Nope. You're the one who brought up "no respect" first. You get the troll tag first and foremost. And if "sense of entitlement" is wrong, you've stated nothing to disprove it.
I might agree with your comment if it were still 2007. However, in 2013, I don't see any content creator still thinking it wise to buddy-buddy exclusively with one or two ISP's. The Comcast-NBC thing was a one-time event that doesn't seem to be paying dividends. The NFL clearly wants out of the DirecTV agreement. Verizon keeps trying to do exclusive content apps and the like but I don't see any of it paying off either.
"Percentage-wise". Surely the meaning of that is not hard to figure out. ISP's shouldn't be allowed to outright ban torrent traffic, as there are many legit uses of it, but that's probably the most that can be said legally until copyright violations come down to more reasonable levels.
Netflix and Youtube alone is over 50% of traffic. Non-video-service, non-torrents, is peanuts, and there is no reason why ISPs would want to discriminate against it, given existing US regulations. (VOIP might have been a concern a few years ago, but I think the idea of the major USA ISPs discriminating against those services is already waning.) So it seems focusing new legislation on streaming video services is probably wise.
Torrents are typically downloads, so throttles only affect download time, not video quality. And given how many copyright violations occur via torrents (percentage-wise), not sure the protocol deserves very many legal protections at this point in time.
The linearity is a mild annoyance, at worst. Far worse are a couple of the characters and the frequent whining in cut scenes (yes I'm mostly talking about Hope). The combat system only gets truly exciting once you have access to all the paradigm shifts.
Only problem encountered was the iMessage (Milk) Duds. Approximately as annoying as my wife's Nexus 4 Blow Pops which bricked the device a few times during device recharges. (in fairness, workaround exists going through boot menu for that one)
From what I understand, PRISM is only triggered when certain sensitive search terms are found. It looks like MUSCULAR can get whatever thing it wants regardless.
"Abuse of process"... wow. I would think the player who agreed not to be a douchebag (that EULA is an agreement, in fact. You do not have to click 'I accept.' You can always play some other game.) and then becomes a douchebag is Abuser #1. I don't care to squabble over US vs EU copyright laws, as I think a more fundamental question over integrity is at play here.
If the macro / addon is legit with the ToS, then I consented when I agreed to the WoW EULA.
And farming bots do adversely affect my gameplay, by distorting the in game economy. Honor farming bots definitely hurt PvP gameplay for others.
I understand the incentive for these bots, just like I understand all those Counter Strike cheats back in the day, but the malware label is well earned regardless.
Blizzard has made efforts on the technical front. (Google for the infamous 'Warden' for an example...)
Sometimes they've been too aggressive, in fact, and mistakenly flagged legit users as bots. (Believe it or not, some players do, in fact, like standing in one spot fishing for hours on end...).
It is malware, because it adversely affects the gameplay of other players, who never consented to such software being used in the MMO they are playing.
There are hundreds of addons out there that comply with ToS just fine. Indeed, it's hard to find any dedicated WoW players in the game who aren't using any.
Your botting software is nothing but run-of-the-mill malware, whatever the merits of your copyright argument. Why is it so hard to write addon software that conforms to Blizz's ToS?
There are a lot of problems with that actually. Speed/noise/heat/signal degradation/power/board space... it can be done, but it's very possible need some special cabling from certain I/Os direct from daughterboard to mainboard, bypassing the socket, etc. I think Intel made this move primarily from engineering considerations, not cost considerations.
The engineering reasons to prefer soldered over socketed are aplenty. Sockets have thermal issues, electrical issues (especially with lower VCCIOs and all that sweet high-speed I/O stuff like PCIe Gen 3), contact issues, noise issues... and the issues only get worse as I/O counts increase, which they seem to do regularly.
Honestly, I'm astonished that Intel kept socket solutions around as long as they did.
The issue is high-speed I/O, especially over 10 Gbps stuff, which high-end CPUs are increasingly integrating onto the CPU chip itself. The electrical hurdles of getting these signals through a socket cleanly are immense... and those hurdles mostly remain going through a daughtercard to mainboard connector. There are ways it could be done but it is a lot more complex (and expensive) than you are indicating.
Socket compatibility between different chip designs is getting harder and harder to maintain as I/O system design gets more complex, and so this kind of issue would diminish over time. Pretty soon, the only options at a socket level would be different CPU clock speeds (i.e. same chip design, possibly different chip process) anyways... and if you were really the kind of enthusiast to replace a cpu at socket level, you may not care much for the spec'd chip speed, since you are 50/50 likely going to overclock.
If you want to run something like PCI-Express Gen 3 I/O through a socket, good freakin' luck. It is hard enough to do board design with these hypersonic I/O links as it is, even with everything soldered down.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty sure that 99% throttling would be described as "unreasonable". Vague words like that kind of suck, yes, but US regulations love that word.
Nope. You're the one who brought up "no respect" first. You get the troll tag first and foremost. And if "sense of entitlement" is wrong, you've stated nothing to disprove it.
I might agree with your comment if it were still 2007. However, in 2013, I don't see any content creator still thinking it wise to buddy-buddy exclusively with one or two ISP's. The Comcast-NBC thing was a one-time event that doesn't seem to be paying dividends. The NFL clearly wants out of the DirecTV agreement. Verizon keeps trying to do exclusive content apps and the like but I don't see any of it paying off either.
"Percentage-wise". Surely the meaning of that is not hard to figure out. ISP's shouldn't be allowed to outright ban torrent traffic, as there are many legit uses of it, but that's probably the most that can be said legally until copyright violations come down to more reasonable levels.
Your sense of entitlement is that which deserves no respect. And I have no idea how you grabbed "censorship" out of this discussion.
Who in Hollywood would seriously object to this legislation, outside of Comcast-controlled entities?
Netflix and Youtube alone is over 50% of traffic. Non-video-service, non-torrents, is peanuts, and there is no reason why ISPs would want to discriminate against it, given existing US regulations. (VOIP might have been a concern a few years ago, but I think the idea of the major USA ISPs discriminating against those services is already waning.) So it seems focusing new legislation on streaming video services is probably wise.
Torrents are typically downloads, so throttles only affect download time, not video quality. And given how many copyright violations occur via torrents (percentage-wise), not sure the protocol deserves very many legal protections at this point in time.
Amen to that. Great service, lots of platforms, high quality, good price. Back to Bleach in a few...
The linearity is a mild annoyance, at worst. Far worse are a couple of the characters and the frequent whining in cut scenes (yes I'm mostly talking about Hope). The combat system only gets truly exciting once you have access to all the paradigm shifts.
Only problem encountered was the iMessage (Milk) Duds. Approximately as annoying as my wife's Nexus 4 Blow Pops which bricked the device a few times during device recharges. (in fairness, workaround exists going through boot menu for that one)
"Give me a break!" -- satisfied iPhone user with iOS7
From what I understand, PRISM is only triggered when certain sensitive search terms are found. It looks like MUSCULAR can get whatever thing it wants regardless.
"Abuse of process"... wow. I would think the player who agreed not to be a douchebag (that EULA is an agreement, in fact. You do not have to click 'I accept.' You can always play some other game.) and then becomes a douchebag is Abuser #1. I don't care to squabble over US vs EU copyright laws, as I think a more fundamental question over integrity is at play here.
If the macro / addon is legit with the ToS, then I consented when I agreed to the WoW EULA. And farming bots do adversely affect my gameplay, by distorting the in game economy. Honor farming bots definitely hurt PvP gameplay for others. I understand the incentive for these bots, just like I understand all those Counter Strike cheats back in the day, but the malware label is well earned regardless.
Blizzard has made efforts on the technical front. (Google for the infamous 'Warden' for an example...) Sometimes they've been too aggressive, in fact, and mistakenly flagged legit users as bots. (Believe it or not, some players do, in fact, like standing in one spot fishing for hours on end...).
It is malware, because it adversely affects the gameplay of other players, who never consented to such software being used in the MMO they are playing.
There are hundreds of addons out there that comply with ToS just fine. Indeed, it's hard to find any dedicated WoW players in the game who aren't using any.
Your botting software is nothing but run-of-the-mill malware, whatever the merits of your copyright argument. Why is it so hard to write addon software that conforms to Blizz's ToS?
Centers for Disease and Control would still be running this show, if it were to happen, right? With the military's assistance if needed?
There are a lot of problems with that actually. Speed/noise/heat/signal degradation/power/board space... it can be done, but it's very possible need some special cabling from certain I/Os direct from daughterboard to mainboard, bypassing the socket, etc. I think Intel made this move primarily from engineering considerations, not cost considerations.
The engineering reasons to prefer soldered over socketed are aplenty. Sockets have thermal issues, electrical issues (especially with lower VCCIOs and all that sweet high-speed I/O stuff like PCIe Gen 3), contact issues, noise issues... and the issues only get worse as I/O counts increase, which they seem to do regularly.
Honestly, I'm astonished that Intel kept socket solutions around as long as they did.
The issue is high-speed I/O, especially over 10 Gbps stuff, which high-end CPUs are increasingly integrating onto the CPU chip itself. The electrical hurdles of getting these signals through a socket cleanly are immense... and those hurdles mostly remain going through a daughtercard to mainboard connector. There are ways it could be done but it is a lot more complex (and expensive) than you are indicating.
Socket compatibility between different chip designs is getting harder and harder to maintain as I/O system design gets more complex, and so this kind of issue would diminish over time. Pretty soon, the only options at a socket level would be different CPU clock speeds (i.e. same chip design, possibly different chip process) anyways... and if you were really the kind of enthusiast to replace a cpu at socket level, you may not care much for the spec'd chip speed, since you are 50/50 likely going to overclock.
If you want to run something like PCI-Express Gen 3 I/O through a socket, good freakin' luck. It is hard enough to do board design with these hypersonic I/O links as it is, even with everything soldered down.