Pretend to be a researcher. Approach bank president. "Hi, I'm Bob Researcher from State U. I'd like to test your bank's security for you." [insert fear mongering as necessary]
It is if they're the ones stopping you reaching the speed they advertised. Right, and that's irrelevant. All I'm saying is that there's a legitimate reason to have that disclaimer. That doesn't mean they can't abuse it and use it to defend illegitimate practices.
Ultimately, my point is that it would be impossible to run an ISP and not say that.
I suspect it'll be a bit more sophisticated than that. I don't know a whole lot about networking, but I suspect it shouldn't be too hard to fake a connection so that it's difficult to distinguish it from a torrent. Thus the only way to "cheat" on the test would be to unthrottle all torrents, and in that case you're not really cheating anymore, are ya?
Of course, as has been said earlier in the discussion, Google's likely most interested in the effects of throttling on their own applications, notably Youtube. So if they only test connections to Youtube, then it either forces ISPs to be caught red-handed or unthrottle youtube, a win-win situation for Google.
I mean, they can't possibly guarantee you a certain speed. Try explaining to Joe Perv that even though he has the capability of 20 MbPS, the server that has his Chinese industrial accident porn can only deliver at 20 bPS.
There's enough reasons to sling vitriol at unethical ISPs, but advertising "up to [speed]" isn't one of them.
Sorry for the google bashing, but this doesn't seem like google is as much interested in defending the poor customers against the evil ISP's as it's trying to defend it's own commercial interests. And in this case their interests align with the customers' interests, against the evil ISPs.
I'm sure there's stuff in the legalese of the contract you signed which says that that number's an upper limit and you should just be happy they give you any bandwidth at all, you filty customer.
The Xbox (original) had a similar exploit with MechAssault, allowing you to mod the console without cracking the seal by loading a hacked save file. I believe one of the James Bond games had the same exploit.
This is still loads more effort than was required for the DC. With the Dreamcast, you burnt a disc and played it. No modding, hard or soft, neccessary; you didn't even need a boot disc after a while.
Our CS department, at least (where I work) upgrades the systems every two years.
Not only do we have to dispose of all the old machines, it's my understanding that we're actually paying some company to dispose of them, for liability issues.
It's really, really stupid, especially considering how many poor people in the area could benefit from these great machines. Make them sign a waiver and be done with it, for crissakes.
Yeah, I know, this is Slashdot and that's to be expected, but still.
I'll end up having to reinstall it at least 3 times the first year due to Windows unreliability. Really, man? My last computer had Windows XP pre-installed on it, and that same install of XP lasted me for around 5 years, and that includes lots of monkeying around (such as changing the partition size with GPartEd, installing various Linux distros and Vista side-by-side, daily use with a reboot only when necessary, installing anything that seemed remotely interesting to me).
Complaining about Windows's stability is like complaining that Linux is hard to install and has poor hardware support. Get with the times.
You know, I've never actually measured the amount of liquid in a gallon of milk (or water, or any other product, for that matter). It's entirely likely that the unopened gallon of milk in my fridge right now is only.9 gallons, for all I know.
Any idea, then, why she won't allow an RPG to be made? God knows there's demand for it in the RPG community, and she certainly doesn't have any hang-ups with licensing her properties.
Absolutely, it totally is her business. She has every right to not let people make RPGs. Of course, it also means she's a douchebag. She has the right to act like a douchebag, and she chooses to exercise that right.
It's not whether an RPG is allowed to be made or not, it's the reason for it. I don't know why Blizzard didn't want EA to make an RPG based on WoW, but I doubt "it will create the potential to much with our grand vision" was the reason.
Actually, I have no idea what you're talking about, but here are some reasons I suspect Blizz wouldn't let EA make a WoW RPG.
1: There's already a WoW RPG. 2: They have no experience making RPGs. 3: EA is Vivendi's (Blizzard's parent company) biggest competitor.
As has been stated ad nauseum (see other threads started in reply to my original post), Rowling sticking the Harry Potter name on anything she can, so long as she can control it. The idea that DMs might come up with their own stories set in the HP universe infuriates her.
So, to sum up, Waterson doesn't want any licensed stuff. That's fine.
JK Rowling doesn't want any licensed stuff with the potential to stray outside her own ideas. That's perfectly legal and she has every right to behave that way, but it also makes her a douchebag.
No, seriously. She's a huge douchebag, a total control freak when it comes to Harry Potter. For example, I've heard she specifically won't allow a Harry Potter RPG to be made, because she wouldn't be able to control the sorts of stories run in it.
1. GUIs: Always a pain in the ass, always tedious. Unlike web development, I think there's no problem with using WYSIWYG for app development.
2. Memory aids: I know how to program. I don't, however, have every method of every object memorized. Being able to look through a list is often quite helpful. It's also a good way to find things you never knew existed.
3. Compiling: I fail at compiling. I don't know how to do it-- I'm sure I could learn, if I had to, but that's the thing. At least so far, I haven't had to.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretend to be a researcher. Approach bank president. "Hi, I'm Bob Researcher from State U. I'd like to test your bank's security for you." [insert fear mongering as necessary]
If successful, yay! Free identities!
If unsuccessful, meh. You're legit!
Ultimately, my point is that it would be impossible to run an ISP and not say that.
I suspect it'll be a bit more sophisticated than that. I don't know a whole lot about networking, but I suspect it shouldn't be too hard to fake a connection so that it's difficult to distinguish it from a torrent. Thus the only way to "cheat" on the test would be to unthrottle all torrents, and in that case you're not really cheating anymore, are ya?
Of course, as has been said earlier in the discussion, Google's likely most interested in the effects of throttling on their own applications, notably Youtube. So if they only test connections to Youtube, then it either forces ISPs to be caught red-handed or unthrottle youtube, a win-win situation for Google.
It's not really a bad thing, either.
I mean, they can't possibly guarantee you a certain speed. Try explaining to Joe Perv that even though he has the capability of 20 MbPS, the server that has his Chinese industrial accident porn can only deliver at 20 bPS.
There's enough reasons to sling vitriol at unethical ISPs, but advertising "up to [speed]" isn't one of them.
I'm sure there's stuff in the legalese of the contract you signed which says that that number's an upper limit and you should just be happy they give you any bandwidth at all, you filty customer.
You seem to be mistaken, they chose goodville.
RIAA Lawyer: Your honor, would you believe that the defendant stole over 150 million different albums?
Judge: I find that difficult to believe, Mr. Lawyer.
RIAA Lawyer: Oh. Well, would you believe the defendant distributed 150 thousand copies of copyrighted works?
Judge: I don't think so.
RIAA Lawyer: How about a half dozen Britney Spears mix CDs?
Our penis so small, American penis so big. I mean, wow, such big American penis. Chinese cannot hack America with such small penis.
:p)
(yes, I know that they were Japanese on South Park
Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/359/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
The Xbox (original) had a similar exploit with MechAssault, allowing you to mod the console without cracking the seal by loading a hacked save file. I believe one of the James Bond games had the same exploit.
This is still loads more effort than was required for the DC. With the Dreamcast, you burnt a disc and played it. No modding, hard or soft, neccessary; you didn't even need a boot disc after a while.
They're going to patent kittens, and then put rootkits on 'em.
Our CS department, at least (where I work) upgrades the systems every two years.
Not only do we have to dispose of all the old machines, it's my understanding that we're actually paying some company to dispose of them, for liability issues.
It's really, really stupid, especially considering how many poor people in the area could benefit from these great machines. Make them sign a waiver and be done with it, for crissakes.
Complaining about Windows's stability is like complaining that Linux is hard to install and has poor hardware support. Get with the times.
Those aren't illegal in the US, much to the chagrin of the "think of the children" crowd.
So, in other words, the bill would prevent US companies from helping censorship in countries other than the US. Awesome.
You know, I've never actually measured the amount of liquid in a gallon of milk (or water, or any other product, for that matter). It's entirely likely that the unopened gallon of milk in my fridge right now is only .9 gallons, for all I know.
Any idea, then, why she won't allow an RPG to be made? God knows there's demand for it in the RPG community, and she certainly doesn't have any hang-ups with licensing her properties.
Absolutely, it totally is her business. She has every right to not let people make RPGs. Of course, it also means she's a douchebag. She has the right to act like a douchebag, and she chooses to exercise that right.
It's not whether an RPG is allowed to be made or not, it's the reason for it. I don't know why Blizzard didn't want EA to make an RPG based on WoW, but I doubt "it will create the potential to much with our grand vision" was the reason.
Actually, I have no idea what you're talking about, but here are some reasons I suspect Blizz wouldn't let EA make a WoW RPG.
1: There's already a WoW RPG.
2: They have no experience making RPGs.
3: EA is Vivendi's (Blizzard's parent company) biggest competitor.
No, it doesn't.
As has been stated ad nauseum (see other threads started in reply to my original post), Rowling sticking the Harry Potter name on anything she can, so long as she can control it. The idea that DMs might come up with their own stories set in the HP universe infuriates her.
So, to sum up, Waterson doesn't want any licensed stuff. That's fine.
JK Rowling doesn't want any licensed stuff with the potential to stray outside her own ideas. That's perfectly legal and she has every right to behave that way, but it also makes her a douchebag.
No, seriously. She's a huge douchebag, a total control freak when it comes to Harry Potter. For example, I've heard she specifically won't allow a Harry Potter RPG to be made, because she wouldn't be able to control the sorts of stories run in it.
I love IDEs, for 3 reasons.
1. GUIs: Always a pain in the ass, always tedious. Unlike web development, I think there's no problem with using WYSIWYG for app development.
2. Memory aids: I know how to program. I don't, however, have every method of every object memorized. Being able to look through a list is often quite helpful. It's also a good way to find things you never knew existed.
3. Compiling: I fail at compiling. I don't know how to do it-- I'm sure I could learn, if I had to, but that's the thing. At least so far, I haven't had to.