I think the craziness of your wife is likely to be observation bias - people are crazy; significant exposure to any one of them will make them seem more crazy than average.
... or just move to a place with an extra bedroom when you start planning for your kids - it's not like you have to find a buyer. You don't need to own the new place either.
Whatever - if you think the difference between owning the building or just living in it is worth the price, pay it.
Somewhere to live for 20 years plus the difference between the mortgage payment amount for the value of the property and the rent amount times 20 years of interest accrued in your favour.
People taking loans over such long terms pay over 90% the value of the property in interest. i.e. even when they 'own' the house, they've paid twice it's market value after the bank has taken their slice.
If you have the discipline to save for what you buy, you can get a much, much better deal. Especially if you are willing to live 'below' your means (i.e. sharing your rent for a few years after you can afford a place of your own)
Any financial advisor worth their salt should tell you that the phrases popular in amateur advice like "rent money is dead money" and "would you rather pay for your own house or somebody else's" are sales lines used by people trying to make you give them your wage. If your financial advisor tells you these things, they likely either have no understanding of economics or are trying to get a slice of what you earn.
Or, to more directly address your points - while they do own the content (a stance I agree with, as a small-company content producer myself), and can choose to release it under whatever terms they like; not all distributors of their content are legitimate, and those other distributors are pretty much 'mainstream'.
The pragmatic, business effect of this is that they have the choice of: competing with the other channels, ignoring them, or trying to shut them down.
Shutting them down seems to not be working - it doesn't seem to matter how many of their consumers they sue (yeah, yeah - no surprise here). It's certainly not an option we'd consider for our own purposes.
Ignoring them is the path we take with our iPhone games - people pirate them, we ignore it. We're happy for what little publicity we get for it, and if the pirates won't pay the $3 we ask there's not a whole lot we can do about it. We support every device we can already, they can legitimately sync it to all their iWhatevers. We can't get that money - trying to deny the pirates (yarr!) the use game would give no benefit to our bottom line.
Competing is really the option I'm trying to promote here for the mainstream media producers. I think there are a lot of people like myself who would pay for more of their media content if the terms were more open. See my other post at this level for details.
Trying to clarify here; in the scenario I propose the desirable product is [their content] with [terms it's not available under].
While they can choose the terms they distribute the content under, the options they've made available aren't worth the price they ask.
I tried to avoid the ethics of pro-/anti-copyright, since there are too many wrong opinions on both sides, I mean only to assess the pragmatic commercialisation of infinitely reproducable media.
If the product [content + usage terms] is available free of charge, and they want to charge for [content] with [restricted usage], the logical price point is the value the consumer places on being on the legal side of copyright law for [content], minus the value to the consumer of the terms that are desirable but restricted or prevented.
For me, the sum of that equation continues to be negative for the content I want. My ability to watch from the couch *or* my desk, to have a movie night with friends without buying and downloading the same content all over, to watch new content within a reasonable time of everyone discussing it on the 'net (for stuff that is eventually licensed in Australia at all...), the convenience of tracking ongoing releases automatically, etc. are worth more to me than the notion of compliance with copyright law and the hollow hope that my money would go to those that made the content I enjoy.
If I could download the same non-DRM'd files the P2P groups release, but direct from the studio, I would. Obviously tens of thousands of people want those files every week - I can't be the only one that would pay a couple of bucks for it, can I?
In my experience, IPv4 address allocations in the wild are seldom geographically contiguous to a significant degree. I get a different first octet every time I reset my modem.
AFAICT, this is compounded by the common ISP model. In the DSL case for example, many buildings share a common exchange, but traffic from one (physical) neighbour to another (assuming that we're trying to minimise overall and edge traffic inflation by P2P networking) will traverse all the way to either the nearest ISP peering location (IGRP? it's been a while...) or some common carrier chosen by the conglomeration of both networks.
The majority of P2P traffic is media content. When people want to consume media content on their own schedule, on whatever device they have, without having ads thrust in their face mid-program, they find a way.
For many, this way is bit torrent. For many others, it's iTunes/Netflix - often the difference in choice is the convenience or availability, sometimes it's the price. Some people will watch a few ads for cheaper content (I presume the Hulu vs. Netflix people?) - some will pay more for additional device convenience (I see this as the iTunes people).
Unfortunately, some entire markets have none of these options available; or with unreasonable compromises in the other criteria. In Australia, Hulu is blocked completely, Netflix plans are more expensive for less selection, and iTunes is more expensive still for less selection and often months behind US releases. All our Internet plans have limited monthly traffic quotas, and most major ISPs only partner with one (if any) of the above for un-metered content.
Hypothetically - say that I have money to spend on home entertainment. With P2P, I could pick a show I like from a list of RSS feeds and have every episode downloaded into a folder as its released, or scheduled for overnight (off-peak quota) download. Once I had the file, I could play it on the TV, PC, laptop, or iPod as easily as any of the commercial options (sans iTunes->iPod option, which would involve a HandBrake step). I could watch it as many times as I want. I could show it to my friends. I could download it again if I didn't want to use the drive space to keep it around.
Take my money - give me the product you have the way I want it, or I'll get it from somewhere else.
The claim that the allowable level is 'much' too high does not imply the position that any amount is harmful.
An object (i.e. head) adjacent to an omnidirectional transmitter (i.e. phone) will be exposed to up to half the transmitted energy.
The amount absorbed is well known. The amount of exposure that is likely to cause medically detectable symptoms is the variable in question.
A person any reasonable distance from a cell tower (not climbing it) will be exposed to less energy from the tower than from the phone they hold against their head.
My point was not to counter the GPs assertion that there would still be radiation; but to emphasise that there would be a dramatic reduction in local exposure.
The extrapolation that any exposure is harmful is curious indeed - we have been exposed to broad spectrum natural radiation since the inception of life. That the recommended 'safe' exposure levels are too high may be true - it is in fact the subject of the notably inconclusive study - but the banning of mobile devices in an area *will* reduce the amount of exposure in that area significantly - yes, the absolute reduction will depend on tower configuration, but in the settings described there will be 'much less' exposure, and somehow you ascertain this to be irrelevant?
Semi-automatic firearms (esp. pistols) are easy enough to obtain in Aus. - it's just a matter of who you know. I've declined the opportunity to buy one for myself (more likely to be severe legal trouble for me than have even the opportunity to do net good with it, I'd still have to go to the same kind of people to buy ammo, couldn't practice on a range, etc.)
We have lower firearm-related crime rates for a lot of reasons. Better public education, better welfare systems, and a rehabilitation-focused justice system are significant examples.
The private school my friend works at has three to five per room (and no class has as many as 30 students). You wanna map out the channel/interference pattern for their buildings I'm sure you're welcome to try.
This is the cause of the push for 5GHz Wi-Fi - more non-overlapping channels and less interference between rooms due to the more rapid signal attenuation.
You'd be better off arguing that sending somebody a 4MB chunk of the file or two constitutes fair use. It's only a few seconds of the movie.
It doesn't matter how many distinct peers you send that to - none of them are likely to get a significant portion of the movie from any given person.
At that point, each peer is only responsible for aggregating dozens or hundreds of requests for fair-use material into one infringing copy - the one they keep/watch.
The US constitution specifically and deliberately does not restrict its protections (nor obligations) to citizens of the States.
Those acting under the name of it or the nation it defines are bound by it to protect the rights espoused as they apply to all people, equally and without discrimination.
Also, I'm no expert on the matter, but I thought the current limits of frequency were due to effects such as:
It takes a finite amount of time for a gate to transition to or from a binary state
It takes a finite amount of time for the 'out' voltage to transition to the new state, due to yes, the speed of light issue; but more significantly the capacitative and inductive effect of nearby lines. Good ol' "two conductors separated by an insulator" and "change in current change in electric field" is not to be overlooked.
The new state cannot be reliably 'read' at the next layer of circuitry until both points above have stabilised; and they need to stay stable until the layer after is in pretty much the same position - driving the unit frequency down with length. This is where I understand the P3 and P4 focused - smaller units (i.e. more pipeline stages) allows higher frequency.
This fits with my view of the race to smarter (wider) units, parallel sub-instruction processing, and smaller feature sizes in newer architectures; exemplified by the performance increase seen even at lower Hz due to more cycle-efficient designs such as the Intel Core vs. P4.
Smarter decode and dispatch leads to specialised pipelines for sub-operations, which are shorter and can be run in parallel, reducing the internal clock skew and total instruction latency. Un-used parallel units can be disabled, instead of NOOP-ing stages of a single unit, meaning less wasted power; or can process other instructions if the dispatch layer is smart enough, leading to more performance.
Smaller units transition quicker; and more work/cycle means less circuitry wasted stabilising internal clocks, and room and power to spare for more actual execution units.
Less power per stage (and less un-used stages on average per instruction) means less voltage to get a processed signal through, which reduces the capacitative and RF effects, and allows higher frequency operation.
Again - I'm no expert.
Also, I'm a little disappointed that so many comments seem to be assuming that embedded chip designers haven't considered the effect of power drain. Really, people?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the craziness of your wife is likely to be observation bias - people are crazy; significant exposure to any one of them will make them seem more crazy than average.
... or just move to a place with an extra bedroom when you start planning for your kids - it's not like you have to find a buyer. You don't need to own the new place either.
Whatever - if you think the difference between owning the building or just living in it is worth the price, pay it.
Somewhere to live for 20 years plus the difference between the mortgage payment amount for the value of the property and the rent amount times 20 years of interest accrued in your favour.
People taking loans over such long terms pay over 90% the value of the property in interest. i.e. even when they 'own' the house, they've paid twice it's market value after the bank has taken their slice.
If you have the discipline to save for what you buy, you can get a much, much better deal. Especially if you are willing to live 'below' your means (i.e. sharing your rent for a few years after you can afford a place of your own)
Any financial advisor worth their salt should tell you that the phrases popular in amateur advice like "rent money is dead money" and "would you rather pay for your own house or somebody else's" are sales lines used by people trying to make you give them your wage. If your financial advisor tells you these things, they likely either have no understanding of economics or are trying to get a slice of what you earn.
Except that you can't trust what they tell you so you have to do the expensive side anyway.
And agreeing to pay most of your income to your bank for 20 years is stupid.
Or, to more directly address your points - while they do own the content (a stance I agree with, as a small-company content producer myself), and can choose to release it under whatever terms they like; not all distributors of their content are legitimate, and those other distributors are pretty much 'mainstream'.
The pragmatic, business effect of this is that they have the choice of: competing with the other channels, ignoring them, or trying to shut them down.
Shutting them down seems to not be working - it doesn't seem to matter how many of their consumers they sue (yeah, yeah - no surprise here). It's certainly not an option we'd consider for our own purposes.
Ignoring them is the path we take with our iPhone games - people pirate them, we ignore it. We're happy for what little publicity we get for it, and if the pirates won't pay the $3 we ask there's not a whole lot we can do about it. We support every device we can already, they can legitimately sync it to all their iWhatevers. We can't get that money - trying to deny the pirates (yarr!) the use game would give no benefit to our bottom line.
Competing is really the option I'm trying to promote here for the mainstream media producers. I think there are a lot of people like myself who would pay for more of their media content if the terms were more open. See my other post at this level for details.
Trying to clarify here; in the scenario I propose the desirable product is [their content] with [terms it's not available under].
While they can choose the terms they distribute the content under, the options they've made available aren't worth the price they ask.
I tried to avoid the ethics of pro-/anti-copyright, since there are too many wrong opinions on both sides, I mean only to assess the pragmatic commercialisation of infinitely reproducable media.
If the product [content + usage terms] is available free of charge, and they want to charge for [content] with [restricted usage], the logical price point is the value the consumer places on being on the legal side of copyright law for [content], minus the value to the consumer of the terms that are desirable but restricted or prevented.
For me, the sum of that equation continues to be negative for the content I want. My ability to watch from the couch *or* my desk, to have a movie night with friends without buying and downloading the same content all over, to watch new content within a reasonable time of everyone discussing it on the 'net (for stuff that is eventually licensed in Australia at all...), the convenience of tracking ongoing releases automatically, etc. are worth more to me than the notion of compliance with copyright law and the hollow hope that my money would go to those that made the content I enjoy.
If I could download the same non-DRM'd files the P2P groups release, but direct from the studio, I would. Obviously tens of thousands of people want those files every week - I can't be the only one that would pay a couple of bucks for it, can I?
In my experience, IPv4 address allocations in the wild are seldom geographically contiguous to a significant degree. I get a different first octet every time I reset my modem.
AFAICT, this is compounded by the common ISP model. In the DSL case for example, many buildings share a common exchange, but traffic from one (physical) neighbour to another (assuming that we're trying to minimise overall and edge traffic inflation by P2P networking) will traverse all the way to either the nearest ISP peering location (IGRP? it's been a while...) or some common carrier chosen by the conglomeration of both networks.
Well, durr.
The majority of P2P traffic is media content. When people want to consume media content on their own schedule, on whatever device they have, without having ads thrust in their face mid-program, they find a way.
For many, this way is bit torrent. For many others, it's iTunes/Netflix - often the difference in choice is the convenience or availability, sometimes it's the price. Some people will watch a few ads for cheaper content (I presume the Hulu vs. Netflix people?) - some will pay more for additional device convenience (I see this as the iTunes people).
Unfortunately, some entire markets have none of these options available; or with unreasonable compromises in the other criteria. In Australia, Hulu is blocked completely, Netflix plans are more expensive for less selection, and iTunes is more expensive still for less selection and often months behind US releases. All our Internet plans have limited monthly traffic quotas, and most major ISPs only partner with one (if any) of the above for un-metered content.
Hypothetically - say that I have money to spend on home entertainment. With P2P, I could pick a show I like from a list of RSS feeds and have every episode downloaded into a folder as its released, or scheduled for overnight (off-peak quota) download. Once I had the file, I could play it on the TV, PC, laptop, or iPod as easily as any of the commercial options (sans iTunes->iPod option, which would involve a HandBrake step). I could watch it as many times as I want. I could show it to my friends. I could download it again if I didn't want to use the drive space to keep it around.
Take my money - give me the product you have the way I want it, or I'll get it from somewhere else.
The claim that the allowable level is 'much' too high does not imply the position that any amount is harmful.
An object (i.e. head) adjacent to an omnidirectional transmitter (i.e. phone) will be exposed to up to half the transmitted energy.
The amount absorbed is well known. The amount of exposure that is likely to cause medically detectable symptoms is the variable in question.
A person any reasonable distance from a cell tower (not climbing it) will be exposed to less energy from the tower than from the phone they hold against their head.
My point was not to counter the GPs assertion that there would still be radiation; but to emphasise that there would be a dramatic reduction in local exposure.
The extrapolation that any exposure is harmful is curious indeed - we have been exposed to broad spectrum natural radiation since the inception of life. That the recommended 'safe' exposure levels are too high may be true - it is in fact the subject of the notably inconclusive study - but the banning of mobile devices in an area *will* reduce the amount of exposure in that area significantly - yes, the absolute reduction will depend on tower configuration, but in the settings described there will be 'much less' exposure, and somehow you ascertain this to be irrelevant?
Valve controls the flow of Steam.
Semi-automatic firearms (esp. pistols) are easy enough to obtain in Aus. - it's just a matter of who you know. I've declined the opportunity to buy one for myself (more likely to be severe legal trouble for me than have even the opportunity to do net good with it, I'd still have to go to the same kind of people to buy ammo, couldn't practice on a range, etc.)
We have lower firearm-related crime rates for a lot of reasons. Better public education, better welfare systems, and a rehabilitation-focused justice system are significant examples.
Two APs for 30+ student laptops? HAHAHAAHHA
The private school my friend works at has three to five per room (and no class has as many as 30 students). You wanna map out the channel/interference pattern for their buildings I'm sure you're welcome to try.
This is the cause of the push for 5GHz Wi-Fi - more non-overlapping channels and less interference between rooms due to the more rapid signal attenuation.
I'm too lazy to explain inverse-square law to you, but I'm sure somebody on Wikipedia will...
So we all just need to learn to stop worrying and love The Bomb.
You'd be better off arguing that sending somebody a 4MB chunk of the file or two constitutes fair use. It's only a few seconds of the movie.
It doesn't matter how many distinct peers you send that to - none of them are likely to get a significant portion of the movie from any given person.
At that point, each peer is only responsible for aggregating dozens or hundreds of requests for fair-use material into one infringing copy - the one they keep/watch.
Well, I LOL'd.
No need to re-invent Kerberos - authentication is a solved problem.
The US constitution specifically and deliberately does not restrict its protections (nor obligations) to citizens of the States.
Those acting under the name of it or the nation it defines are bound by it to protect the rights espoused as they apply to all people, equally and without discrimination.
Sweet, I'm already half stocked up for the apocalypse then!
Shall we overlook the far more complete failure in the use of correct grammar in "grammar fail?"
Oh, I get it - because a line segment rotated 180 degrees looks different to how it started?
Funny.
System Preferences -> Security -> FileVault
Turn it on.
Also, I'm no expert on the matter, but I thought the current limits of frequency were due to effects such as:
This fits with my view of the race to smarter (wider) units, parallel sub-instruction processing, and smaller feature sizes in newer architectures; exemplified by the performance increase seen even at lower Hz due to more cycle-efficient designs such as the Intel Core vs. P4.
Smarter decode and dispatch leads to specialised pipelines for sub-operations, which are shorter and can be run in parallel, reducing the internal clock skew and total instruction latency. Un-used parallel units can be disabled, instead of NOOP-ing stages of a single unit, meaning less wasted power; or can process other instructions if the dispatch layer is smart enough, leading to more performance.
Smaller units transition quicker; and more work/cycle means less circuitry wasted stabilising internal clocks, and room and power to spare for more actual execution units.
Less power per stage (and less un-used stages on average per instruction) means less voltage to get a processed signal through, which reduces the capacitative and RF effects, and allows higher frequency operation.
Again - I'm no expert.
Also, I'm a little disappointed that so many comments seem to be assuming that embedded chip designers haven't considered the effect of power drain. Really, people?
That limit would only be an insurmountable issue in a non-pipelined architecture.
It's been a long time since CPUs needed the result of a previous instruction before they started on the next one.