Without copyright though closed source programs of any significant value won't remain closed source for long. It would be legal to decompile them directly (no cumbersome reverse engineering necessary), and relevant parts could be transplanted in software true to the ideals of the GPL easily enough -- (ie, no need to decompile a MP3 player completely, just the decoding/encoding parts can be transplanted in an open source player).
Granted, the GPL does make this easier for extensions on software already licensed under the GPL, but having no copyrights at all to worry about would pave the way for other means of providing free software.
I see NAT as a very workable solution and definitely donot see any major downsides to it at all. I donot want more than one machine addressable directly. I know that with IPv6 everything that NAT can do is possible with IPv6 as well. I just donot see NAT as being such a bad solution that it can be used as an argument to push for IPv6.
In the end, it will still be the same -- even if all my machines did have their own IP addresses, I'd be damned stupid to not set up one as a firewall/proxy for all the others. The end result is the same, you can only access one machine directly, and all the machines on the network go through the firewall/proxy with no client setup needed at all, just like it is now. Does it make initiating a connection from outside my network to one of the firewalled machines harder? Yes... exactly as I want it.
Well, it seems unlikely ISP's will be able to push through caps globally. There's plenty of countries with fierce competition between ISP's where there simply are no caps, prices keep going down, more and more services are offered and speed keeps going up. I highly doubt any country in say the EU could maintain draconian internet caps for long when its neighbours donot.
If however caps would be pushed through, then alternative networks will become interesting (at the moment, the internet is FAR better, so there's no need... yet). Such networks existed before the internet (bulletin board systems), and have cropped up in the form of city wide wifi networks (a few cities where I live have full coverage, and even bridges to the internet). I have no doubts that if the Internet would become a place where you can only do things endorsed by your local government (by restricting bandwidth or by brutal enforcement) that alternative networks will pop up.
If however caps eventually disappear globally, or enough countries have no caps, then eventually bandwidth will grow high enough to allow for networks that do their own (encrypted) routing like Freenet to operate as fast as we are used to now. That's really just a matter of time. We're currently stuck with ADSL in a lot of places making this impossible, but that will change once fiber gets rolled out to the door.
I pick d) -- healthy competition proves it is possible. It's not like the technology to move more data over the same lines hasn't improved over the years.
We have methods of helping retarded users - such as enforcing decent passwords, requiring passwords to be changed
I'm glad someone finally realized that "requiring passwords to be changed" is for retarded users. Nothing pisses me off more than to have to change my highly secure password because of some asinine policy.
Even if you can't infer it... I could call the bank, while at the same time calling you. If I relay their beeps and resulting sounds fast enough it might just work.
Nope, you are the one that is wrong, but mostly because you fail to realize how stupid Window's virtual memory handling really is.
Windows will push out programs and other data to swap that haven't been used in a while. It does this to free up more memory for caching of data you may need again (like data on disk, superfetch, whatever..). This MAY seem a prudent policy, however it fails to take into account that you'd need to incredibly smart to predict what the user may need again. In the optimal case, when it could predict your needs with 100% accuracy, yes, it would be a superb policy. In the real world however, I might get a phone call at a random time and I'll need to use some application I hadn't touched the last 5 hours -- which then needs to be swapped back in as it wasn't predicted.
This happens a lot when you like to leave systems running over night (giving background tasks like virus scanners, disk indexers, downloads etc ample time to push everything out to swap), and the only solution I've found is to simply put enough real memory into a system (it's cheap after all), and simply disable swap completely. This effectively disables Window's ability to be "smart" with memory and results in a system that always instantly responds to you.
Q: What happens if we just let our customers download as much as they want?
A: They could download 2 TB each month.
Q: 2 TB's?? Where would they store all that crap?
A: They can't unless they're just maxing the line and throwing it all away.
Q: So... if we'd let them download as much as they'd want, it's likely they'd stop downloading that much in a few months at most?
A: Yeah, that's likely, since they can't store that much data anyway.
Sooo... in my country, ISP's simply give you unlimited accounts, for the simple reason that most users simply cannot download and store that much data anyway -- sure, they were downloading left and right the first few months, but that changes rapidly. I'm a good example. I used to download 200+ GB a month, but I barely go over 100 GB these days -- I simply donot know what to do with it all.
Wow, nice try! I like how you twisted that from movies/music to software! Then again, I couldn't care less if someone pirates my software, being a smart nerd, I get paid by the hour.
That only works however if the bandwidth is actually costing them that much, and it isn't just pure greed. Otherwise people will flock to competitors that offer more for the same price. Where I live, there's massive competition amongst ISP's, and network operators are forced to share their network for reasonable prices. The result is that you can get internet cheap, and practically every ISP switched to unlimited plans.
No, you just run their javascript, the way it was intended to be. There's no reverse engineering involved. If they were smart (Hulu), they'd send different decoding function each time making it not possible to just recreate their function... if doing any of this can be considered smart.
I think it occurs quite a bit more often than once every few days. It is however rare that you'll notice since the data corrupted is often not in code that would lead to a crash, actual program code being such a small percentage of RAM usage these days. A flip in graphical data, sound or text data will very likely go unnoticed. Same goes for flips in code-paths that are rarely used.
I had something similar happen. I usually copy all my data with verify, especially when moving tons of data from one Raid array to another. I discovered that my stable server (without ECC RAM at the time) would on average create 1 bit error for every 100 GB of data copied. Since the data on hard drives themselves is protected by CRC checks, it had to be either a bus or the memory used as a buffer.
Since switching to ECC memory I never saw a verify error. I use ECC memory now in all machines and pay specific attention when buying a new mainboard that is supports ECC.
I'm sorry, it's still trivial to pick out the computers. Their answers don't flow nicely with the conversation, they completely ignore questions and try to change the topic by asking stupid questions themselves.
UPS are nice, and I use one too. It won't protect you from kernel crashes or direct hardware failures. It would still result in corrupted discs if some filesystem decided it did not yet have to write that 2 GB of cached data. Ext3 in ordered mode is still much preferred.
Ext3 in (the default) ordered mode will do fine. You will only lose data that was written at the moment of the crash, but you will never run into odd inconsistencies where meta-data says one thing, and the actual data says something else.
You may also want to turn of write caching on all hard disks.
You don't miss what you donot know about. Music companies will realize this soon enough. I don't watch MTV (not enough music), I don't listen to Top 40 music (not my taste), and donot ever listen to the radio (precious little stations that play what I like, and even less that don't have DJ's trying to boost their ego's). I couldn't even tell you what "big hits" were released the past 10 years.
Basically, I'm completely "out of the loop" as far as big music business is concerned. What new music I listen to generally is recommended by friends. And you know, it's really better this way.
Slashdot Mirror
Try: 255 in base 16
Result: 0xFF
I tried buying some T-shirts, but unfortunately, their Visa/Mastercard payment system is for some reason not accepting my CC.
Without copyright though closed source programs of any significant value won't remain closed source for long. It would be legal to decompile them directly (no cumbersome reverse engineering necessary), and relevant parts could be transplanted in software true to the ideals of the GPL easily enough -- (ie, no need to decompile a MP3 player completely, just the decoding/encoding parts can be transplanted in an open source player).
Granted, the GPL does make this easier for extensions on software already licensed under the GPL, but having no copyrights at all to worry about would pave the way for other means of providing free software.
The internet is not made out of pipes. If your ISP provides you with a slow link, I'd suggest going elsewhere as they're being greedy fucks.
That's ok, we'll have moved on to another protocol by then.
They should call the governments bluff, simple as that.
I see NAT as a very workable solution and definitely donot see any major downsides to it at all. I donot want more than one machine addressable directly. I know that with IPv6 everything that NAT can do is possible with IPv6 as well. I just donot see NAT as being such a bad solution that it can be used as an argument to push for IPv6.
In the end, it will still be the same -- even if all my machines did have their own IP addresses, I'd be damned stupid to not set up one as a firewall/proxy for all the others. The end result is the same, you can only access one machine directly, and all the machines on the network go through the firewall/proxy with no client setup needed at all, just like it is now. Does it make initiating a connection from outside my network to one of the firewalled machines harder? Yes... exactly as I want it.
I say we just nuke people that pirate stuff, surely that will scare them off!
Well, it seems unlikely ISP's will be able to push through caps globally. There's plenty of countries with fierce competition between ISP's where there simply are no caps, prices keep going down, more and more services are offered and speed keeps going up. I highly doubt any country in say the EU could maintain draconian internet caps for long when its neighbours donot.
If however caps would be pushed through, then alternative networks will become interesting (at the moment, the internet is FAR better, so there's no need... yet). Such networks existed before the internet (bulletin board systems), and have cropped up in the form of city wide wifi networks (a few cities where I live have full coverage, and even bridges to the internet). I have no doubts that if the Internet would become a place where you can only do things endorsed by your local government (by restricting bandwidth or by brutal enforcement) that alternative networks will pop up.
If however caps eventually disappear globally, or enough countries have no caps, then eventually bandwidth will grow high enough to allow for networks that do their own (encrypted) routing like Freenet to operate as fast as we are used to now. That's really just a matter of time. We're currently stuck with ADSL in a lot of places making this impossible, but that will change once fiber gets rolled out to the door.
I pick d) -- healthy competition proves it is possible. It's not like the technology to move more data over the same lines hasn't improved over the years.
I'm glad someone finally realized that "requiring passwords to be changed" is for retarded users. Nothing pisses me off more than to have to change my highly secure password because of some asinine policy.
Even if you can't infer it... I could call the bank, while at the same time calling you. If I relay their beeps and resulting sounds fast enough it might just work.
Nope, you are the one that is wrong, but mostly because you fail to realize how stupid Window's virtual memory handling really is.
Windows will push out programs and other data to swap that haven't been used in a while. It does this to free up more memory for caching of data you may need again (like data on disk, superfetch, whatever..). This MAY seem a prudent policy, however it fails to take into account that you'd need to incredibly smart to predict what the user may need again. In the optimal case, when it could predict your needs with 100% accuracy, yes, it would be a superb policy. In the real world however, I might get a phone call at a random time and I'll need to use some application I hadn't touched the last 5 hours -- which then needs to be swapped back in as it wasn't predicted.
This happens a lot when you like to leave systems running over night (giving background tasks like virus scanners, disk indexers, downloads etc ample time to push everything out to swap), and the only solution I've found is to simply put enough real memory into a system (it's cheap after all), and simply disable swap completely. This effectively disables Window's ability to be "smart" with memory and results in a system that always instantly responds to you.
Microsoft hands out the logo to drivers that cannot be used to bypass their DRM. That's the only reason for the logo and why they screen them.
ISP's in my country have realized the following:
Q: What happens if we just let our customers download as much as they want?
A: They could download 2 TB each month.
Q: 2 TB's?? Where would they store all that crap?
A: They can't unless they're just maxing the line and throwing it all away.
Q: So... if we'd let them download as much as they'd want, it's likely they'd stop downloading that much in a few months at most?
A: Yeah, that's likely, since they can't store that much data anyway.
Sooo... in my country, ISP's simply give you unlimited accounts, for the simple reason that most users simply cannot download and store that much data anyway -- sure, they were downloading left and right the first few months, but that changes rapidly. I'm a good example. I used to download 200+ GB a month, but I barely go over 100 GB these days -- I simply donot know what to do with it all.
Wow, nice try! I like how you twisted that from movies/music to software! Then again, I couldn't care less if someone pirates my software, being a smart nerd, I get paid by the hour.
Ah yes, the copper for cable/ADSL didn't exist yet before the internet.
That only works however if the bandwidth is actually costing them that much, and it isn't just pure greed. Otherwise people will flock to competitors that offer more for the same price. Where I live, there's massive competition amongst ISP's, and network operators are forced to share their network for reasonable prices. The result is that you can get internet cheap, and practically every ISP switched to unlimited plans.
No, you just run their javascript, the way it was intended to be. There's no reverse engineering involved. If they were smart (Hulu), they'd send different decoding function each time making it not possible to just recreate their function... if doing any of this can be considered smart.
I think it occurs quite a bit more often than once every few days. It is however rare that you'll notice since the data corrupted is often not in code that would lead to a crash, actual program code being such a small percentage of RAM usage these days. A flip in graphical data, sound or text data will very likely go unnoticed. Same goes for flips in code-paths that are rarely used.
I had something similar happen. I usually copy all my data with verify, especially when moving tons of data from one Raid array to another. I discovered that my stable server (without ECC RAM at the time) would on average create 1 bit error for every 100 GB of data copied. Since the data on hard drives themselves is protected by CRC checks, it had to be either a bus or the memory used as a buffer.
Since switching to ECC memory I never saw a verify error. I use ECC memory now in all machines and pay specific attention when buying a new mainboard that is supports ECC.
I'm sorry, it's still trivial to pick out the computers. Their answers don't flow nicely with the conversation, they completely ignore questions and try to change the topic by asking stupid questions themselves.
BTW, who is Sarah Palin?
UPS are nice, and I use one too. It won't protect you from kernel crashes or direct hardware failures. It would still result in corrupted discs if some filesystem decided it did not yet have to write that 2 GB of cached data. Ext3 in ordered mode is still much preferred.
Ext3 in (the default) ordered mode will do fine. You will only lose data that was written at the moment of the crash, but you will never run into odd inconsistencies where meta-data says one thing, and the actual data says something else.
You may also want to turn of write caching on all hard disks.
You don't miss what you donot know about. Music companies will realize this soon enough. I don't watch MTV (not enough music), I don't listen to Top 40 music (not my taste), and donot ever listen to the radio (precious little stations that play what I like, and even less that don't have DJ's trying to boost their ego's). I couldn't even tell you what "big hits" were released the past 10 years.
Basically, I'm completely "out of the loop" as far as big music business is concerned. What new music I listen to generally is recommended by friends.
And you know, it's really better this way.