Sure, you can shave 80% off your patch filesize... but unless you're as big as google, patch bandwidth probably isn't a major priority
It's priority tends to scale though. Once you're as big as Google you have so many people downloading it that if you can shave just a little off each download it adds up to something that matters even to someone as big as you.
They'd only have to do that if they wanted to be able to patch from an old version to another old version, otherwise they just need to store a diff comparing each old version to the current. That'd be more work ahead of time since each new release would require you to run and store a diff to every old release (rather than just one diff to the previous version), but that's work you'd have to do just once versus work that you have to do for every client patching.
Everyone is throwing around the term "binary file" as if this is some generic solution for transferring anything that isn't text. This solution is great for compiled code, but it won't do anything for image binaries, music binaries, and video binaries because none of those can be disassembled into code. To take advantage of any of the optimizations that this new diff is using, rsync would have to first check every file to determine if it is compiled code, then check the architecture that it's designed for to be sure that it's compatible with its disassembler, then do the work of disassembling both sides to then compare the result, and then hope that it's assembler isn't doing some optimization that the original didn't use (or failing to do some optimization that they did use) otherwise the resulting file won't necessarily run the same (and whoever wrote it will thank you for creating a support nightmare).
That's a lot of work for one specific type of rsync target, and a potential nightmare given the assembler and disassembler compatibility issues. On top of that you're going to throw a lot of computation into disassembling both the source and destination version of the files, whereas Google's distribution system presumably already has their version disassembled ahead of time and ready for comparison.
This sounds like a really nice tool, but the lesson here is that the more that a program knows about its problem domain the more efficient it can be. This tool is completely tuned to the differencing of programs that Google compiled
I think it's difficult to differentiate those who have the problem because they refuse to exercise or moderate their eating, and those that have the problem despite taking those steps. It also has extra confusion due to the fact that there is such a wide range of weight problems, but people assume that the person who is carrying a lot of extra weight is just suffering an exaggerated version of the same problem that someone else who is only slightly overweight might have. Alcoholism has gotten more exposure recently, but there's still a lot of people who place most of the blame on the sufferer for that one too. Mitch Hedberg said it best:
"Alcoholism is a disease, but it's the only one you can get yelled at for having. Goddamn it Otto, you are an alcoholic. Goddamn it Otto, you have Lupis... one of those two doesn't sound right."
I don't think that they're making either of these moves for economic reasons though. I think that they're instead trying to limit outside influence on their citizens. Here's a quote from a MSNBC article on the 3-hour limits:
President Hu Jintao ordered regulators in January to promote a "healthy online culture" to protect the government's stability, according to state media.
on the other hand it does look like those 3-hour limits would only apply to non-adults, and gold farmers probably include a good number of adults.
Perhaps given enough negative ratings it could be possible, but even though I've clicked 'Not Interested' on all the Disney movies, they keep suggesting I want their latest direct-to-DVD crapfest, so I'm left to assume they're rating mostly based on positive ratings.
A co-worker gets almost no recommendations at all from Netflix, and customer service told him that they generate recommendations based on ratings of 4 or 5 (though you'd think that the recommendations that they do generate would have to filter through similar movies that you've rated at 0). He was told to rate the movies that he likes higher in order to fix it, but that's never really accomplished anything as he has several hundred movies in the 4-to-5 range and maybe a dozen recommendations total.
I'm pretty sure that the Disney/children's movie recommendation flood that most everyone seems to be getting is driven by parents who don't actually love those movies, but are rating those movies on behalf of their children. That causes a weird connection to movies that they themselves enjoy, and it makes it seem like the same audience is enjoying both types of movie. They need to have an "I'm a parent" flag somewhere to help them sort that out
And still, it would be wrong. You cannot distribute someone else's copyrighted work without their permission. You cannot reprint someone else's words even as an "editorial" without their permission.
It seems like newspapers are primarily in the business of printing quotes from various people, and I imagine that about half of those are gathered without the permission of the speakers (they verify that the quote is accurate, not that the speaker wants them to print it). Do you think that the newspaper has to go to a politician and ask him for permission everytime they want to print or reprint some silly statement that they made that they realize immediately afterwards they shouldn't have said? Don't you think that they'd love to be able to say "I know I said that, but no you can't print it"?
What they did was ethically wrong, that much is clear. But since they didn't claim credit for her work or rob her of material gain from the work, what does this have to do with copyright?
It might be related to their attempts to limit the time that people spend playing games online. After all it would seem strange to limit people from playing more than 3 hours in their private life, while still allowing people to play 4 times that long at work.
The first example I thought of was the movie production companies that pop yet another domain at the bottom of every movie trailer. They'd be paying quite a lot of cash for that service, or else they'd just buy them all with different proxies.
The biggest problem with the proposed solution is that even if a company like Ford sticks with only a plain "ford" domain, it probably makes sense for them to own that domain in every country's top-level since they have an international presence.
Apple Computers and Apple Records coexist because of multiple out-of-court settlements, and the only court ruling appears to be about interpretation of clauses in the first settlement. I don't think you can use that as an example for either side of this argument, except perhaps to say that Apple Computers probably signed their original settlement because they thought they were going to lose.
The article indicates that they sued in NY for a similar law and lost, but are continuing legal challenges there. It doesn't sound like they cut off referrals though.
What's ridiculous is that this law doesn't seem to tax based on the location of the seller or the buyer, but instead on the location of the referrer. Sales tax is supposed to be a tax on the buyer, and it just happens to be the responsibility of the seller to collect it. So NC is trying to charge a sales tax of a buyer that isn't a resident.
It might sound sensible to take a cut of that referral money (since that's the party that's in state), but they're already taxing that by charging income tax to the referrer.
This isn't even new with the internet. Catalog sales are also only taxed if the seller has a presence in the state of the buyer. That's irrelevant to catalog sales for a company like Sears who has a presence most everywhere, but other regional companies have been selling nationwide via catalog and charging no taxes for decades. If they want to fix this I'm not sure they can do it on a state-by-state level, it'd seem to require some sort of a federal measure.
This use-case is illegal in many states (this article claims 39 of them), as you're not allowed to have a TV placed in a spot that is visible to the driver. I imagine that the maker of this is adding the monitor because they don't want to spend all their time in court.
On the one hand, I like to see some real lines drawn in this age of "if there isn't a law against it, that means I should do it or else someone else will anyway." On the other hand, it seems like a waste of legal effort to track down stuff like this when it seems like there are too few resources to investigate internet crime and far more serious crimes being committed (identity theft, credit card theft, phone bill cramming, etc). It's hard to pick a side on this one
It's not just a hardware issue, and programmer salary doesn't move in any direction exponentially. Also the original system likely didn't have to import 30 years of legacy payroll data that's formatted in a fashion that they probably don't completely understand, they probably just kept the printed records for that older data.
What if they want other devices to be able to read Kindle books, while squashing the mobipocket's feature of reading content from other publishers? Thereby squashing the e-book publishing industry rather than the e-book reader hardware industry.
To do that what they would want to do is break Kindle books on mobipocket, so that people hopefully stop using the existing version (done). Then they re-use the mobipocket code to create dedicated Kindle reading software for other devices that mobipocket already supports (in-progress)
He said that publishers would be allowed to set list prices but that Google would price the e-books for consumers. Amazon also lets publishers set wholesale prices and then establishes its own prices for consumers. In selling e-books at $9.99, Amazon effectively takes a loss on each sale because publishers generally charge booksellers about half the list price of a hardcover typically, around $13 or $14.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, you can shave 80% off your patch filesize... but unless you're as big as google, patch bandwidth probably isn't a major priority
It's priority tends to scale though. Once you're as big as Google you have so many people downloading it that if you can shave just a little off each download it adds up to something that matters even to someone as big as you.
They'd only have to do that if they wanted to be able to patch from an old version to another old version, otherwise they just need to store a diff comparing each old version to the current. That'd be more work ahead of time since each new release would require you to run and store a diff to every old release (rather than just one diff to the previous version), but that's work you'd have to do just once versus work that you have to do for every client patching.
Everyone is throwing around the term "binary file" as if this is some generic solution for transferring anything that isn't text. This solution is great for compiled code, but it won't do anything for image binaries, music binaries, and video binaries because none of those can be disassembled into code. To take advantage of any of the optimizations that this new diff is using, rsync would have to first check every file to determine if it is compiled code, then check the architecture that it's designed for to be sure that it's compatible with its disassembler, then do the work of disassembling both sides to then compare the result, and then hope that it's assembler isn't doing some optimization that the original didn't use (or failing to do some optimization that they did use) otherwise the resulting file won't necessarily run the same (and whoever wrote it will thank you for creating a support nightmare).
That's a lot of work for one specific type of rsync target, and a potential nightmare given the assembler and disassembler compatibility issues. On top of that you're going to throw a lot of computation into disassembling both the source and destination version of the files, whereas Google's distribution system presumably already has their version disassembled ahead of time and ready for comparison.
This sounds like a really nice tool, but the lesson here is that the more that a program knows about its problem domain the more efficient it can be. This tool is completely tuned to the differencing of programs that Google compiled
unless you're just selling the model of the cow, even Judge Judy can see the logic in that
you're reporting the temperature in the shade in an effort to make your climate seem more mild!
or maybe a repeat victim...
President Hu Jintao ordered regulators in January to promote a "healthy online culture" to protect the government's stability, according to state media.
on the other hand it does look like those 3-hour limits would only apply to non-adults, and gold farmers probably include a good number of adults.
Perhaps given enough negative ratings it could be possible, but even though I've clicked 'Not Interested' on all the Disney movies, they keep suggesting I want their latest direct-to-DVD crapfest, so I'm left to assume they're rating mostly based on positive ratings.
A co-worker gets almost no recommendations at all from Netflix, and customer service told him that they generate recommendations based on ratings of 4 or 5 (though you'd think that the recommendations that they do generate would have to filter through similar movies that you've rated at 0). He was told to rate the movies that he likes higher in order to fix it, but that's never really accomplished anything as he has several hundred movies in the 4-to-5 range and maybe a dozen recommendations total.
I'm pretty sure that the Disney/children's movie recommendation flood that most everyone seems to be getting is driven by parents who don't actually love those movies, but are rating those movies on behalf of their children. That causes a weird connection to movies that they themselves enjoy, and it makes it seem like the same audience is enjoying both types of movie. They need to have an "I'm a parent" flag somewhere to help them sort that out
When they write their own paycheck, they should put Blockbuster in the account name
And still, it would be wrong. You cannot distribute someone else's copyrighted work without their permission. You cannot reprint someone else's words even as an "editorial" without their permission.
It seems like newspapers are primarily in the business of printing quotes from various people, and I imagine that about half of those are gathered without the permission of the speakers (they verify that the quote is accurate, not that the speaker wants them to print it). Do you think that the newspaper has to go to a politician and ask him for permission everytime they want to print or reprint some silly statement that they made that they realize immediately afterwards they shouldn't have said? Don't you think that they'd love to be able to say "I know I said that, but no you can't print it"?
What they did was ethically wrong, that much is clear. But since they didn't claim credit for her work or rob her of material gain from the work, what does this have to do with copyright?
It might be related to their attempts to limit the time that people spend playing games online. After all it would seem strange to limit people from playing more than 3 hours in their private life, while still allowing people to play 4 times that long at work.
They probably relocated to FreeDuploPorn.com. Much larger figures so you can see more detail, it's like an HD version of their previous content
The first example I thought of was the movie production companies that pop yet another domain at the bottom of every movie trailer. They'd be paying quite a lot of cash for that service, or else they'd just buy them all with different proxies.
The biggest problem with the proposed solution is that even if a company like Ford sticks with only a plain "ford" domain, it probably makes sense for them to own that domain in every country's top-level since they have an international presence.
Apple Computers and Apple Records coexist because of multiple out-of-court settlements, and the only court ruling appears to be about interpretation of clauses in the first settlement. I don't think you can use that as an example for either side of this argument, except perhaps to say that Apple Computers probably signed their original settlement because they thought they were going to lose.
The article indicates that they sued in NY for a similar law and lost, but are continuing legal challenges there. It doesn't sound like they cut off referrals though.
What's ridiculous is that this law doesn't seem to tax based on the location of the seller or the buyer, but instead on the location of the referrer. Sales tax is supposed to be a tax on the buyer, and it just happens to be the responsibility of the seller to collect it. So NC is trying to charge a sales tax of a buyer that isn't a resident.
It might sound sensible to take a cut of that referral money (since that's the party that's in state), but they're already taxing that by charging income tax to the referrer.
This isn't even new with the internet. Catalog sales are also only taxed if the seller has a presence in the state of the buyer. That's irrelevant to catalog sales for a company like Sears who has a presence most everywhere, but other regional companies have been selling nationwide via catalog and charging no taxes for decades. If they want to fix this I'm not sure they can do it on a state-by-state level, it'd seem to require some sort of a federal measure.
This use-case is illegal in many states (this article claims 39 of them), as you're not allowed to have a TV placed in a spot that is visible to the driver. I imagine that the maker of this is adding the monitor because they don't want to spend all their time in court.
On the one hand, I like to see some real lines drawn in this age of "if there isn't a law against it, that means I should do it or else someone else will anyway." On the other hand, it seems like a waste of legal effort to track down stuff like this when it seems like there are too few resources to investigate internet crime and far more serious crimes being committed (identity theft, credit card theft, phone bill cramming, etc). It's hard to pick a side on this one
I hope you're not talking about dart guns and radio collars
It's not just a hardware issue, and programmer salary doesn't move in any direction exponentially. Also the original system likely didn't have to import 30 years of legacy payroll data that's formatted in a fashion that they probably don't completely understand, they probably just kept the printed records for that older data.
they could make you clean out the refrigerator at an AT&T branch office
What if they want other devices to be able to read Kindle books, while squashing the mobipocket's feature of reading content from other publishers? Thereby squashing the e-book publishing industry rather than the e-book reader hardware industry.
To do that what they would want to do is break Kindle books on mobipocket, so that people hopefully stop using the existing version (done). Then they re-use the mobipocket code to create dedicated Kindle reading software for other devices that mobipocket already supports (in-progress)
maybe he just wants to be able to "share" with himself in the event that another better reader comes along that's not Kindle-compatible