Since when does wireless network = open file shares? That's not even a default configuration on Windows (though some OEMs change things in their images which do basically leave it open).
Anyways, if it's a whole-building network, as some comments have implied (too lazy to RTFA) and they're not subnetting each user separately, the situation is exactly the same when Joe Moron plugs his PC directly in to the cable in their apartmentm just like what occured on older cable modem systems..
Which is why I put in the caveat about having a decent connection. With a 10mbit cable at work and a combination of 8mbit cable and 100mbit to campus in my apartment, it takes more time to watch than to download. If it was possible to stream multipart RARs and parcheck on the fly, Usenet would be like Video-On-Demand.
For the most part nowadays DVD rips are quite good quality and come with full 5.1 or greater soundtracks. Quality is no longer an issue.
Convenience is the same. Between DivX/XviD-ready DVD players, Media Center PCs, and modded game consoles, there's no loss. Hell, a MCE box or Xbox running XBMC is more convenient, because you don't have to deal with discs EVER. Grab remote, click, watch. All from a hard drive or server machine which could hold hundreds or thousands of movies.
Price obviously there's no challenge.
I can see seeking DVD extra features and occasionally interesting things bundled with a special edition DVD release, but price, convenience, and quality all go in favor of illegal downloading as long as you've got a decent connection.
If the studios offered something which could match the quality and convenience, while having a reasonable price, I'd go for it. It's never going to happen though because convenience as I see it (play anywhere with no fuss) and DRM are inherently incompatible, and the studios have their heads stuck so far up their DRM-loving asses to see what a flawed idea it is.
have you ever looked up procedure in Chiltons and found it, only to find out later that its instructions were completely (or even maliciously) wrong?
Yes. I have both the Chiltons and Haynes manuals for my '93 Crown Vic, and the Chiltons guide for removing the dashboard was not just missing information, it was completely wrong. As others have noted, this is because they try to cover too many models with one book. The books I have cover every Crown Vic amd Grand Marquis from the late '80s (302 or 351 pushrod V8, AOD, "Box" body) through the mid-90s (4.6L SOHC V8, AOD/AODE/4R70W, "Aero" body) and even on to the first version of the current model (4.6L "PI" V8, 4R70W, "Modern Aero" body). I'm sure there's a revision on the market now that adds the current models of the "Modern Aero" models with a different frame, suspension, steering system, and now an updated tranny.
IIRC, Core 2 desktop chips are in the LGA775 formfactor, where your Mini uses the Pentium M's modified Socket 478. Core 2 mobile chips won't work either, they're supposed to be coming with a new socket.
In which case, I'll be more than happy to support them. I came to my current skepticism based on past performance, not only with PS2 Linux but with all the proprietary garbage Sony's thrown at the digital media world in the last two decades, it's not like them to do something as pro-consumer-choice as to load a proper Linux on the PS3.
If they do however, I shall be pleasantly surprised.
I never said they're working against it, just based on experience from the PS2, it's my opinion at this time that Sony's only throwing in Linux support on the PS3 as a hollow gesture to the tech community rather than something they really care about and will support.
Why work so hard to protect the ads? When I DVR an episode of Futurama off Cartoon Network, I skip right over the commercials (well, except the usually amusing Adult Swim "bumps"). Why shouldn't I be given the same flexibility with another medium?
I have a 250GB system drive and 2x250GB in RAID0 as a media dump. I can install games and toss huge RARs on the RAID, and if a drive bites the dust so be it.
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Please tell me where this exception for "limited release experimental binaries" exists.
If they give me binaries, they're obligated under the terms of the license to give me source as well. No exceptions. If I go to Sveasoft, create a new account there, pay for a subscription, and download whatever the latest version of Talisman is, I will not recieve source, nor will I be offered it in any way.
I can get source for Talisman 1.05, and I can get source for Alchemy Final, but if I download Talisman 1.00 - 1.04 or 1.06 - current, they will not give me source, and thus are in violation.
When the FSF looked in to Sveasoft, they were still distributing source with their binaries, and the complaint was that they were terminating the paid accounts of users who exersized their right to distribute it. In that case, they were perfectly in the right. While going against the spirit of the GPL, legally they were spotless. Many kernel developers agreed with this.
Here is the exact wording of the FSF's reply, copied straight from the Sveasoft forums:
I see no problems with this model. If the software is licensed under the GPL, and you distribute the source code with the binaries (as opposed to making an offer for source code), you are under no obligation to supply future releases to anyone.
Please be clear that the subscription is for the support and distribution and not for a license.
Peter Brown GPL Compliance Manager Free Software Foundation
The problem now is that they've stopped regularly offering source for the development release. Alchemy source releases were spotty even for paid subscribers throughought the "beta" process, and Talisman has so far only had one source release out of at least 6 binary versions. When Talisman 1.05 came out with source, they claimed that source releases would be more predictable, but since then there has not been another.
The FSF won't take another look at Sveasoft, because they consider it a closed case. They don't seem to understand that the situation has changed since then.
I recommend you do a bit of reading to fill yourself in on what's going on in the WRT world:
It required some strange TSR to work with modern (2000) video cards, but it just kept working. Even after I switched to WinXP, I was able to load the software on to a Windows 3.1 machine I had laying around to keep updating it.
To this day I still have yet to find a PDA watch which works as nicely as that one.
If they give me a binary and do not make the corresponding source available, that is a GPL violation. Plain and simple.
This is exactly the case if someone acquires a paid membership to their site. You get all the binaries you want, but no source. If you ask for source, you get brushed off or banned.
and yes, I have repeatedly stated this FACT in public, but that is not why I was banned. I operate two mirrors of TheIndividual's Sveasoft firmware repository, which is completely legal (remember, GPL....they can charge for it but can't stop me from giving it away for free). My mirrors haven't been updated in nearly a year because DD-WRT surpassed Sveasoft, but I made it no secret on many non-Sveasoft WRT boards that I hosted those.
You seem to be implying however that I was a dick on the Sveasoft boards or something of that nature, which is not true. I never once posted there, and in fact only visited the boards 3-4 times in the year that my account was active.
The thing is, these numbers are not out of line. We know what the Pentium M is capable of, we know what the Core Duo is capable of. The Core 2 chips are just evolutions of the Core chips, and from what I've seen they're performing moderately faster than the Cores, which themselves put up quite a good fight against the AMDs.
I'm still sticking with Opteron dual cores, because I use the memory performance that a dedicated controller gives me, but all I'm trying to say here is that the Core/Core2 chips are putting Intel back in the game, where P4 had them way out in left field.
I love my AMDs, but the Core 2 Duo is making a better showing in preliminary benchmarks than the X2. Remember, the P4's NetBurst architecture was what made it such an abortion. Pentium M, Core, and Core 2 are all evolutions of the Pentium III's "P6" architecture, which was a much better competitor with AMD.
Don't maximize your browser window when reading large amounts of text, such as Slashdot. It's hard to read extremely wide pages anyways.
I have a Dell 2005FPW, and I keep my firefox window taking up 2/3 the screen width, with an IRC window right below it and IMs taking up the rest. Works great for multitasking. I never did this up until a few months ago, when I had a Powerbook for about 2 months and got hooked on the not maximizing thing.
Verizon. That right there is your problem. I know this because I'm stuck with them.
Right now, I'm provisioned for 3.0/768 according to the Verizon second-level tech I was talking to earlier today. My modem (Westell DSL/router/802.11g total POS) is reporting sync at 864/160, which is the same speed I've seen for the year and a half that I've had the service.
Speakeasy comes back with 708/121 when I run their test, which is reasonable considering TCP overhead and the fact that I'm on a wireless connection right now.
Here's where it gets interesting: Verizon offers a slower plan (768/128) which is roughly what I'm getting right now anyways, for less than half what I'm paying. The catch: Supposedly it's not offered on my CO. WTF? I can see a CO not supporting higher speeds, but I've seen my modem sync as low as 160/64 when I had a wire go bad, so it definately supports lower speeds, they just don't want to offer it to me.
As the AC mentioned, the FSF judgement was on a related but different issue where they were pulling subscriptions from people who shared their "beta" versions (a.k.a. current).
I've been banned from the Sveasoft forums, even with no posts at all, just for being a member at the DD-WRT forum, so I can't go do this myself, but if you're a member there just go ahead and ask for source, specifically mentionning their GPL obligations to provide it. See how fast the thread disappears and you get banned.
We've been through this quite a few times here, but for the benefit of those who missed the great Sveasoft debates, here's a quick summary:
1. Linksys releases GPL code for WRT54G routers 2. People start modifying this code 3. Sveasoft forms a community around a particulat "distro" 4. Sveasoft starts charging 5. Sveasoft gets pissed that people are exercising their legal right to share the GPLed software for free 6. Sveasoft cuts back on source releases, bans anyone who even mentions the GPL on their forums 7. Sveasoft stops source releases entirely for "test" versions (a.k.a. current, release is the old outdated version) 8. DD-WRT project starts as fork of last Sveasoft source releases 9. Sveasoft threatens DD-WRT, calls it a ripoff of their product 10. DD-WRT developers and community collectively laugh, continue developing and releasing both binaries and source regularly 11. Sveasoft crawls back in to a hole
Basically, don't use Sveasoft, and definately don't pay for it. They are repeat GPL violators and do not in any way support the WRT community. Use HyperWRT for basic features, DD-WRT for a fully-featured mega-distro, and OpenWRT for a top-end complete custom build.
Personally, I run DD-WRT v23 SP1 VoIP edition, and it does an excellent job of both connecting my Xbox to XLink Kai and handling QoS for my IP phones, not to mention all the neat wireless tricks.
People like a scapegoat, and it's not politically correct to blame the parents (and some times it's not even accurate, since anyone can snap for no reason).
Slashdot Mirror
Since when does wireless network = open file shares? That's not even a default configuration on Windows (though some OEMs change things in their images which do basically leave it open).
Anyways, if it's a whole-building network, as some comments have implied (too lazy to RTFA) and they're not subnetting each user separately, the situation is exactly the same when Joe Moron plugs his PC directly in to the cable in their apartmentm just like what occured on older cable modem systems..
Which is why I put in the caveat about having a decent connection. With a 10mbit cable at work and a combination of 8mbit cable and 100mbit to campus in my apartment, it takes more time to watch than to download. If it was possible to stream multipart RARs and parcheck on the fly, Usenet would be like Video-On-Demand.
For the most part nowadays DVD rips are quite good quality and come with full 5.1 or greater soundtracks. Quality is no longer an issue.
Convenience is the same. Between DivX/XviD-ready DVD players, Media Center PCs, and modded game consoles, there's no loss. Hell, a MCE box or Xbox running XBMC is more convenient, because you don't have to deal with discs EVER. Grab remote, click, watch. All from a hard drive or server machine which could hold hundreds or thousands of movies.
Price obviously there's no challenge.
I can see seeking DVD extra features and occasionally interesting things bundled with a special edition DVD release, but price, convenience, and quality all go in favor of illegal downloading as long as you've got a decent connection.
If the studios offered something which could match the quality and convenience, while having a reasonable price, I'd go for it. It's never going to happen though because convenience as I see it (play anywhere with no fuss) and DRM are inherently incompatible, and the studios have their heads stuck so far up their DRM-loving asses to see what a flawed idea it is.
Yes. I have both the Chiltons and Haynes manuals for my '93 Crown Vic, and the Chiltons guide for removing the dashboard was not just missing information, it was completely wrong. As others have noted, this is because they try to cover too many models with one book. The books I have cover every Crown Vic amd Grand Marquis from the late '80s (302 or 351 pushrod V8, AOD, "Box" body) through the mid-90s (4.6L SOHC V8, AOD/AODE/4R70W, "Aero" body) and even on to the first version of the current model (4.6L "PI" V8, 4R70W, "Modern Aero" body). I'm sure there's a revision on the market now that adds the current models of the "Modern Aero" models with a different frame, suspension, steering system, and now an updated tranny.
Right, but they tried to pull some shit with patents.
IIRC, Core 2 desktop chips are in the LGA775 formfactor, where your Mini uses the Pentium M's modified Socket 478. Core 2 mobile chips won't work either, they're supposed to be coming with a new socket.
In which case, I'll be more than happy to support them. I came to my current skepticism based on past performance, not only with PS2 Linux but with all the proprietary garbage Sony's thrown at the digital media world in the last two decades, it's not like them to do something as pro-consumer-choice as to load a proper Linux on the PS3.
If they do however, I shall be pleasantly surprised.
I never said they're working against it, just based on experience from the PS2, it's my opinion at this time that Sony's only throwing in Linux support on the PS3 as a hollow gesture to the tech community rather than something they really care about and will support.
If you ever tried to work with PS2 Linux as shipped by Sony, you'd know how little this really matters.
PS2 Linux only became really usable when the users fixed it up. Sony didn't give a rat's ass about it.
IIRC, it was Sharman Networks who brought shitware to Kazaa, not the original authors who went on to create Skype.
Not that I'm a real fan of Skype (I work for a VoIP company, so they're a competitor).
Why work so hard to protect the ads? When I DVR an episode of Futurama off Cartoon Network, I skip right over the commercials (well, except the usually amusing Adult Swim "bumps"). Why shouldn't I be given the same flexibility with another medium?
Yes.
RAID0 is for when you just don't care.
I have a 250GB system drive and 2x250GB in RAID0 as a media dump. I can install games and toss huge RARs on the RAID, and if a drive bites the dust so be it.
Please tell me where this exception for "limited release experimental binaries" exists.
If they give me binaries, they're obligated under the terms of the license to give me source as well. No exceptions. If I go to Sveasoft, create a new account there, pay for a subscription, and download whatever the latest version of Talisman is, I will not recieve source, nor will I be offered it in any way.
I can get source for Talisman 1.05, and I can get source for Alchemy Final, but if I download Talisman 1.00 - 1.04 or 1.06 - current, they will not give me source, and thus are in violation.
Here is the exact wording of the FSF's reply, copied straight from the Sveasoft forums:
The problem now is that they've stopped regularly offering source for the development release. Alchemy source releases were spotty even for paid subscribers throughought the "beta" process, and Talisman has so far only had one source release out of at least 6 binary versions. When Talisman 1.05 came out with source, they claimed that source releases would be more predictable, but since then there has not been another.
The FSF won't take another look at Sveasoft, because they consider it a closed case. They don't seem to understand that the situation has changed since then.
I recommend you do a bit of reading to fill yourself in on what's going on in the WRT world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveasoft#GPL_dispute
http://slashdot.org/~TheIndividual/journal/
I liked my datalink watch...
It required some strange TSR to work with modern (2000) video cards, but it just kept working. Even after I switched to WinXP, I was able to load the software on to a Windows 3.1 machine I had laying around to keep updating it.
To this day I still have yet to find a PDA watch which works as nicely as that one.
If they give me a binary and do not make the corresponding source available, that is a GPL violation. Plain and simple.
This is exactly the case if someone acquires a paid membership to their site. You get all the binaries you want, but no source. If you ask for source, you get brushed off or banned.
and yes, I have repeatedly stated this FACT in public, but that is not why I was banned. I operate two mirrors of TheIndividual's Sveasoft firmware repository, which is completely legal (remember, GPL....they can charge for it but can't stop me from giving it away for free). My mirrors haven't been updated in nearly a year because DD-WRT surpassed Sveasoft, but I made it no secret on many non-Sveasoft WRT boards that I hosted those.
You seem to be implying however that I was a dick on the Sveasoft boards or something of that nature, which is not true. I never once posted there, and in fact only visited the boards 3-4 times in the year that my account was active.
The thing is, these numbers are not out of line. We know what the Pentium M is capable of, we know what the Core Duo is capable of. The Core 2 chips are just evolutions of the Core chips, and from what I've seen they're performing moderately faster than the Cores, which themselves put up quite a good fight against the AMDs.
I'm still sticking with Opteron dual cores, because I use the memory performance that a dedicated controller gives me, but all I'm trying to say here is that the Core/Core2 chips are putting Intel back in the game, where P4 had them way out in left field.
yup, that got me too.
I love my AMDs, but the Core 2 Duo is making a better showing in preliminary benchmarks than the X2. Remember, the P4's NetBurst architecture was what made it such an abortion. Pentium M, Core, and Core 2 are all evolutions of the Pentium III's "P6" architecture, which was a much better competitor with AMD.
Don't maximize your browser window when reading large amounts of text, such as Slashdot. It's hard to read extremely wide pages anyways.
I have a Dell 2005FPW, and I keep my firefox window taking up 2/3 the screen width, with an IRC window right below it and IMs taking up the rest. Works great for multitasking. I never did this up until a few months ago, when I had a Powerbook for about 2 months and got hooked on the not maximizing thing.
Verizon. That right there is your problem. I know this because I'm stuck with them.
Right now, I'm provisioned for 3.0/768 according to the Verizon second-level tech I was talking to earlier today. My modem (Westell DSL/router/802.11g total POS) is reporting sync at 864/160, which is the same speed I've seen for the year and a half that I've had the service.
Speakeasy comes back with 708/121 when I run their test, which is reasonable considering TCP overhead and the fact that I'm on a wireless connection right now.
Here's where it gets interesting: Verizon offers a slower plan (768/128) which is roughly what I'm getting right now anyways, for less than half what I'm paying. The catch: Supposedly it's not offered on my CO. WTF? I can see a CO not supporting higher speeds, but I've seen my modem sync as low as 160/64 when I had a wire go bad, so it definately supports lower speeds, they just don't want to offer it to me.
As the AC mentioned, the FSF judgement was on a related but different issue where they were pulling subscriptions from people who shared their "beta" versions (a.k.a. current).
I've been banned from the Sveasoft forums, even with no posts at all, just for being a member at the DD-WRT forum, so I can't go do this myself, but if you're a member there just go ahead and ask for source, specifically mentionning their GPL obligations to provide it. See how fast the thread disappears and you get banned.
gah, no sveasoft!
We've been through this quite a few times here, but for the benefit of those who missed the great Sveasoft debates, here's a quick summary:
1. Linksys releases GPL code for WRT54G routers
2. People start modifying this code
3. Sveasoft forms a community around a particulat "distro"
4. Sveasoft starts charging
5. Sveasoft gets pissed that people are exercising their legal right to share the GPLed software for free
6. Sveasoft cuts back on source releases, bans anyone who even mentions the GPL on their forums
7. Sveasoft stops source releases entirely for "test" versions (a.k.a. current, release is the old outdated version)
8. DD-WRT project starts as fork of last Sveasoft source releases
9. Sveasoft threatens DD-WRT, calls it a ripoff of their product
10. DD-WRT developers and community collectively laugh, continue developing and releasing both binaries and source regularly
11. Sveasoft crawls back in to a hole
Basically, don't use Sveasoft, and definately don't pay for it. They are repeat GPL violators and do not in any way support the WRT community. Use HyperWRT for basic features, DD-WRT for a fully-featured mega-distro, and OpenWRT for a top-end complete custom build.
Personally, I run DD-WRT v23 SP1 VoIP edition, and it does an excellent job of both connecting my Xbox to XLink Kai and handling QoS for my IP phones, not to mention all the neat wireless tricks.
People like a scapegoat, and it's not politically correct to blame the parents (and some times it's not even accurate, since anyone can snap for no reason).