He drew a picture, his buddies were amused. The person in the picture wasn't, but I wasn't real amused when that guy flicked me off on the highway this morning either.
If you scream fire in a crowded theater, the charge is typically for the injuries caused in the stampede of people fleeing the building. In this case, he draw a picture and his buddies said "hehe that's pretty funny". If we're going to start charging people with "inciting amusement", I'm not sure where we're headed.
Frequently under Linux, you will be running fine with the distribution-specific kernel build, and find that you need a specific weird driver compiled in that isn't there. Without the source the distro used, you're left spending a long time getting everything back to working from a vanilla kernel (basically redoing any tweaks that the distro needed to make things work right).
It's interesting you should mention it that way. When I installed the Windows Vista Beta, there was a segment in the EULA expressly saying that you can't copy the fonts, except for copies made solely for the purpose of printing output (ie, you can send them to a printer, or in the more complicated case to another computer that is acting as a print server, as long as they go away when the print job is done).
In a more similar vein to your 'PageFoo' example, Autodesk at one point had a viewer application for its various drawing formats so that you didn't need a $5000 seat just to print.
So, what you're saying is, the Microsoft Tax on every mainstream PC sold in America is really a humanitarian effort to save the children of the third world, and booting one of the competing products is a stomp in the face of a dying child?
DRM *is* the problem there. There's nothing unique to iTunes tracks that makes them unsuitable for transcoding to MP3 except that Apple doesn't allow it, via DRM. There exist programs to transcode the underlying MP4 compression to MP3, but the DRM layer prevents them from working. That you can easily circumvent the DRM by using outputting to a CD as an intermediate step doesn't hide that there is DRM in place *trying* to prevent you from listening to the music in the format of your choice. It's the same situation with DVDs; you can enter a code in almost all DVD players to turn off region coding. Some companies even put it on a note in the box. But there's still a region code on the DVD, and you still need to take steps to circumvent it.
That WinAmp plugin doesn't actually play the music, it simply passes the file to the proprietary iTunes system in the background. If you'll notice, DSP and output plugins don't work on ITMS tracks.
The EU won't even see the problem, since the consumer ISPs in Europe wouldn't be trying to get money out of content providers. It might even increase a focus on Europeans as customers for US-based web services, because they will be cheaper customers to get to. Pretty much the only person to lose in this scenario is the US internet consumer (ironically, the one group of people on the planet whose interestes are supposedly represented by the people in charge of this legislation).
The way the internet works, you have an ISP, Amazon.com has an ISP (probably more than one), and between those networks are a number of other service providers. At each link, the side that is generating more traffic pays a fee proportional to the difference. For example, you generate traffic on your link to your ISP, but you don't pass traffic for your ISP, so you pay for the traffic you pass. The same goes on Amazon's end; they aren't in the business of forwarding traffic, so they pay a hefty fee. Your ISP probably does pass nearly as much traffic for other ISPs as it sends out for it's customers, so it pays something for its links as well. You see, everyone pays already. You pay, Amazon.com pays, and all the ISPs in the middle (with the exception of Tier-1 ISPs that pass and generate traffic equally) pay. What the concept of 'tiered pricing' does is make Amazon.com pay all of the ISPs in between - except they're *already* being compensated for their services. All the charges for passing Amazon.com's traffic already trickles down to their bandwidth bill.
A car analogy is cliche, but suppose UPS is delivering a package to you from Amazon. Amazon pays UPS to deliver it, and passes that cost on to you. Now, to get to your house, the UPS truck has to go down a toll road. So they pay the toll, because they knew it was coming and added it into the bill they charged Amazon. If this toll road was operating under these new 'tiered services', however, they would also send a bill to Amazon.com for shipping a package down their road. That's not right; they already got their toll.
so what's wrong with charging premium customers for the premium service you provide? How is that different from the toll roads? A new shortcut highway is built, and you can either 1) pay a fee to drive the faster way or 2) use the old road for free even though your trip takes longer. In the end, everybody wins!
Google is not a customer of Time Warner Cable. There's also no new hardware. This is existing hardware with a routing policy.
If search.msn.com wants to be routed to Comcast customers in 2 hops instead of 14 like google.com, why shouldn't MSN be able to pay Comcast for the dedicated fiber/router cost? Why do you force ALL comcast customers to pay for the convenience only to those that use google.com?
We're not building a pipe from Google to "the customers". Google has ISPs, your residential ISP has ISPs. They all work out their peering independant of any particular link. If MSN wants to set up a point of presence in a region, and pay for dedicated links to it, they already can. That's not what tiered internet is providing.
Why should I subsidize the new hardware with my tax dollars and customer fees for google and amazon to make billions? If they want new hardware, let them PAY for it, passing the buck to THEIR customers. Pay as you go, if you wish, let the market sort it out.
Your tax dollars do not fund internet infrastructure. Your phone, cable, and internet bills do. Much larger than your $50/mo, however, is what Amazon and eBay pay to their service providers. To say that these companies get a free ride is to ignore one of their biggest expenses.
You people seem to freak out like "OMG WTF they want to slow down google-fullstop-com." Look komrade, nobody is going to slow anything down: what tiered internet means is that the paying sites will finance the additional hardware/infrastructure, and in exchange get the exclusive use of the said infrastructure for a time period. with tiered internet, everybody wins
What you, and the rest of the 'pro tiered' crowd ignore is that major internet businesses pay through the nose for stable, high-bandwidth pipes. They are the ones funding the bulk of infrastructure rollout. Of course, I don't expect you to understand this, as you probably also are of the impression that the wealthy get huge breaks on their taxes in our bracketed taxing system that foots them with 90% of the bill for a big government.
Prioritized traffic isn't what this is all about. Under your system about, www traffic rated higher than p2p. Under this system, www traffic to say msn.com might rate higher or lower than www traffic to ask.com. Implementing QoS to keep VoIP and short web transfers snappy next to large P2P downloads is a good thing, implementing controls so that traffic is prioritized according to payments by the destination network is a bad thing.
Re:It makes NO sense to target Apple...
on
Protesting Apple's DRM
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Ask someone to name an online music store, they'll name iTunes. Ask them to name an MP3 player, they'll name iPod. If you want to target the biggest guy in the business, Apple's it.
Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important
on
Apache down, IIS up
·
· Score: 1
Build a better mouse trap . ..and the world will ignore you.
This is literally true. The Victor company actually did invent a better mousetrap, designed so that you can't snap your fingers while setting it. It isn't very strongly marketted though, and mindshare for the traditional style of mousetrap is so strong that most people still use old style traps.
It almost seems like this tech would be better limited to within a room. I mean, does anyone really run A/V signals between rooms as it is (except, of course, cable or satellite runs from a dish or the street)?
You don't sneak a large invasion force in, but the large invasion force can benefit greatly from a few guys sneaking in and blowing up a lot of the potential resistance.
IPv6 has NAT. The larger address space is only one of the changes that the new standard makes (it's just the most visible, and easiest to describe). IPv6 also allows for better security, QoS routing, and new 'plug and play' autoconfiguration capabilities (ie, generate an IP address from the hardware address)
Every round of processors has some sort of potentially catastrophic bug. Hyperthreading has an issue where if you fool the scheduler right you can get elevated privledges, back in the early Pentium 2/Celeron days there was flashable microcode that a virus could use to basically wipe the proc clean, and most critical to real life there was an issue in the early rounds of Pentiums (I believe; Intel proc around that time) where there was a known error in the lookup table used for division (ie, a divide on a specific pair of operands yielded the wrong value).
Most processor bugs are potentially very dangerous, but the circumstances to exploit them are exceedingly difficult to pull off. Computers are complicated machines, and regression tests against every possible state is pretty much impossible.
You don't give someone the more powerful antibiotics unless they have a serious infection. Likewise, you don't use powerful pesticides unless you've got a serious bug problem. In this case, thousands are dying because of the mosquitoes, so it's an appropriate time to exterminate the population with the best weapons you've got.
I'm not saying that evolution isn't a predictive theory; you've found a number of nice examples that demonstrate that it is. I was just correcting the GP with regard to a theory needing to be predictive for it to be, well, a theory.
Making your theory fit with recorded data is a good way to come up with it, but at some point you need to make a prediction about an unknown outcome and see if that matches. If you only have to match the past, then the people who analyze Nostradamus's writings are just as much scientists as anyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
He drew a picture, his buddies were amused. The person in the picture wasn't, but I wasn't real amused when that guy flicked me off on the highway this morning either.
If you scream fire in a crowded theater, the charge is typically for the injuries caused in the stampede of people fleeing the building. In this case, he draw a picture and his buddies said "hehe that's pretty funny". If we're going to start charging people with "inciting amusement", I'm not sure where we're headed.
Frequently under Linux, you will be running fine with the distribution-specific kernel build, and find that you need a specific weird driver compiled in that isn't there. Without the source the distro used, you're left spending a long time getting everything back to working from a vanilla kernel (basically redoing any tweaks that the distro needed to make things work right).
It's interesting you should mention it that way. When I installed the Windows Vista Beta, there was a segment in the EULA expressly saying that you can't copy the fonts, except for copies made solely for the purpose of printing output (ie, you can send them to a printer, or in the more complicated case to another computer that is acting as a print server, as long as they go away when the print job is done).
In a more similar vein to your 'PageFoo' example, Autodesk at one point had a viewer application for its various drawing formats so that you didn't need a $5000 seat just to print.
So, what you're saying is, the Microsoft Tax on every mainstream PC sold in America is really a humanitarian effort to save the children of the third world, and booting one of the competing products is a stomp in the face of a dying child?
To many companies, employees are valuable assets, comparable to the minks that compose a mink coat. /apologies to Scott Adams
DRM *is* the problem there. There's nothing unique to iTunes tracks that makes them unsuitable for transcoding to MP3 except that Apple doesn't allow it, via DRM. There exist programs to transcode the underlying MP4 compression to MP3, but the DRM layer prevents them from working. That you can easily circumvent the DRM by using outputting to a CD as an intermediate step doesn't hide that there is DRM in place *trying* to prevent you from listening to the music in the format of your choice. It's the same situation with DVDs; you can enter a code in almost all DVD players to turn off region coding. Some companies even put it on a note in the box. But there's still a region code on the DVD, and you still need to take steps to circumvent it.
That WinAmp plugin doesn't actually play the music, it simply passes the file to the proprietary iTunes system in the background. If you'll notice, DSP and output plugins don't work on ITMS tracks.
The EU won't even see the problem, since the consumer ISPs in Europe wouldn't be trying to get money out of content providers. It might even increase a focus on Europeans as customers for US-based web services, because they will be cheaper customers to get to. Pretty much the only person to lose in this scenario is the US internet consumer (ironically, the one group of people on the planet whose interestes are supposedly represented by the people in charge of this legislation).
The way the internet works, you have an ISP, Amazon.com has an ISP (probably more than one), and between those networks are a number of other service providers. At each link, the side that is generating more traffic pays a fee proportional to the difference. For example, you generate traffic on your link to your ISP, but you don't pass traffic for your ISP, so you pay for the traffic you pass. The same goes on Amazon's end; they aren't in the business of forwarding traffic, so they pay a hefty fee. Your ISP probably does pass nearly as much traffic for other ISPs as it sends out for it's customers, so it pays something for its links as well. You see, everyone pays already. You pay, Amazon.com pays, and all the ISPs in the middle (with the exception of Tier-1 ISPs that pass and generate traffic equally) pay. What the concept of 'tiered pricing' does is make Amazon.com pay all of the ISPs in between - except they're *already* being compensated for their services. All the charges for passing Amazon.com's traffic already trickles down to their bandwidth bill.
A car analogy is cliche, but suppose UPS is delivering a package to you from Amazon. Amazon pays UPS to deliver it, and passes that cost on to you. Now, to get to your house, the UPS truck has to go down a toll road. So they pay the toll, because they knew it was coming and added it into the bill they charged Amazon. If this toll road was operating under these new 'tiered services', however, they would also send a bill to Amazon.com for shipping a package down their road. That's not right; they already got their toll.
so what's wrong with charging premium customers for the premium service you provide? How is that different from the toll roads? A new shortcut highway is built, and you can either 1) pay a fee to drive the faster way or 2) use the old road for free even though your trip takes longer. In the end, everybody wins!
Google is not a customer of Time Warner Cable. There's also no new hardware. This is existing hardware with a routing policy.
If search.msn.com wants to be routed to Comcast customers in 2 hops instead of 14 like google.com, why shouldn't MSN be able to pay Comcast for the dedicated fiber/router cost? Why do you force ALL comcast customers to pay for the convenience only to those that use google.com?
We're not building a pipe from Google to "the customers". Google has ISPs, your residential ISP has ISPs. They all work out their peering independant of any particular link. If MSN wants to set up a point of presence in a region, and pay for dedicated links to it, they already can. That's not what tiered internet is providing.
Why should I subsidize the new hardware with my tax dollars and customer fees for google and amazon to make billions?
If they want new hardware, let them PAY for it, passing the buck to THEIR customers. Pay as you go, if you wish, let the market sort it out.
Your tax dollars do not fund internet infrastructure. Your phone, cable, and internet bills do. Much larger than your $50/mo, however, is what Amazon and eBay pay to their service providers. To say that these companies get a free ride is to ignore one of their biggest expenses.
You people seem to freak out like "OMG WTF they want to slow down google-fullstop-com." Look komrade, nobody is going to slow anything down: what tiered internet means is that the paying sites will finance the additional hardware/infrastructure, and in exchange get the exclusive use of the said infrastructure for a time period. with tiered internet, everybody wins
What you, and the rest of the 'pro tiered' crowd ignore is that major internet businesses pay through the nose for stable, high-bandwidth pipes. They are the ones funding the bulk of infrastructure rollout. Of course, I don't expect you to understand this, as you probably also are of the impression that the wealthy get huge breaks on their taxes in our bracketed taxing system that foots them with 90% of the bill for a big government.
Prioritized traffic isn't what this is all about. Under your system about, www traffic rated higher than p2p. Under this system, www traffic to say msn.com might rate higher or lower than www traffic to ask.com. Implementing QoS to keep VoIP and short web transfers snappy next to large P2P downloads is a good thing, implementing controls so that traffic is prioritized according to payments by the destination network is a bad thing.
Ask someone to name an online music store, they'll name iTunes. Ask them to name an MP3 player, they'll name iPod. If you want to target the biggest guy in the business, Apple's it.
Build a better mouse trap . . .and the world will ignore you.
This is literally true. The Victor company actually did invent a better mousetrap, designed so that you can't snap your fingers while setting it. It isn't very strongly marketted though, and mindshare for the traditional style of mousetrap is so strong that most people still use old style traps.
It almost seems like this tech would be better limited to within a room. I mean, does anyone really run A/V signals between rooms as it is (except, of course, cable or satellite runs from a dish or the street)?
You don't sneak a large invasion force in, but the large invasion force can benefit greatly from a few guys sneaking in and blowing up a lot of the potential resistance.
They most certainly target their computers who use the term 'grown-ups' as a condescending term.
IPv6 has NAT. The larger address space is only one of the changes that the new standard makes (it's just the most visible, and easiest to describe). IPv6 also allows for better security, QoS routing, and new 'plug and play' autoconfiguration capabilities (ie, generate an IP address from the hardware address)
Every round of processors has some sort of potentially catastrophic bug. Hyperthreading has an issue where if you fool the scheduler right you can get elevated privledges, back in the early Pentium 2/Celeron days there was flashable microcode that a virus could use to basically wipe the proc clean, and most critical to real life there was an issue in the early rounds of Pentiums (I believe; Intel proc around that time) where there was a known error in the lookup table used for division (ie, a divide on a specific pair of operands yielded the wrong value).
Most processor bugs are potentially very dangerous, but the circumstances to exploit them are exceedingly difficult to pull off. Computers are complicated machines, and regression tests against every possible state is pretty much impossible.
You don't give someone the more powerful antibiotics unless they have a serious infection. Likewise, you don't use powerful pesticides unless you've got a serious bug problem. In this case, thousands are dying because of the mosquitoes, so it's an appropriate time to exterminate the population with the best weapons you've got.
I'm not saying that evolution isn't a predictive theory; you've found a number of nice examples that demonstrate that it is. I was just correcting the GP with regard to a theory needing to be predictive for it to be, well, a theory.
And I'm sure that there's a DDT resistant mosquito, but there's no point in not trying a cure that's available.
That's precisely why they would want to bring their family along ...
Making your theory fit with recorded data is a good way to come up with it, but at some point you need to make a prediction about an unknown outcome and see if that matches. If you only have to match the past, then the people who analyze Nostradamus's writings are just as much scientists as anyone else.
Our best farmlands are 200-700m above sea level. Even the most extreme of global warming cases put that above water.