best media available for Windows which is Windows Media Player.
That said, the article itself is a brilliant advert for FireFox and gives an excellent overview of the circumstances in which Internet Explorer overtook Netscape and how that compares to what is happening in the browser market right now.
And assuming NYTimes is not a technical journal (which I don't think it is) it doesn't have the problem of "preaching to the choir" as so many articles have had in the past.
Long live Firefox.
I'd suspect it was modded as redundant because it doesn't meet the Slashdot "groupthink" criteria and doesn't bash Microsoft.
And I have to say, I have the same experience. I run Win2K with mozilla as my browser and e-mail client and have _never_ had trouble. And that's not through lack of checking for it, or for lack of doing things that are typically seen as "risky" activities.
I have similar experiences too. Having decided not to run Linux for the timebeing due to usability issues which I don't feel have been solved to my satisfaction, I'm left with the choice of running Windows.
I've never encountered Virus's, Spyware, or the like.
Maybe I just know how to maintain my computer system?
I always thought the user type "Limited User" in Windows XP Home actually meant Limited User.
Care to enlighten us as to exactly what it means if not what it says?
The iPod was designed to play their DRM'd AAC files and MP3 files. There was never any intention of supporting other DRM schemes and therefore the removal of the ability to play Real's files would merely be classified as an optional bug fix.
1. Are these the only bugs to be found in the Linux kernel?
2. Now that these bugs have been identified, should these bugs be fixed would that mean that Linux itsself could truthfully be classified as "bug-free" or am I missing something?
Didn't anyone tell you that you actually need to pay for this feature?
So in that same vein when my Internet Explorer crashes you're suggesting Netscape/Mozilla is responsible?
If you call an application which regularly uses up 150MB RAM on my PC as "no bloat required" then sure I can see how you would make that assumption.
I use open source software where I feel it's the right tool for the job, I do not (can not) code. The bottom line is, as the developers' "customer" it is their job to make the software usable for their customers.
British Telecom's ISP blocks certain underage porn sites which are found on an IWF black list, however this is not a legal requirement by any means and AFAIK they are the only British ISP currently to do such a thing.
I would however recommend an actual proper cable modem rather than via a set top box for the simple reason that digital TV services is not shall we say NTL's strongpoint.
Sounds precisely like how commonly used P2P software works at the moment. Except, you actually pay for content which would be illegal on other P2P apps - a novel concept, eh?