Someone on Google saw some new Internet service and said "I wish I had $0.01 for each typo the teens make." Someone else said "You know, that's a really, really good idea. Let's do it."
Windows is notoriously reluctant to invalidate caches to free RAM for applications. I don't know if Win7 fixed that, but XP would much rather send an idle app to swap than free some disk buffers. That's why switching swap off entirely tended to speed it up so much - it was forced not to swap out any active data and free up buffers instead.
This is a situation identical to some of the "multi-function" printer+scanner devices that require you to buy ink refill if you want to use the scanner.
That doesn't increase difficulty of writing a game that can run either on one or on multiple cores. It's the same difficulty as running it on multiple cores only, which is obviously higher than running it on one core only.
Goddamnit Dwarf Fortress. It could really, really use multiple cores to handle physics. A good enemy flooding system based on a dam and an artificial lake will hog the fastest CPU.
Actually, you just make a multi-threaded program and then set specified threads affinity to available CPUs or run them all on one if only one is available. No real difference here. Setting a thread affinity is one library call. Examining the number of cores and rudimentary thread distribution algorithm would be maybe 200 lines of code.
Obviously, it's very difficult to distribute the load *equally* between cores. You can split AI thread from, physics, data preloaders, networking, input handling, audio, CPU-side gfx, scripting engine etc. But each of them has a different load and you can only roughly estimate it beforehand, so using multiple cores optimally is quite hard. Still, using them to gain the upper hand over single-core is quite easy.
You lack the first D for a real DDoS. Thing is DDoS uses multiple source hosts without their owners' consent. I don't think 1000 people launching your script on your request counts as real DDoS.
Of course ISP can act on such notice. Then you can sue them for violating user agreement, by taking down lawful content. Also, this leverages your claim of damages for unlawful takedown.
It is no longer a "small claim" unless you intend to be washed away with warm urine. Ruling of a small claim court can be safely ignored by either side of the conflict with no consequences whatsoever. Which means if the ISP and the Label blatantly ignored the law, they will ignore the ruling just the same. You need to take this to a real court. (the only thing you can do about your opponent ignoring a small claims court decision is to take it to normal court which will pretty much ignore the small claims case and restart it from scratch.)
And then you must be expert on copyright law and court procedures yourself or hire one not to get eaten by experts on copyright law of the opposing side (and they have some badass ones.) Because a good defense lawyer won't even allow the case to reach the verdict phase, getting your claim thrown out of court over technicalities or muddled past its expiration date in bureaucracy, motions, appeals and delays.
Actually, if you know for a fact you are on the fair side, you can just repost the content taken down. The only action the labels are allowed to take then is to take it to the court (and lose). Of course they will instead issue another DMCA takedown notice, for the very same content, which they are not allowed to do. And upon second unlawful takedown of your content you are free to sue THEM, and demand serious damages. Of course while the law is on your side, the money is not, you still have to pay all the attorney fees and so on, and this can get very costly to get through. And of course your papers need to be in perfect order.
Yep, DMCA is one-shot (for a specific sender-infringer-content combo). The same label is not allowed to DMCA the same blogger for the same song twice.
...as long as there are no repercussions for frivolous DMCA.
The only provision limiting the scope in DMCA is to own copyright on whatever you claim someone infringes upon.
So, I have copyright on MyDumbSong. And I am totally free to file DMCA against _anyone_ and everyone_ and _anything_ and _everything_, claiming it infringes on my rights to MyDumbSong. And then it's their burden to prove they don't. And taking content down is so much easier than proving its legality.
Just think how much would the alternative cost Microsoft in the long run.
You don't just do stuff to gain profit, you do everything to keep the competition from catching up. If you can keep (incompetent) domination of a sector at a 5% loss, you're better off if you allow a competent competitor to gain this domination (and earn lots), and then let them use their profits to dominate you in domains where you profit.
Oh, I prefer to respectfully decline to accept the court's final decision to put me in prison for 10 years. On basis that I don't like the decision and don't want to go to prison.
But for commercial use, it just isn't always optimal.
We're not talking about COMMERCIAL. We're talking about GOVERNMENTAL.
In this case cost is a far secondary issue.
1) while License is usually cheaper than full IP rights for one item, when it comes to deployment of thousands it's often cheaper to purchase IP rights and be free to deploy as much as you wish (one per every citizen of the country...?) Also, starting your own support dept. in this case may be desirable, especially if the problem is in the software and the vendor is not willing to fix it.
2) Cheaper. Safer? More available? Without creating dangerous lock-in? Without danger of losing backwards compatibility?
3) Yes. It doesn't have to be gratis. It must be open.
4) The life cycle of a well established product ends when the vendor says so, and that's the final end. The life cycle of an open-source product ends when you're not willing to support (pay for) its development. Nobody can force you to upgrade if the current version is better than the new one.
5) A lot of software could be written for the cost of licenses of purchasing software that is already written. It's taxpayer's money better spent if the taxpayer gets a piece of software they can use in return, than if a foreign firm gets to sell some licenses.
As usually, price is the only criterion. And I remember a letter of prime minister of Peru to Microsoft. He explained clearly and plainly that the TCO was moot. It doesn't matter if the analysis is good or bad. It matters that proprietary software is not suitable for government.
Government must not allow for vendor lock-in. It must not create a situation where their data is hostage to a private company.
Government must be transparent in all its processes. Their software included, being open for public scrutiny.
Government must use secure software. No black-box encryption can be considered secure.
Government's duty is to be as accessible to wide public as possible. That means, amongst all, open API for their services, and software available to all citizens no matter what their material status. No paywall of any kind to let only the rich have their way.
OSS is not a choice of "cheaper". It's the choice of "doing things the right way".
is not to gather registrations. It's "we've caught 20 members of a terrorist organization. We pressed charges against 12, we're likely to get another 4 sentenced, but there are these 4 guys about whom we have nothing. They joined recently, didn't get to do anything wrong, didn't participate in the last action, even in planning it, and were generally on their trial period in the organization. There is nothing we can do, we have to let them go."
This way they can sentence them to 10 years for failure to register with secretary of state... or at least that's what they think.
Note peacefully but not lawfully. They peacefully opposed the law, and intentionally violated it taking full burden of consequences. The crimes were non-violent crimes against tax laws and public order, but they were crimes. That is, they would fall both under constitutional law to peacefully assemble and this abomination to register, because of criminal intent.
Of course knowing them, they would register by millions, overriding the office with registration papers.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone on Google saw some new Internet service and said "I wish I had $0.01 for each typo the teens make."
Someone else said "You know, that's a really, really good idea. Let's do it."
Windows is notoriously reluctant to invalidate caches to free RAM for applications. I don't know if Win7 fixed that, but XP would much rather send an idle app to swap than free some disk buffers. That's why switching swap off entirely tended to speed it up so much - it was forced not to swap out any active data and free up buffers instead.
This is a situation identical to some of the "multi-function" printer+scanner devices that require you to buy ink refill if you want to use the scanner.
That doesn't increase difficulty of writing a game that can run either on one or on multiple cores. It's the same difficulty as running it on multiple cores only, which is obviously higher than running it on one core only.
Goddamnit Dwarf Fortress. It could really, really use multiple cores to handle physics. A good enemy flooding system based on a dam and an artificial lake will hog the fastest CPU.
Actually, you just make a multi-threaded program and then set specified threads affinity to available CPUs or run them all on one if only one is available. No real difference here. Setting a thread affinity is one library call. Examining the number of cores and rudimentary thread distribution algorithm would be maybe 200 lines of code.
Obviously, it's very difficult to distribute the load *equally* between cores. You can split AI thread from, physics, data preloaders, networking, input handling, audio, CPU-side gfx, scripting engine etc. But each of them has a different load and you can only roughly estimate it beforehand, so using multiple cores optimally is quite hard. Still, using them to gain the upper hand over single-core is quite easy.
...and the fastest modern CPU is still not fast enough for another 2%.
especially for gfx cards (the discrepancies between performance and price are enormous) and hard disks (3D, with price, speed and size)
...it would be opposite if he was proposing a ban on motorcycles.
You lack the first D for a real DDoS.
Thing is DDoS uses multiple source hosts without their owners' consent. I don't think 1000 people launching your script on your request counts as real DDoS.
Say what you want, this winter is twice as cold as the previous one.
(...now twist your head around this.)
Of course ISP can act on such notice. Then you can sue them for violating user agreement, by taking down lawful content. Also, this leverages your claim of damages for unlawful takedown.
It is no longer a "small claim" unless you intend to be washed away with warm urine. Ruling of a small claim court can be safely ignored by either side of the conflict with no consequences whatsoever. Which means if the ISP and the Label blatantly ignored the law, they will ignore the ruling just the same. You need to take this to a real court. (the only thing you can do about your opponent ignoring a small claims court decision is to take it to normal court which will pretty much ignore the small claims case and restart it from scratch.)
And then you must be expert on copyright law and court procedures yourself or hire one not to get eaten by experts on copyright law of the opposing side (and they have some badass ones.) Because a good defense lawyer won't even allow the case to reach the verdict phase, getting your claim thrown out of court over technicalities or muddled past its expiration date in bureaucracy, motions, appeals and delays.
Actually, if you know for a fact you are on the fair side, you can just repost the content taken down. The only action the labels are allowed to take then is to take it to the court (and lose). Of course they will instead issue another DMCA takedown notice, for the very same content, which they are not allowed to do. And upon second unlawful takedown of your content you are free to sue THEM, and demand serious damages. Of course while the law is on your side, the money is not, you still have to pay all the attorney fees and so on, and this can get very costly to get through. And of course your papers need to be in perfect order.
Yep, DMCA is one-shot (for a specific sender-infringer-content combo). The same label is not allowed to DMCA the same blogger for the same song twice.
...as long as there are no repercussions for frivolous DMCA.
The only provision limiting the scope in DMCA is to own copyright on whatever you claim someone infringes upon.
So, I have copyright on MyDumbSong. And I am totally free to file DMCA against _anyone_ and everyone_ and _anything_ and _everything_, claiming it infringes on my rights to MyDumbSong. And then it's their burden to prove they don't. And taking content down is so much easier than proving its legality.
As always, you forget Business is War.
Just think how much would the alternative cost Microsoft in the long run.
You don't just do stuff to gain profit, you do everything to keep the competition from catching up. If you can keep (incompetent) domination of a sector at a 5% loss, you're better off if you allow a competent competitor to gain this domination (and earn lots), and then let them use their profits to dominate you in domains where you profit.
...because I'm pretty sure this will only boost piracy...
oh, this is not about CounterStrike?
/tinfoilhat
Dropbox works on Linux.
Ubuntuone doesn't work on Windows.
No cross-platform support = showstopper.
Oh, I prefer to respectfully decline to accept the court's final decision to put me in prison for 10 years. On basis that I don't like the decision and don't want to go to prison.
see the AC post above yours, it's it.
But for commercial use, it just isn't always optimal.
We're not talking about COMMERCIAL.
We're talking about GOVERNMENTAL.
In this case cost is a far secondary issue.
1) while License is usually cheaper than full IP rights for one item, when it comes to deployment of thousands it's often cheaper to purchase IP rights and be free to deploy as much as you wish (one per every citizen of the country...?) Also, starting your own support dept. in this case may be desirable, especially if the problem is in the software and the vendor is not willing to fix it.
2) Cheaper. Safer? More available? Without creating dangerous lock-in? Without danger of losing backwards compatibility?
3) Yes. It doesn't have to be gratis. It must be open.
4) The life cycle of a well established product ends when the vendor says so, and that's the final end. The life cycle of an open-source product ends when you're not willing to support (pay for) its development. Nobody can force you to upgrade if the current version is better than the new one.
5) A lot of software could be written for the cost of licenses of purchasing software that is already written. It's taxpayer's money better spent if the taxpayer gets a piece of software they can use in return, than if a foreign firm gets to sell some licenses.
As usually, price is the only criterion. And I remember a letter of prime minister of Peru to Microsoft. He explained clearly and plainly that the TCO was moot. It doesn't matter if the analysis is good or bad. It matters that proprietary software is not suitable for government.
Government must not allow for vendor lock-in. It must not create a situation where their data is hostage to a private company.
Government must be transparent in all its processes. Their software included, being open for public scrutiny.
Government must use secure software. No black-box encryption can be considered secure.
Government's duty is to be as accessible to wide public as possible. That means, amongst all, open API for their services, and software available to all citizens no matter what their material status. No paywall of any kind to let only the rich have their way.
OSS is not a choice of "cheaper". It's the choice of "doing things the right way".
is not to gather registrations. It's "we've caught 20 members of a terrorist organization. We pressed charges against 12, we're likely to get another 4 sentenced, but there are these 4 guys about whom we have nothing. They joined recently, didn't get to do anything wrong, didn't participate in the last action, even in planning it, and were generally on their trial period in the organization. There is nothing we can do, we have to let them go."
This way they can sentence them to 10 years for failure to register with secretary of state... or at least that's what they think.
Note peacefully but not lawfully. They peacefully opposed the law, and intentionally violated it taking full burden of consequences. The crimes were non-violent crimes against tax laws and public order, but they were crimes. That is, they would fall both under constitutional law to peacefully assemble and this abomination to register, because of criminal intent.
Of course knowing them, they would register by millions, overriding the office with registration papers.