As someone who's done home email servers, webhosting, phones, the lot The age of running web services from your home connection has passed.
If you try to run emails out of a home connection, either your ISP will block by default port 25 used for sending emails, or your ip address will be blacklisted by any and every spam filter system out there. Even if you're ISP is good and unblocks you, you'll still likely hit some spam filters.
As for security, do you really want to go to the hassle of applying security updates and being aware of security vulnerabilities and mitigating them? And when you get hit by a zero-day exploit, do you want to run the risk of your machine being used to infect other machines on your network. Do you want to invest in the technology and have the skill set to ensure that the system is segregated or firewalled off from the rest of the network?
And finally, understand that if you have such a machine on your premise, you can easily be tracked by a simple subpoena to your ISP. At which point any civil, let alone criminal investigation will effortlessly tie all actions/crimes your website is responsible for to you, the tech-head running it in your home.
Just get someone else to host your crap, its not worth the trouble to do it yourself..
When the state pays into the university for educating its citizens, its called socialism. When university's do what they can to make easy money its called capitalism. But at least they are motivated.
Regardless of the value for money, the issue is that they are failing to deliver quality education. Be it socialism or capitalism at fault, a company that fails to deliver on its promises should be held to account. This is the first step.
If all schools of all levels were held to account, perhaps the US education system wouldn't be such a failure. But that's a whole different discussion for a different day.
I'm not american, but i understand your constitution.
There is no mention of "self-defense" in the 2nd amendment. It is implied that the right to bear arms is necessary for the security of the nation. But nothing mentioned or implied about the security of the individual, let alone self-defense. It is also implied that those who have guns be disciplined "A well regulated Militia".
I see no reason why preventing a firearm from firing unless its near the owners watch is detrimental. It is little more than a safety lock located on the owner rather than on the gun.
At the very least, it should be a choice a buyer can make when buying a gun. I know if i had both children and guns in my home, i'd like the idea of that safety lock.
No, that means that 2/3rds of the people didn't vote. If they didn't vote they had no say in the result and no right to complain that it didn't wind up they way they wanted.
That is such a horrible view, made by an idealist rather than a realist. When both choices are unacceptable, the only logical choice is to not vote. Voting in someone you don't want in power, is explicitly giving your endorsement.
And "no right to complain". Everyone has a right to complain and free speach, thats one of the best ways to get thing improved. Enforcing censorship against those who are dissatisfied with the elections is tyranny.
Ultimately the best thing for a democracy is a politically active and informed population. A "Put up or shut up" attitude to poorly run elections is just immature and counter productive to a healthy democracy.
The assets are being sold from the NZ government, to mostly the NZ population. The money made is being used to keep debt repayment insurance low, and help pay for new health infrastructure like hospitals.
Mr Key was born in a state owned house, with a single parent. He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but hes made it to be the prime minster of our country.
I believe its a wise choice for leader, that we pick someone who (despite the poor start in life,) manages to be successful in life. Electing someone who can't run their own business, to the largest business in the country, The Country itself, is a recipe for disaster (*cough*Bush*cough*)
In the 2+ terms his party been running the country, he has managed to bring our country from the brink of a debt that could never be repaid, into surplus, while dealing with a earthquakes that obliterated our 3rd Largest city, Christchurch. It hasn't been easy, as hes cut all new funding resulting in a lot of job losses, but the results are speaking for themselves. We are now in surplus with one of the best outlooks on the future in all the oecd
If the opposition had their way, we'd be worse than australia, who despite having a booming mining sector, are predicting record deficits because they only know how to spend money.
NZ authorities have not destroyed a company. The running operations were halted by US enforcement on US soil.
All NZ was involved with, was arresting Kim Docom, and freezing his personal NZ assets. Even if our police force told the US to sod off, the US would still have seized the servers, and his company bank accounts, and the company would of faced all the problems that have halted its business. The only difference is that Dotcom would be free to travel and make business arrangements as he saw fit, with his personal finances located in NZ
Its easy to say that when you're outside of the system looking in.
Fact of the matter is that a console, or the odd perk for that matter doesn't make them free men. And in return for such access to perks, we can demand and expect good behaviour or other such tokens in return.
A prison exists to : protect the people outside from the people inside create a deterrent to crime by creating a visible punishment rehabilitate the criminals so they will be less likely/willing to commit future acts of crime.
If access to an entertainment device helps better rehabilitate the inmates, then its worth looking into. Creating a prison that's so badarse that only the strongest survive, isn't going to provide any useful social skills or conditioning... Unless you're trying to create sardaukar troops.
I've liked, and still like Google, because they have a high sense of business ethic.
Did Microsoft or yahoo pull out of china when it was getting hacked? Did Microsoft or yahoo contest china's censorship programs? Does Microsoft, Yahoo, or Apple make exporting data/contacts you create on their platforms exportable should you wish to migrate away? Does Microsoft, Yahoo, or Apple offer free api's, allowing 3rd parties to access and interface with their services and user's data? Does Apple operate a store which is free to publish on? Does Apple have a phone that is unlocked, easy to perform maintenance and connect to, and doesn't attempt to brick jailbroken phones each time a firmware update arrives? How about how Google tries to protect the freedom of the internet, adding its weight to net neutrality, patent reform, and other legal issues that plague the future of IT.
"What happened to the Google that just had a cool search engine? Why is it taking advantage of search monopoly profits to either buy out or crush every competitor in every non-core market? Why do they talk about openness when their core business is based on a search and advertising engine that is not open source?"
Google grew, advertising is its key business and like all businesses it does what it can to protect its review stream. But its doing it in the most honest way a business can, buying out or just beating via prices. Its not sending lawsuits with patent infringement shakedowns like every other big company out there.
As for openness, there is no reason, legal, ethical, or moral, that google should reveal their search engine source code. In fact the only thing that would do is improve search functionality of their competitors, and help link farms be more effective.
In summary. Google is a saint compared to every other mainstream IT company out there. It’s not perfect, but they actively try to be good AND profitable. It’s not an easy line to walk. They wouldn’t be around long if they were as perfect as Op wants (supporting the competition, never buying in small companies, opening all software/engines to the public/competitors)... In that case they'd be the good and forgotten.
$6.5 Billion isn't small change. And what would google gain by purchasing sun?
Open Office? They have google docs
The Sun OS? They have chrome
A dying mainframe business?
They'd gained Sun's Java i suppose, but then again, they already had a working java engine. Why break their existing java engine when it isn't broke.
I suspect that Sun's purchase was way overpriced, and purchased mostly as a way of aggressively killing and smothering (or in Google’s case extorting) competition.
5-10 years from now, once oracle has finished sucking the blood out, it'll be sold for a few hundred million.
And his reason for providing it free is because he considers it unethical to charge for power he collected "free".
I'll also add, doesn't surprise me that its a student spouting such idealism. I expect someone else is footing the bill for parts (the student's university springs to mind).
Its a lot harder to provide the service free when it personally costs you $1500+USD with no return other then a feel good vibe.
For it to read an uncompressed file, it simply needs to seek it on disk and read. For it to read a compressed file, it needs to seek the compressed file, open the libaries needed to deal with the compression logarithm if not cashed, read to the index of the archive, read headers to find the desired file, seek to that location, read, decompress.
For any small document, the number of seek operations on a standard HD is goign to be the limiting factor far more then the bandwidth of a hard-drive. And compression has probably doubled that limiting factor.
Most Hard-drives can match SSD in bandwidth, its just that the biggest advantage of a SSD is that there really isn't a seek time, so finding then accessing the file is near instant in comparasion.
About the only way compression improves performance is when the actual bandwidth is botlenecked, but thats really not the case with documents, its just the seek delay accessing the file.
1. The price of meat is more expensive in Japan then most countries. So saying they'll get the costs down that of japanese meat isn't really a draw card for most other western/american nations.
2. Compleating the food cycle? I thought we got mad-cow disease because we did this very thing with cows. We reduced the food chain and had cows eating cows, Rather then having intermedate agents inbetween.
Now we want to mimic that efficency with humans eating human shit...
So explain to me how a goverment bank, lending money to a goverment entitiy, is saving money.
Sure the goverment overall might make large savings in low interest repayments. But at the same time, the goverment bank with its billion dollars is getting a terrible rate of return on its investment.
So lower expenses with lower income, or normal expenses with normal income. Out the left pocket and into the right, it makes little differance.
Or is there something i'm missing, like the bank can print its own money?
"Once you emit any electromagnetic radiation outside the bounds of your property, you have no expectation of privacy whatsoever."
What a load of shite. I believe the US Supreme court decided in a 4-3 decision that there are expectations of privacy, and just because you can observe/listen in a public place doesn't give you a right to do so. (I can't find the case, i believe it was over cops using powerful heat cameras to find and raid weed growing operation houses).
And damned right!. As it is there are technologies that allow a laser be pointed at a window and you can hear the audio with clarity on the other side. There are cameras that have limited vision through solid walls. And even your own body leaves behind elements in public places that can be anazlised for private infomation. And that was from what i remember from nearly a decade ago.
Just wait for the portable back scatter machines to be developed, then people will be able to take nude snaps of you if you leave your house...
Now although this might be a breach of privacy, the fault is on the "victims" because they were transmitting infomation, there was no attempt to keep it private, (the hardware goign out of its way to make it public) so i don't believe google are at fault.
sounds like their turbo boost feature. Where you get blazing fast unlimited speed. But when you read the small print, its only for the first 50mb on an http connection, after that you get throttled.
I would say its in part the vested interest in other platforms, but mostly because its Apple.
A decade ago i disliked macs, mostly because they were irrating to use, and their Hockey puck mouse.
Macs died out and that was all good. They made the ipod. Its great hardware, and was innovative at the time and for a few years after.
Then there was a decided shift to what i consider evil apple. Before where i disliked it over preferances, i now hate it for its ideals.
The iphone came out, you couldn't purchase the hardware except by taking a 2 year contract.
The istore was shown to be the only way to get apps onto the iphone, and apple controled every aspect of that. Control over the apps you installed on your phone was removed. Lets not forget that the developers using the istore, have to deal with the most retarded systems, my favourite being if a user returns your application you have to provide them a full refund, however the 30% gross sales tax that apple took, they still keep. How is that fair?
Then theres how they prevented any open standards for devices using their itunes. Doesn't matter if it was 100% compatable with itunes, if it wasn't made by apple, it was compatiable. Apple even released an update to itunes just to screw over the compeditors. You can say its in apples rights to do so, and i'd agree, but your not winning any hearts for doing so.
Then theres the rewriting of the iphone/ipod developer EULA, that pulled the rug under adobe, and gives even less freedom to how apps are developed on those products.
Google has been denied any use of analitics for its advertising, meaning its not going to be able to target adds very effectivly at all, making them less cost effective. Apple of course doesn't have that problem, and they have started up their own advertising business for the phone. Of course when google does analitics on ads, its evil. But when apple does it, its not a problem...
Finally as announced last week, apple are dropping support for java, in a move i expect is only the start of what they are doing to adobe.They also are creating OS features for apps that are sold their their istore.
All this to me, shows an orginization that is activtly undermining the freedom of current machines, in an attempt to control it all. If apple had their way, you won't be able to buy a dvd machine without it being made by apple. Otherwise it won't plug into other apple hardware you have (they'll forbid it), you'll only be able to download dvds from the apple store itunes, and browsing the web will be "optimized" for safari only.
Put shortly apple is working to put their fingers in every pie, and shaft any potental compertition. Now you can claim that its all astroturfing, but go back a decade, and Microsoft was hated for excatly the same reasons. I think MS have since "mellowed" out a lot since then, and a lot of the hate regarding MS has disapated.
I disliked macs because i thought the machine was annoying to use and a toy. That was my preferance. I HATE apple. I dislike the mac os, but i hate apple. What they are doing will destroy a lot of what i most enjoy with windows machines. Even the ability to build my own machine and uprade as i see fit will be taken away from me if apple have their way.
Apple has a lot to answer for, but i suspect the only answers apple is looking to give are to its shareholders over its quarterly earnings reports over how much money it made from people who don't give a damn and just want something shiny to play with.
Finally thing i'm going to restate. There are macs, and then there is Apple. I still dislike macs, and i'll dislike them even more in the future judging by apple's intentions. But i HATE Apple, and what its openly trying to do. You'd have to be blind not to see its trying to control every digital aspect you use.
Since they are adding foreign organic materal into the host, doesn't that mean the host would have to have immune suppressants to stop his body from destroying the cells.
Sounds like its far from a perfect. You might be able to restore functionality to disabled limbs, but at the cost your your immune system.
Here in NZ most of the providers will advertise plans as "downloads as fast as your connection can handle", then an upload cap of 256Kb/s.
The result is that even if you connect to the exchange at 18Mb/s, you'll find using more then 3Mb/s impossible because of the tiny upload. Each packet you receive by tcp requires confirmation packet to be sent. Each sent packet uses your upload bandwidth.
So by all practical measures, your download speed is limited by its upload speed. As fast as you can download is false advertising, as its as fast as your upload allows.
I'd love to see companies sued over false advertising, as it is misleading the public into thinking they are downloading as fast as possible, when they are only getting a fraction of their true potential.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Having something that is potentially dangerious unsecured, is the act of stupidity or recklessness. Theres a reason why all guns have a saftey, just as theres reason why all pools should be gated.
In a world where you had pure freedoms to do what you like, it'd be acceptable. So would killing people outright for any or no reason at all.
Theres a compromise involved. If such a drowning did happen, i'd blame both parties involved. The parents for loosing track of their child, and the pool owner for having a pool so easy to access that a child managed to get in and drown.
There are so many threads attempting to justify copyright infringement that its just sickening.
If you "pirate" a game which you didn't pay for, you've done a bad thing. Stop trying to justify your actions. You CAN"T
You broke the rights and wishes of the owners of the game, so you could profit.
End of story.
You can talk all about the ideas of DRM, or how you wouldn't of purchased it anyway, or how you advertise by word of mouth. But its all excuses. You don't have a right to use anyones software without permission.
I have far more respect for people who purchase games, or refuse to buy when a publisher goes too far. ("I won't buy a game i can't install more then 3 times") People who are at least honest about how they break the law often aren't too bad. ("I shouldn't of, but i couldn't afford it")
But people who think its their right to take what other people make for free are dicks. And people who then promote it as their right to "pirate", are scum. ("I'm only willing to pay $5, but since the publishers have no idea how to price, i'll just steal it $0)
Seems to me, the younger the person, the more likely they are to think anything on the internet is a free.
I think the end result of their DRM might hurt their sales more then help, but i still can't blame nintendo for doing what they feel is best. At least at the end of the day, their cartridges are drm free (at least how i'm concerned)
Why is it Apple's job to modify their platform to accommodate Flash?
I'm not sure where that question came out of. The real debate is how apple changed the developer EULA to effectively deny any possibility of a flash developed app running.
History lesson: The first developer EULA prevented any apps from interperting code. So no emulators, or on the fly compliers. This meant that everything had to run as a native executable. This denied flash or java from running on the system, in addition to preventing a potential backdoor to the apple shop. (Otherwise you could download a compiler type app (ie: java), and run any program you wished, instead of having your choices controled/taxed by apple's iStore)
Adobe worked around this EULA limitation, by allowing flash developers to create a native executable for the iphone. It was written using flash, but was an actual native execuitable for the iphone. Apple still controled the iStore, but flash developers could now develop for the iPhone.
Lo and behold, our saviours of the internet, Apple, got around and changed the developer EULA, to explicitly fix that "loophole". Making it against the EULA to write a program that wasn't in objective C (or whatever language apple now demands, i forget)
The ONLY reason i can comprehend for that change to the EULA was to ban the native flash executables. Theres no other practical reason for it.
Adobe went out of their way to support the iPhone, and in return Apple pulled the rug out from under them and banned any use of their application for development/use on the iphone/ipad. Thats a dick move by apple, the likes of which i haven't seen since Microsoft in the 90's
And to top it off, now they come out telling us how they are only doing whats best for the ipod/iphone. Well that's bloody obvious. Apple want to force as much vendor lockin as possible, and cross-platform tools are the bane to any company trying to force an OS lock-in. Lock-in is great for apple, the iphone, and ipad. Its terrible for everyone and everything else, including the actual iphone consumers!
Now if it happens, that the input signal is just right, it can e.g. raise the sensitivity of one neuron (or lower that of an inhibiting one), which then becomes able to trigger the swearing neurons for a lot of previously irrelevant input.
The signal in this case is just semi-random light. If that was enough for her to develop a problem, then she was a time-bomb waiting to go off. If i was passing by, and i sneezed, and she "developed" her problem then, would I be libable for her problems.
Even if the scanner developed her problem (which i don't believe for even a second), i can't see how shes justified in persueing the store. Either learn to live with it, or seek help/aid via normal disabilitiy channels.
Houses, or at least the land they are built on, do increase in value. its a known fact.
As the population grows, the need for houses also grows. Supply and demand.
Same supply with increased demands means higher prices.
Now although more houses get built to help keep demand in place. These new houses are normally built and developed in new suburbs with minimal cost/infrastructure/community. Their desirability isn't as high as in an established zone
Properity, both the land and the house its built on (assuming maintance) increase in value as time goes on. So much so that most goverments have a special tax in place to tax the increase in value from people who buy and sell property. Here in New Zealand we don't have such a tax and its a concern, due to the fact that a lot of investment capital goes into property investment.
Going slightly off-topic, ubt its worth mentioniong The problem with property investment is that investing in land does nothing inherntly useful. No new jobs are created, yet a huge amount of money is "invested" in something that generates nothing. The value such an investment "generates" is caused by the action of others who have invested into businesses that actually generate wealth.
As such most goverments have a tax systems in place to encourage development away from such dead-end investments Anyway, since an artical this long demands a citation, heres wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_tax
Slashdot Mirror
As someone who's done home email servers, webhosting, phones, the lot
The age of running web services from your home connection has passed.
If you try to run emails out of a home connection, either your ISP will block by default port 25 used for sending emails, or your ip address will be blacklisted by any and every spam filter system out there.
Even if you're ISP is good and unblocks you, you'll still likely hit some spam filters.
As for security, do you really want to go to the hassle of applying security updates and being aware of security vulnerabilities and mitigating them?
And when you get hit by a zero-day exploit, do you want to run the risk of your machine being used to infect other machines on your network. Do you want to invest in the technology and have the skill set to ensure that the system is segregated or firewalled off from the rest of the network?
And finally, understand that if you have such a machine on your premise, you can easily be tracked by a simple subpoena to your ISP. At which point any civil, let alone criminal investigation will effortlessly tie all actions/crimes your website is responsible for to you, the tech-head running it in your home.
Just get someone else to host your crap, its not worth the trouble to do it yourself..
When the state pays into the university for educating its citizens, its called socialism.
When university's do what they can to make easy money its called capitalism. But at least they are motivated.
Regardless of the value for money, the issue is that they are failing to deliver quality education.
Be it socialism or capitalism at fault, a company that fails to deliver on its promises should be held to account. This is the first step.
If all schools of all levels were held to account, perhaps the US education system wouldn't be such a failure. But that's a whole different discussion for a different day.
I'm not american, but i understand your constitution.
There is no mention of "self-defense" in the 2nd amendment.
It is implied that the right to bear arms is necessary for the security of the nation. But nothing mentioned or implied about the security of the individual, let alone self-defense.
It is also implied that those who have guns be disciplined "A well regulated Militia".
I see no reason why preventing a firearm from firing unless its near the owners watch is detrimental. It is little more than a safety lock located on the owner rather than on the gun.
At the very least, it should be a choice a buyer can make when buying a gun. I know if i had both children and guns in my home, i'd like the idea of that safety lock.
No, that means that 2/3rds of the people didn't vote. If they didn't vote they had no say in the result and no right to complain that it didn't wind up they way they wanted.
That is such a horrible view, made by an idealist rather than a realist.
When both choices are unacceptable, the only logical choice is to not vote.
Voting in someone you don't want in power, is explicitly giving your endorsement.
And "no right to complain".
Everyone has a right to complain and free speach, thats one of the best ways to get thing improved. Enforcing censorship against those who are dissatisfied with the elections is tyranny.
Ultimately the best thing for a democracy is a politically active and informed population.
A "Put up or shut up" attitude to poorly run elections is just immature and counter productive to a healthy democracy.
How about some perspective.
The assets are being sold from the NZ government, to mostly the NZ population. The money made is being used to keep debt repayment insurance low, and help pay for new health infrastructure like hospitals.
Mr Key was born in a state owned house, with a single parent. He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but hes made it to be the prime minster of our country.
I believe its a wise choice for leader, that we pick someone who (despite the poor start in life,) manages to be successful in life. Electing someone who can't run their own business, to the largest business in the country, The Country itself, is a recipe for disaster (*cough*Bush*cough*)
In the 2+ terms his party been running the country, he has managed to bring our country from the brink of a debt that could never be repaid, into surplus, while dealing with a earthquakes that obliterated our 3rd Largest city, Christchurch.
It hasn't been easy, as hes cut all new funding resulting in a lot of job losses, but the results are speaking for themselves. We are now in surplus with one of the best outlooks on the future in all the oecd
If the opposition had their way, we'd be worse than australia, who despite having a booming mining sector, are predicting record deficits because they only know how to spend money.
NZ authorities have not destroyed a company.
The running operations were halted by US enforcement on US soil.
All NZ was involved with, was arresting Kim Docom, and freezing his personal NZ assets.
Even if our police force told the US to sod off, the US would still have seized the servers, and his company bank accounts, and the company would of faced all the problems that have halted its business. The only difference is that Dotcom would be free to travel and make business arrangements as he saw fit, with his personal finances located in NZ
Its easy to say that when you're outside of the system looking in.
Fact of the matter is that a console, or the odd perk for that matter doesn't make them free men. And in return for such access to perks, we can demand and expect good behaviour or other such tokens in return.
A prison exists to :
protect the people outside from the people inside
create a deterrent to crime by creating a visible punishment
rehabilitate the criminals so they will be less likely/willing to commit future acts of crime.
If access to an entertainment device helps better rehabilitate the inmates, then its worth looking into. Creating a prison that's so badarse that only the strongest survive, isn't going to provide any useful social skills or conditioning... Unless you're trying to create sardaukar troops.
I've liked, and still like Google, because they have a high sense of business ethic.
Did Microsoft or yahoo pull out of china when it was getting hacked?
Did Microsoft or yahoo contest china's censorship programs?
Does Microsoft, Yahoo, or Apple make exporting data/contacts you create on their platforms exportable should you wish to migrate away?
Does Microsoft, Yahoo, or Apple offer free api's, allowing 3rd parties to access and interface with their services and user's data?
Does Apple operate a store which is free to publish on?
Does Apple have a phone that is unlocked, easy to perform maintenance and connect to, and doesn't attempt to brick jailbroken phones each time a firmware update arrives?
How about how Google tries to protect the freedom of the internet, adding its weight to net neutrality, patent reform, and other legal issues that plague the future of IT.
"What happened to the Google that just had a cool search engine? Why is it taking advantage of search monopoly profits to either buy out or crush every competitor in every non-core market? Why do they talk about openness when their core business is based on a search and advertising engine that is not open source?"
Google grew, advertising is its key business and like all businesses it does what it can to protect its review stream. But its doing it in the most honest way a business can, buying out or just beating via prices.
Its not sending lawsuits with patent infringement shakedowns like every other big company out there.
As for openness, there is no reason, legal, ethical, or moral, that google should reveal their search engine source code. In fact the only thing that would do is improve search functionality of their competitors, and help link farms be more effective.
In summary.
Google is a saint compared to every other mainstream IT company out there.
It’s not perfect, but they actively try to be good AND profitable. It’s not an easy line to walk.
They wouldn’t be around long if they were as perfect as Op wants (supporting the competition, never buying in small companies, opening all software/engines to the public/competitors)... In that case they'd be the good and forgotten.
$6.5 Billion isn't small change.
And what would google gain by purchasing sun?
Open Office?
They have google docs
The Sun OS?
They have chrome
A dying mainframe business?
They'd gained Sun's Java i suppose, but then again, they already had a working java engine. Why break their existing java engine when it isn't broke.
I suspect that Sun's purchase was way overpriced, and purchased mostly as a way of aggressively killing and smothering (or in Google’s case extorting) competition.
5-10 years from now, once oracle has finished sucking the blood out, it'll be sold for a few hundred million.
And his reason for providing it free is because he considers it unethical to charge for power he collected "free".
I'll also add, doesn't surprise me that its a student spouting such idealism. I expect someone else is footing the bill for parts (the student's university springs to mind).
Its a lot harder to provide the service free when it personally costs you $1500+USD with no return other then a feel good vibe.
For it to read an uncompressed file, it simply needs to seek it on disk and read.
For it to read a compressed file, it needs to seek the compressed file, open the libaries needed to deal with the compression logarithm if not cashed, read to the index of the archive, read headers to find the desired file, seek to that location, read, decompress.
For any small document, the number of seek operations on a standard HD is goign to be the limiting factor far more then the bandwidth of a hard-drive. And compression has probably doubled that limiting factor.
Most Hard-drives can match SSD in bandwidth, its just that the biggest advantage of a SSD is that there really isn't a seek time, so finding then accessing the file is near instant in comparasion.
About the only way compression improves performance is when the actual bandwidth is botlenecked, but thats really not the case with documents, its just the seek delay accessing the file.
A few things to consider
1. The price of meat is more expensive in Japan then most countries. So saying they'll get the costs down that of japanese meat isn't really a draw card for most other western/american nations.
2. Compleating the food cycle? I thought we got mad-cow disease because we did this very thing with cows. We reduced the food chain and had cows eating cows, Rather then having intermedate agents inbetween.
Now we want to mimic that efficency with humans eating human shit...
So explain to me how a goverment bank, lending money to a goverment entitiy, is saving money.
Sure the goverment overall might make large savings in low interest repayments. But at the same time, the goverment bank with its billion dollars is getting a terrible rate of return on its investment.
So lower expenses with lower income, or normal expenses with normal income.
Out the left pocket and into the right, it makes little differance.
Or is there something i'm missing, like the bank can print its own money?
"Once you emit any electromagnetic radiation outside the bounds of your property, you have no expectation of privacy whatsoever."
What a load of shite.
I believe the US Supreme court decided in a 4-3 decision that there are expectations of privacy, and just because you can observe/listen in a public place doesn't give you a right to do so. (I can't find the case, i believe it was over cops using powerful heat cameras to find and raid weed growing operation houses).
And damned right!.
As it is there are technologies that allow a laser be pointed at a window and you can hear the audio with clarity on the other side.
There are cameras that have limited vision through solid walls. And even your own body leaves behind elements in public places that can be anazlised for private infomation. And that was from what i remember from nearly a decade ago.
Just wait for the portable back scatter machines to be developed, then people will be able to take nude snaps of you if you leave your house...
Privacy isn't a way of life, its a human and legal right. Its even in the Constitution of America, the 4th on the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Definition_of_.22search.22
Now although this might be a breach of privacy, the fault is on the "victims" because they were transmitting infomation, there was no attempt to keep it private, (the hardware goign out of its way to make it public) so i don't believe google are at fault.
I guess one could say that this case had
*puts on shades*
a Boring outcome
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEH
sounds like their turbo boost feature.
Where you get blazing fast unlimited speed. But when you read the small print, its only for the first 50mb on an http connection, after that you get throttled.
Yeah, US isp's are a joke.
I would say its in part the vested interest in other platforms, but mostly because its Apple.
A decade ago i disliked macs, mostly because they were irrating to use, and their Hockey puck mouse.
Macs died out and that was all good.
They made the ipod. Its great hardware, and was innovative at the time and for a few years after.
Then there was a decided shift to what i consider evil apple. Before where i disliked it over preferances, i now hate it for its ideals.
The iphone came out, you couldn't purchase the hardware except by taking a 2 year contract.
The istore was shown to be the only way to get apps onto the iphone, and apple controled every aspect of that. Control over the apps you installed on your phone was removed.
Lets not forget that the developers using the istore, have to deal with the most retarded systems, my favourite being if a user returns your application you have to provide them a full refund, however the 30% gross sales tax that apple took, they still keep. How is that fair?
Then theres how they prevented any open standards for devices using their itunes. Doesn't matter if it was 100% compatable with itunes, if it wasn't made by apple, it was compatiable. Apple even released an update to itunes just to screw over the compeditors. You can say its in apples rights to do so, and i'd agree, but your not winning any hearts for doing so.
Then theres the rewriting of the iphone/ipod developer EULA, that pulled the rug under adobe, and gives even less freedom to how apps are developed on those products.
Google has been denied any use of analitics for its advertising, meaning its not going to be able to target adds very effectivly at all, making them less cost effective. Apple of course doesn't have that problem, and they have started up their own advertising business for the phone. Of course when google does analitics on ads, its evil. But when apple does it, its not a problem...
Finally as announced last week, apple are dropping support for java, in a move i expect is only the start of what they are doing to adobe.They also are creating OS features for apps that are sold their their istore.
All this to me, shows an orginization that is activtly undermining the freedom of current machines, in an attempt to control it all. If apple had their way, you won't be able to buy a dvd machine without it being made by apple. Otherwise it won't plug into other apple hardware you have (they'll forbid it), you'll only be able to download dvds from the apple store itunes, and browsing the web will be "optimized" for safari only.
Put shortly apple is working to put their fingers in every pie, and shaft any potental compertition.
Now you can claim that its all astroturfing, but go back a decade, and Microsoft was hated for excatly the same reasons. I think MS have since "mellowed" out a lot since then, and a lot of the hate regarding MS has disapated.
I disliked macs because i thought the machine was annoying to use and a toy. That was my preferance.
I HATE apple. I dislike the mac os, but i hate apple. What they are doing will destroy a lot of what i most enjoy with windows machines. Even the ability to build my own machine and uprade as i see fit will be taken away from me if apple have their way.
Apple has a lot to answer for, but i suspect the only answers apple is looking to give are to its shareholders over its quarterly earnings reports over how much money it made from people who don't give a damn and just want something shiny to play with.
Finally thing i'm going to restate.
There are macs, and then there is Apple.
I still dislike macs, and i'll dislike them even more in the future judging by apple's intentions. But i HATE Apple, and what its openly trying to do. You'd have to be blind not to see its trying to control every digital aspect you use.
Since they are adding foreign organic materal into the host, doesn't that mean the host would have to have immune suppressants to stop his body from destroying the cells.
Sounds like its far from a perfect. You might be able to restore functionality to disabled limbs, but at the cost your your immune system.
Here in NZ most of the providers will advertise plans as "downloads as fast as your connection can handle", then an upload cap of 256Kb/s.
The result is that even if you connect to the exchange at 18Mb/s, you'll find using more then 3Mb/s impossible because of the tiny upload.
Each packet you receive by tcp requires confirmation packet to be sent. Each sent packet uses your upload bandwidth.
So by all practical measures, your download speed is limited by its upload speed. As fast as you can download is false advertising, as its as fast as your upload allows.
I'd love to see companies sued over false advertising, as it is misleading the public into thinking they are downloading as fast as possible, when they are only getting a fraction of their true potential.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Having something that is potentially dangerious unsecured, is the act of stupidity or recklessness.
Theres a reason why all guns have a saftey, just as theres reason why all pools should be gated.
In a world where you had pure freedoms to do what you like, it'd be acceptable. So would killing people outright for any or no reason at all.
Theres a compromise involved. If such a drowning did happen, i'd blame both parties involved. The parents for loosing track of their child, and the pool owner for having a pool so easy to access that a child managed to get in and drown.
There are so many threads attempting to justify copyright infringement that its just sickening.
If you "pirate" a game which you didn't pay for, you've done a bad thing.
Stop trying to justify your actions. You CAN"T
You broke the rights and wishes of the owners of the game, so you could profit.
End of story.
You can talk all about the ideas of DRM, or how you wouldn't of purchased it anyway, or how you advertise by word of mouth. But its all excuses.
You don't have a right to use anyones software without permission.
I have far more respect for people who purchase games, or refuse to buy when a publisher goes too far. ("I won't buy a game i can't install more then 3 times")
People who are at least honest about how they break the law often aren't too bad. ("I shouldn't of, but i couldn't afford it")
But people who think its their right to take what other people make for free are dicks. And people who then promote it as their right to "pirate", are scum. ("I'm only willing to pay $5, but since the publishers have no idea how to price, i'll just steal it $0)
Seems to me, the younger the person, the more likely they are to think anything on the internet is a free.
I think the end result of their DRM might hurt their sales more then help, but i still can't blame nintendo for doing what they feel is best. At least at the end of the day, their cartridges are drm free (at least how i'm concerned)
Why is it Apple's job to modify their platform to accommodate Flash?
I'm not sure where that question came out of.
The real debate is how apple changed the developer EULA to effectively deny any possibility of a flash developed app running.
History lesson:
The first developer EULA prevented any apps from interperting code. So no emulators, or on the fly compliers. This meant that everything had to run as a native executable.
This denied flash or java from running on the system, in addition to preventing a potential backdoor to the apple shop. (Otherwise you could download a compiler type app (ie: java), and run any program you wished, instead of having your choices controled/taxed by apple's iStore)
Adobe worked around this EULA limitation, by allowing flash developers to create a native executable for the iphone. It was written using flash, but was an actual native execuitable for the iphone.
Apple still controled the iStore, but flash developers could now develop for the iPhone.
Lo and behold, our saviours of the internet, Apple, got around and changed the developer EULA, to explicitly fix that "loophole". Making it against the EULA to write a program that wasn't in objective C (or whatever language apple now demands, i forget)
The ONLY reason i can comprehend for that change to the EULA was to ban the native flash executables. Theres no other practical reason for it.
Adobe went out of their way to support the iPhone, and in return Apple pulled the rug out from under them and banned any use of their application for development/use on the iphone/ipad.
Thats a dick move by apple, the likes of which i haven't seen since Microsoft in the 90's
And to top it off, now they come out telling us how they are only doing whats best for the ipod/iphone. Well that's bloody obvious. Apple want to force as much vendor lockin as possible, and cross-platform tools are the bane to any company trying to force an OS lock-in. Lock-in is great for apple, the iphone, and ipad.
Its terrible for everyone and everything else, including the actual iphone consumers!
I haven't been given mod points in months...
Karam is excellent, i've got the abilitiy to disable advertising...
Just no mod points..
I'd love to know why
Now if it happens, that the input signal is just right, it can e.g. raise the sensitivity of one neuron (or lower that of an inhibiting one), which then becomes able to trigger the swearing neurons for a lot of previously irrelevant input.
The signal in this case is just semi-random light. If that was enough for her to develop a problem, then she was a time-bomb waiting to go off.
If i was passing by, and i sneezed, and she "developed" her problem then, would I be libable for her problems.
Even if the scanner developed her problem (which i don't believe for even a second), i can't see how shes justified in persueing the store. Either learn to live with it, or seek help/aid via normal disabilitiy channels.
Houses, or at least the land they are built on, do increase in value. its a known fact.
As the population grows, the need for houses also grows.
Supply and demand.
Same supply with increased demands means higher prices.
Now although more houses get built to help keep demand in place. These new houses are normally built and developed in new suburbs with minimal cost/infrastructure/community.
Their desirability isn't as high as in an established zone
Properity, both the land and the house its built on (assuming maintance) increase in value as time goes on.
So much so that most goverments have a special tax in place to tax the increase in value from people who buy and sell property.
Here in New Zealand we don't have such a tax and its a concern, due to the fact that a lot of investment capital goes into property investment.
Going slightly off-topic, ubt its worth mentioniong
The problem with property investment is that investing in land does nothing inherntly useful. No new jobs are created, yet a huge amount of money is "invested" in something that generates nothing. The value such an investment "generates" is caused by the action of others who have invested into businesses that actually generate wealth.
As such most goverments have a tax systems in place to encourage development away from such dead-end investments
Anyway, since an artical this long demands a citation, heres wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_tax