That is true if you start recording in FRAPS, and actually probably even less than half your framerate if your proc/mem/disk speeds suck. FRAPS will give you a decent FPS display with out too much overhead. Usually though, most games have the ability to display their frame rates in game with even less overhead. And with most game publishers giving out demo's...download the demo and try it out....see what your fps is. If it sucks, decide if you really want to see the game in all its FX glory and spend the $$$ to get your rig there. Obviously if every demo you download sucks for you...low fps...its probably time to upgrade your rig, if you want to play the newer games, or just stick to Wolf3D or Doom.
So the record contracts you hear about artist x getting paid a metricfuckton of money for y albums on their label just is a figment of my imagination? Doubtful. For years artists songs where owned by the labels(case in point pretty much the entire Beatles song library is not owned by the members. Yes it has changed hands many times, Michael Jackson being a previous owner....out bid Paul for it), and they were paid like you said...but all that changed when Led Zepplin decided they weren't going to put up with making a record exec rich...they wanted their to be paid more as they felt it is their product and the record company should be thankful they get to make any money at all. They had the immense popularity to demand a huge contract, and a really bright manager to point that out. The per cd profit that the label makes is used to backfil their accounts for the marketing machine they have and paying the artist their royalties, and actual production of the music and distribution...blah blah blah. As for smaller bands, well its more of a profit sharing model....sell this many cd's and will give you x per cd you sell, more than that and will bump x up to y. But smaller band CD runs actually cost more per CD to produce...mass production 101. With the artists that are hugely popular is easy to turn a profit...as long as you keep production costs down to a reasonable level....one of the reasons why Michael Jacksons last album didn't make squat, cost like $30 million to produce and it made $25 million...not good so his label dropped him. Why the record didn't sell and make vastly larger amounts of money like in the past....well i think we all know Mike's popularity has fallen off a bit. Anyway, my point is record labels pay popular artists upfront for their work, on the hopes that they will make a profit over all. Basically, they take a gamble, sometimes they loose, but with their marketing machine and things like MTV and radio telling us whats new/hip/cool they can minimize that potential to loose.
So again, RIAA is just trying to make sure they turn a profit and protect their source of revenue...pretty much like any other company that wants to stay in business. Oh and by the way, someone had to by that CD that is up on some p2p network, why shouldn't you? And what happens when everyone develops the mantra "i shouldn't have to pay for music, i can just download it for free" ? well soon the p2p network will have absolutly nothing new on them as no one will be buying CDs legally and sharing them on the p2p networks...they will just look for them on the p2p network and not find them.
I never said copying something you own makes you a pirate, and if you actually read what I said, I said I believed it as something that an owner can do. I was paraphrasing, and possibly poorly, what Sherman was saying...yes technically, depending on how you read the law, its illegal but there is no way to enforce that violation so they just don't bother.
And I love how I get modded a troll when I point out the obvious. ---now thats a troll.
While I am all for making backup copies of CD/DVD's or transfering ripped CD's to my iPod-esque device, I do think sharing my ripped files with the rest of the world is wrong. As we see it there are two groups affected by RIAA's attempts to secure the media music is on, the people like me who just want a backup and transfer to a iPod and then there are those that want to do those things AND be able to share their music with their friends/families/12th cousin 3 times removed/bum on the corner/whoever. Which of those does RIAA not care about, the first group. Why? As was stated in the video, yeah when it comes down to it, its illegal but they aren't going to enforce it....how could they with no way to track? The second group on the other hand is basically walking into whatever record store and using their five-finger discount to get music for free. Yeah a bit simplified, but the basic principles work. Everyone needs to remember that to RIAA, music is a product and if someone is stealing it, that means stealing money....and they will come after you. If artists truely wanted their music to be free don't you think they would just submit them to torrent trackers themselves and create a license saying basically the same thing as GPL? Well not very many of them do that. Why? Its hard to be rich and famous with out any FUCKING MONEY. Which is paid to them by the companies that participate in RIAA and pay the artist huge sums of FUCKING MONEY to make their music *cough*product*/cough*. So when it all comes down to it, its the artists fault for demanding such large sums of FUCKING MONEY to make their music. So, don't blame RIAA, blame the artists out there that have made more FUCKING MONEY than the yearly budgets of some 3rd world countries.
I can't remember where I read this, and I am sure I am going to muck it up, but the only 100% secure system is on that is unplugged from any other device in a closet that only you have the key to.
Even so, my orginal statement still holds true...everyone was sitting around waiting to see who would be the first to implent IPv6. Maybe I over assumed ICANN was the one that got fed up at someone else dragging their feet. For all practical purposes everyone was pointing fingers at someone else in a weird tug of war. It really doesn't matter who adopts it first, obviously with out DNS names associated to an IPv6 address its going to be a pain to get to a server, but just as obvious with out IPv6 addressing and routes what good are IPv6 DNS names? So now ICANN supports IPv6 DNS, now its upto the backbone hosts to get IPv6 implemented across the internet's core routers.
That's why ICANN is adding IPv6 to the root DNS servers. IPv6 adoption has to start somewhere, and for years everyone has been waiting for someone else to start the ball rolling. Well looks like ICANN finally got fed up and have given the ball a small push to see how far it rolls and is now waiting for someone else to give it another push to keep it rolling.
3.0 to 3.12 also had this funny little bug with time that wasn't fixed until 3.2. *sarcasim* It had to do something with the the year 2000 if I recall correctly. */sarcasim*
I think in the grand scheme of things, MS'es monopolistic practices are hardly anything to be concerned with. There is a lot more competition out there than you think. MS just has a better marketing machine to keep their motor running. While there is obvious concern on the part of the DoJ, they are doing just enough to keep the judge from getting too pissed. Usually in cases of monopolistic companies, resolutions take many years to resolve fully. The Bell phone company case took about 10 years to finalize. Standard Oil I believe was even longer, and RJ Reynolds Tobacco....not sure how long that took since it was well over a hundred years ago. So, in other words, stopy crying and complaining and have some patience.
I said it once and I will say it again, with out MS most of us tech-geeks wouldn't have a job/hobby/whatever, and I bet there is not a lot of us that can say "I have never-ever used an MS product".
In short, yes. What's the difference in cracking open a platter based drive and an ssd based drive? Nothing, you just have to destroy the media. That's what large hammers are for.
Agreed, and I would like to add that there is the possibility that some one can look at the code, find the bug and exploit it. For years MS thought they built a secure product(ok well maybe they thought that) and look where it got them. Just because software is open or closed doesn't make it more or less secure than the other. Software is made more secure by quality programmers/testers/patches/testers/updating/testers. Replace anyone of those with crap and your odds of making crappy/buggy/exploitable software goes up....
Finagaling is fine, and I think this tip is one of the coolest I have seen. But I think it would be nice if there was a better way to manage it, say with a group policy, like pretty much all of IE's settings can be managed. Until then FF will be the geeks choice of use, and IE will be the choice of larger corprate shops as its easier to manage across thousands of PCs.
If you are dumb enough to be duped into giving away your Toyota, thats your fault. If however a thief were to come into my garage and drive away with my Lexus because keys can easily be copied....I blame Lexus and I expect them to fix the problem so it doesn't happen again.
Until all those cheap box fill your datacenter and cause power outages in the area due to the load the put on the grid. The main reason for virtualization is taking those small task boxes that hardly do anything and pile them all together on to one piece of hardware that can do all of them, while still maintaning their "dedicated" feel.
While the parent is sort of inflammatory in his remarks and possible overly generalizes the intelligence of walmart shoppers, how is his post flamebait? Everything stated is basically true. Mods need to read the entire post, not just the nasty bits.
Build a dream server room for your racks and wiring install. As for the office keep it simple, decorating accordingly with Dilber posters and other clever techie things, and definatly keep it out of the the dream server room. Well unless you like to be cold and don't want to hear anything being said to you by your boss.
Ok so the kid was told not to do something, which he continued to do and was punished. The teacher is a bit of a moron and has no idea about browser preference. My question is if they aren't supposed to use anything but IE, why isn't the IT dept using policies to prevent installation of 3rd party browsers? How do students have enough privledges to install programs?(sorry can't remember if you need local admin to install FF). But the subject of this article is mis-leading and the real issue is the kid not obeying the teacher or explaining to the teacher in a respectful manner that FF is better in his opinion than IE.
Slashdot Mirror
That is true if you start recording in FRAPS, and actually probably even less than half your framerate if your proc/mem/disk speeds suck. FRAPS will give you a decent FPS display with out too much overhead. Usually though, most games have the ability to display their frame rates in game with even less overhead. And with most game publishers giving out demo's...download the demo and try it out....see what your fps is. If it sucks, decide if you really want to see the game in all its FX glory and spend the $$$ to get your rig there. Obviously if every demo you download sucks for you...low fps...its probably time to upgrade your rig, if you want to play the newer games, or just stick to Wolf3D or Doom.
So the record contracts you hear about artist x getting paid a metricfuckton of money for y albums on their label just is a figment of my imagination? Doubtful. For years artists songs where owned by the labels(case in point pretty much the entire Beatles song library is not owned by the members. Yes it has changed hands many times, Michael Jackson being a previous owner....out bid Paul for it), and they were paid like you said...but all that changed when Led Zepplin decided they weren't going to put up with making a record exec rich...they wanted their to be paid more as they felt it is their product and the record company should be thankful they get to make any money at all. They had the immense popularity to demand a huge contract, and a really bright manager to point that out. The per cd profit that the label makes is used to backfil their accounts for the marketing machine they have and paying the artist their royalties, and actual production of the music and distribution...blah blah blah. As for smaller bands, well its more of a profit sharing model....sell this many cd's and will give you x per cd you sell, more than that and will bump x up to y. But smaller band CD runs actually cost more per CD to produce...mass production 101. With the artists that are hugely popular is easy to turn a profit...as long as you keep production costs down to a reasonable level....one of the reasons why Michael Jacksons last album didn't make squat, cost like $30 million to produce and it made $25 million...not good so his label dropped him. Why the record didn't sell and make vastly larger amounts of money like in the past....well i think we all know Mike's popularity has fallen off a bit. Anyway, my point is record labels pay popular artists upfront for their work, on the hopes that they will make a profit over all. Basically, they take a gamble, sometimes they loose, but with their marketing machine and things like MTV and radio telling us whats new/hip/cool they can minimize that potential to loose.
So again, RIAA is just trying to make sure they turn a profit and protect their source of revenue...pretty much like any other company that wants to stay in business. Oh and by the way, someone had to by that CD that is up on some p2p network, why shouldn't you? And what happens when everyone develops the mantra "i shouldn't have to pay for music, i can just download it for free" ? well soon the p2p network will have absolutly nothing new on them as no one will be buying CDs legally and sharing them on the p2p networks...they will just look for them on the p2p network and not find them.
I never said copying something you own makes you a pirate, and if you actually read what I said, I said I believed it as something that an owner can do. I was paraphrasing, and possibly poorly, what Sherman was saying...yes technically, depending on how you read the law, its illegal but there is no way to enforce that violation so they just don't bother. And I love how I get modded a troll when I point out the obvious. ---now thats a troll.
While I am all for making backup copies of CD/DVD's or transfering ripped CD's to my iPod-esque device, I do think sharing my ripped files with the rest of the world is wrong. As we see it there are two groups affected by RIAA's attempts to secure the media music is on, the people like me who just want a backup and transfer to a iPod and then there are those that want to do those things AND be able to share their music with their friends/families/12th cousin 3 times removed/bum on the corner/whoever. Which of those does RIAA not care about, the first group. Why? As was stated in the video, yeah when it comes down to it, its illegal but they aren't going to enforce it....how could they with no way to track? The second group on the other hand is basically walking into whatever record store and using their five-finger discount to get music for free. Yeah a bit simplified, but the basic principles work. Everyone needs to remember that to RIAA, music is a product and if someone is stealing it, that means stealing money....and they will come after you. If artists truely wanted their music to be free don't you think they would just submit them to torrent trackers themselves and create a license saying basically the same thing as GPL? Well not very many of them do that. Why? Its hard to be rich and famous with out any FUCKING MONEY. Which is paid to them by the companies that participate in RIAA and pay the artist huge sums of FUCKING MONEY to make their music *cough*product*/cough*. So when it all comes down to it, its the artists fault for demanding such large sums of FUCKING MONEY to make their music. So, don't blame RIAA, blame the artists out there that have made more FUCKING MONEY than the yearly budgets of some 3rd world countries.
I can't remember where I read this, and I am sure I am going to muck it up, but the only 100% secure system is on that is unplugged from any other device in a closet that only you have the key to.
Now everyone lets thank Matt for being brave and sharing with the rest of the group. *group* Thanks Matt. */group*
Even so, my orginal statement still holds true...everyone was sitting around waiting to see who would be the first to implent IPv6. Maybe I over assumed ICANN was the one that got fed up at someone else dragging their feet. For all practical purposes everyone was pointing fingers at someone else in a weird tug of war. It really doesn't matter who adopts it first, obviously with out DNS names associated to an IPv6 address its going to be a pain to get to a server, but just as obvious with out IPv6 addressing and routes what good are IPv6 DNS names? So now ICANN supports IPv6 DNS, now its upto the backbone hosts to get IPv6 implemented across the internet's core routers.
That's why ICANN is adding IPv6 to the root DNS servers. IPv6 adoption has to start somewhere, and for years everyone has been waiting for someone else to start the ball rolling. Well looks like ICANN finally got fed up and have given the ball a small push to see how far it rolls and is now waiting for someone else to give it another push to keep it rolling.
3.0 to 3.12 also had this funny little bug with time that wasn't fixed until 3.2. *sarcasim* It had to do something with the the year 2000 if I recall correctly. */sarcasim*
I think in the grand scheme of things, MS'es monopolistic practices are hardly anything to be concerned with. There is a lot more competition out there than you think. MS just has a better marketing machine to keep their motor running. While there is obvious concern on the part of the DoJ, they are doing just enough to keep the judge from getting too pissed. Usually in cases of monopolistic companies, resolutions take many years to resolve fully. The Bell phone company case took about 10 years to finalize. Standard Oil I believe was even longer, and RJ Reynolds Tobacco....not sure how long that took since it was well over a hundred years ago. So, in other words, stopy crying and complaining and have some patience.
I said it once and I will say it again, with out MS most of us tech-geeks wouldn't have a job/hobby/whatever, and I bet there is not a lot of us that can say "I have never-ever used an MS product".
Where is Jason Bourne when you need him?
In short, yes. What's the difference in cracking open a platter based drive and an ssd based drive? Nothing, you just have to destroy the media. That's what large hammers are for.
Agreed, and I would like to add that there is the possibility that some one can look at the code, find the bug and exploit it. For years MS thought they built a secure product(ok well maybe they thought that) and look where it got them. Just because software is open or closed doesn't make it more or less secure than the other. Software is made more secure by quality programmers/testers/patches/testers/updating/testers. Replace anyone of those with crap and your odds of making crappy/buggy/exploitable software goes up....
Finagaling is fine, and I think this tip is one of the coolest I have seen. But I think it would be nice if there was a better way to manage it, say with a group policy, like pretty much all of IE's settings can be managed. Until then FF will be the geeks choice of use, and IE will be the choice of larger corprate shops as its easier to manage across thousands of PCs.
I am wondering why this is modded funny? i'd almost go with insightful. but i am really surpised this isn't a troll or flamebait.
If you are dumb enough to be duped into giving away your Toyota, thats your fault. If however a thief were to come into my garage and drive away with my Lexus because keys can easily be copied....I blame Lexus and I expect them to fix the problem so it doesn't happen again.
While its still not free, it is as close as MS can get....or cares to get.
Actually licensing for public schools is dirt cheap when compared to private business licensing.
Until all those cheap box fill your datacenter and cause power outages in the area due to the load the put on the grid. The main reason for virtualization is taking those small task boxes that hardly do anything and pile them all together on to one piece of hardware that can do all of them, while still maintaning their "dedicated" feel.
While the parent is sort of inflammatory in his remarks and possible overly generalizes the intelligence of walmart shoppers, how is his post flamebait? Everything stated is basically true. Mods need to read the entire post, not just the nasty bits.
Build a dream server room for your racks and wiring install. As for the office keep it simple, decorating accordingly with Dilber posters and other clever techie things, and definatly keep it out of the the dream server room. Well unless you like to be cold and don't want to hear anything being said to you by your boss.
Hi, ever have an original thought? Oh sorry....
If I only had modpoints...+insightful.
Well there are the FSMO roles, and the one I think he is referring to is the PDC Emulator role, which there can be only one.
Ok so the kid was told not to do something, which he continued to do and was punished. The teacher is a bit of a moron and has no idea about browser preference. My question is if they aren't supposed to use anything but IE, why isn't the IT dept using policies to prevent installation of 3rd party browsers? How do students have enough privledges to install programs?(sorry can't remember if you need local admin to install FF). But the subject of this article is mis-leading and the real issue is the kid not obeying the teacher or explaining to the teacher in a respectful manner that FF is better in his opinion than IE.