True, a war was needed there. However, a war was only needed because Germany invaded another country, after which a defensive war against them was justified. This is exactly the same reasoning that justified the previous Gulf War. The difference this time is that Irak didn't invade anyone. While they might have been anxious to do so, they weren't exactly in a position, since their military force is now much weaker than it was 12 years ago. This time, America and Britain are invading (yes, invading) another country, where a large part of the population does not support them. Can't say I blame them either, because you generally don't much appreciate the guys dropping bombs on your head, even if it's for your own good.
Agreed, I'm downloading as we speak at the full 3Mb/s that my DSL line supports. I've been pretty satisfied with 9.0 so far, since it was the first distro that got my USB speedtouch modem working without too much hassle. There were a few minor bumps on the road, but hey, I learned a lot about Linux in fixing them. I have great expectations of the 9.1, let's just hope I'm not dissapointed.
We'll have to see how it turns out offcourse, but apparently they switched delivery services to FedEx (forgot what the name of the previous on was). As far as my experience goes, FedEx should be fairly reliable (if somewhat expensive). They had too many problems with their previous contract. Let's hope that things work better this time around.
After having read the article, I'd say that perhaps the biggest achievement wasn't the huge transfer rate, but the high efficiency. Apparently standard TCP coupled with antiquated congestion control methods waste two thirds of bandwidth, and current methods to get around that cause problems for other users. The new protocol had an efficiency of around 90 percent. I'm assuming here (but I could be entirely wrong, as the article does not explain it), that the rest of the bandwidth (two thirds in the first case, 10 percent in the second), just goes to waste. Perhaps it represents packet loss, meaning packets that are sent, and thus consume bandwidth, but that get corrupted or thrown away somewhere halfway.
Any enlightenment here would be appreciated. Anyway, being able to send three times as much data over the same link as with the standard protocol sounds like a very nice achievement.
Hmm, I notice one big difference between both your examples and the situation we are talking about here. Does the store have a deal with the government that they get the proceeds of some tax to compensate them for their losses ? Do you have to pay some added tax every time you buy a car to compensate the insurance companies for every time you wreck it on purpose to collect the insurance ? I didn't think so.
The point is, both the store and the insurance company have to take measures themselves to ensure not too many people steal from them. Otherwise they will have to raise prices, and people will go to the competition that has found a way to limit the stealing problem.
Allowing a levy on other stuff to compensate record companies is basically the same as saying: produce whatever crap you like, doesn't matter, you're still getting paid every time somebody somewhere buys a computer. Doesn't really sound like a good idea, does it ?
Slashdot Mirror
True, a war was needed there. However, a war was only needed because Germany invaded another country, after which a defensive war against them was justified. This is exactly the same reasoning that justified the previous Gulf War.
The difference this time is that Irak didn't invade anyone. While they might have been anxious to do so, they weren't exactly in a position, since their military force is now much weaker than it was 12 years ago.
This time, America and Britain are invading (yes, invading) another country, where a large part of the population does not support them. Can't say I blame them either, because you generally don't much appreciate the guys dropping bombs on your head, even if it's for your own good.
Agreed, I'm downloading as we speak at the full 3Mb/s that my DSL line supports. I've been pretty satisfied with 9.0 so far, since it was the first distro that got my USB speedtouch modem working without too much hassle. There were a few minor bumps on the road, but hey, I learned a lot about Linux in fixing them. I have great expectations of the 9.1, let's just hope I'm not dissapointed.
We'll have to see how it turns out offcourse, but apparently they switched delivery services to FedEx (forgot what the name of the previous on was). As far as my experience goes, FedEx should be fairly reliable (if somewhat expensive). They had too many problems with their previous contract. Let's hope that things work better this time around.
After having read the article, I'd say that perhaps the biggest achievement wasn't the huge transfer rate, but the high efficiency. Apparently standard TCP coupled with antiquated congestion control methods waste two thirds of bandwidth, and current methods to get around that cause problems for other users. The new protocol had an efficiency of around 90 percent. I'm assuming here (but I could be entirely wrong, as the article does not explain it), that the rest of the bandwidth (two thirds in the first case, 10 percent in the second), just goes to waste. Perhaps it represents packet loss, meaning packets that are sent, and thus consume bandwidth, but that get corrupted or thrown away somewhere halfway. Any enlightenment here would be appreciated. Anyway, being able to send three times as much data over the same link as with the standard protocol sounds like a very nice achievement.
Hmm, I notice one big difference between both your examples and the situation we are talking about here. Does the store have a deal with the government that they get the proceeds of some tax to compensate them for their losses ? Do you have to pay some added tax every time you buy a car to compensate the insurance companies for every time you wreck it on purpose to collect the insurance ? I didn't think so.
The point is, both the store and the insurance company have to take measures themselves to ensure not too many people steal from them. Otherwise they will have to raise prices, and people will go to the competition that has found a way to limit the stealing problem.
Allowing a levy on other stuff to compensate record companies is basically the same as saying: produce whatever crap you like, doesn't matter, you're still getting paid every time somebody somewhere buys a computer. Doesn't really sound like a good idea, does it ?