I don't know what operating system you use but almost all current operating systems (instead of software, which is a dumb argument), can use 8 cores. Nobody ever said it had to be for applications as you imply, you made that assumption yourself.
this is it in a nutshell. HyperV is being sold free to attempt to gain marketshare, it doesn't mean anyone cares. While HyperV has some nice things, they aren't things that vmware doesn't already offer and/or do.
The average MS based company is like this for a virtual environment: 90% vmware 5% hyperv 5% azure.
Linus isn't really linux by itself, he just had a critical part to play. The more accurate question would be "is Microsoft losing relevance and marketshare?" to which the answer is yes, and not really a surprise.
except this is neither relevant nor factual, you left out all the important shit. Gotta love that. but yes, google is evil1111!!!oneoneone. fucking dumbass.
With that said it's very often never even enforced, and many users never run into a problem running full-grade servers at home -- even on larger providers with a history of anti-competitive behavior (AT&T, Verizon). The language has certainly never been used to stop someone from using Slingbox or from running a Minecraft server, the kind of aggressive violations constantly being hinted at by Singel and McClendon.
Is this kind of language overly broad and could it be scaled back? Absolutely. ISP terms of service essentially give carriers the legal right to do absolutely anything they see fit, from booting you for running servers, to booting you for copyright infringement or excessive bandwidth consumption. Their recent attempt to erode consumer legal rights and force binding arbitration (thanks, AT&T) is a particularly obnoxious development.
However, this guy doesn't even speak for those on google fiber.
"Here we have a guy who can't even get Google Fiber, and as such has never tried to run a server on Google Fiber, complaining because Google Fiber won't theoretically allow him to run a commercial server for his business on his nonexistent connection? When no other residential ISP in this industry will either? That's not Google being evil or a violation of net neutrality, it's just kind of silly."
the price is arbitrarily set and has no reference towards trailers or anything other than a completely arbitrary price range set by the MPAA.
a real price range for a DVD is in the range of $4-9 maximum for the life of the movie, including from release day. This "$19.99 for a movie and $24-30 for a bluray" pricing has actually been sued, and there have been lawsuits over price fixing for disc media before. Trailers have nothing to do with that, and neither does the FBI warning.
downloading a copy of a file for personal use is not exactly copyright infringement. It's sharing it to others that people bitch about and/or litigate.
it's a very, very high bar for rico/racketeering. Proof of malice or something, if I recall? IANAL (lawyers, correct me?) While that's easily and clearly what ASCAP is doing to the average individual, the likeliness of success in court proving it is basically zero. They get to parade around with this shit saying how they protect "artist's interests" even when artists disagree and/or it's to the artist's own detriment.
welcome to the definition of why people torrent. Torrent a bluray/rip it, and you'll never have to deal with random restrictions of rights which exist on Bluray players, etc. #1 cause of alleged piracy aka copyright infringement right there.
It's fun until Inferno. Then it gets pain in the ass ridiculous. I'm saying this as someone who got a DH into act 4 inferno. That's when it becomes a deliberate grind and has no association with the fun of games like Diablo. The game is positively and entirely crap after that. it makes you realize how much the game is just "level up = win" even if the levels in inferno roughly translate to gear. Even D2 wasn't like that. There are fairly valid reasons for people to hate D3, and most of it is because it was designed with the intention of making it into a WOW-style grind, which is completely unacceptable. They have literally killed the franchise by having done this.
tablet's are a partial novelty, but they do have a specific function; they replace the need for portable computing (notebooks, laptops, etc). To think that it's just some toy people purchase is extremely ignorant of the usage.
What choice does the rest of the world have but to pirate, if you only release your show in 1 country/language? Or only accept credit card payments?
Nobody's giving you the finger by pirating unless you are simply ignorant to what pirating is. It's not "Stealing", it's sending a message to the creator of "I'm unable to buy this the way I want".
" I imagine you must also cheer when banker's foreclose on junk mortgages (and double-dip by shorting them) and wall streeter's game stocks and profit while Gramma's pension halves in value."
what does this have to do with a magazine, exactly? you went so far off the deep end that this really doesn't have any association with the article or my comment. It's not theft, and it's not necessarily redistribution. If you download the copy someone else provided, are you then guilty of redistribution? The MPAA/RIAA would love to say yes, but reality (and the legal system worldwide) would tend to disagree.
This has been covered extremely well by everything is a remix ( http://everythingisaremix.info/ ). I highly suggest people watching that if they want to realize how long ago creativity left everything that was original from Hollywood and simply became remixes of everything from Hollywood.
Which begs the question and/or makes it seem ridiculous when anyone tries to assert ownership of these ideas, when they don't even come up with it themselves.
the wrong approach for dealing with piracy is going after those who do it.
the right approach is offering something which doesn't give them a reason to "pirate" it. Not to mention that the term isn't even correct, you can't pirate an ebook/magazine.
example: having your magazine available worldwide without restrictions. example: offering something in the digital version that print doesn't.
TLDR version: put in effort to make a good magazine instead of doing the lazy step of "we need more control to deal with piracy"
While surface isn't compelling (considering it's price is excessively high for what it offers), having a tablet completely replaces the need for a laptop. The tablet is the device bridging smartphone to desktop.
the fact that people ever thought for a second that they shouldn't have the right to see what they're looking for on a website and not ads or other shit is the problem. It's like when people defend websites that threaten others, saying their ad revenue is the only way they survive when other options exist. Screw ads. Allow em when *you* choose because you're okay with it, not just because you dare to go to websites.
I encourage people to always adblock on techreport, because they threaten to nuke user accounts that talk about using adblocking. That's not the right approach.
you're thinking way, way too hard. Why does any one individual need to buy them out? All it takes is a hedge fund of some large players, who combined can surpass apple's valuation. Bam, shell company, someone else owns them. Can you think of individuals and/or entities that could easily put down for that? Any company that thinks they're ever not subject to the risk of buyout is simply waiting for it to happen, 100% of the time. You should always be vigilant against buyout, otherwise someone will buy your dream and shut it down. Not that anyone would want apple anyway given an almost yearlong continuing slump, but eh.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what operating system you use but almost all current operating systems (instead of software, which is a dumb argument), can use 8 cores. Nobody ever said it had to be for applications as you imply, you made that assumption yourself.
what makes you actually think you wouldn't be found through duckduckgo?
this is it in a nutshell. HyperV is being sold free to attempt to gain marketshare, it doesn't mean anyone cares. While HyperV has some nice things, they aren't things that vmware doesn't already offer and/or do.
The average MS based company is like this for a virtual environment: 90% vmware 5% hyperv 5% azure.
It's a silly question, anyway.
Linus isn't really linux by itself, he just had a critical part to play. The more accurate question would be "is Microsoft losing relevance and marketshare?" to which the answer is yes, and not really a surprise.
except this is neither relevant nor factual, you left out all the important shit. Gotta love that. but yes, google is evil1111!!!oneoneone. fucking dumbass.
Here's' the reality:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Google-Fiber-Server-Neutrality-Violation-Being-Overblown-125189
Let's quote, shall we?
However, this guy doesn't even speak for those on google fiber.
hahahaha, what?
the price is arbitrarily set and has no reference towards trailers or anything other than a completely arbitrary price range set by the MPAA.
a real price range for a DVD is in the range of $4-9 maximum for the life of the movie, including from release day. This "$19.99 for a movie and $24-30 for a bluray" pricing has actually been sued, and there have been lawsuits over price fixing for disc media before. Trailers have nothing to do with that, and neither does the FBI warning.
based on what imagination, exactly?
downloading a copy of a file for personal use is not exactly copyright infringement. It's sharing it to others that people bitch about and/or litigate.
it's a very, very high bar for rico/racketeering. Proof of malice or something, if I recall? IANAL (lawyers, correct me?) While that's easily and clearly what ASCAP is doing to the average individual, the likeliness of success in court proving it is basically zero. They get to parade around with this shit saying how they protect "artist's interests" even when artists disagree and/or it's to the artist's own detriment.
welcome to the definition of why people torrent. Torrent a bluray/rip it, and you'll never have to deal with random restrictions of rights which exist on Bluray players, etc. #1 cause of alleged piracy aka copyright infringement right there.
500 hours?
It's fun until Inferno. Then it gets pain in the ass ridiculous. I'm saying this as someone who got a DH into act 4 inferno. That's when it becomes a deliberate grind and has no association with the fun of games like Diablo. The game is positively and entirely crap after that. it makes you realize how much the game is just "level up = win" even if the levels in inferno roughly translate to gear. Even D2 wasn't like that. There are fairly valid reasons for people to hate D3, and most of it is because it was designed with the intention of making it into a WOW-style grind, which is completely unacceptable. They have literally killed the franchise by having done this.
to this I would agree. It is not a fit all/catch all, but it is not without purpose in addition to being a hell of a lot easier to transport.
Are you unaware that google docs works well on a tablet? Journalists write whole articles on them, etc.
is it that hard for you to accept that it does something?
tablet's are a partial novelty, but they do have a specific function; they replace the need for portable computing (notebooks, laptops, etc). To think that it's just some toy people purchase is extremely ignorant of the usage.
so they're selectively acknowledging bitcoin? how else can SEC get involved unless this is considered a legitimate security?
what does it matter? It'd still not even be able to compete with the sub-$100 android devices even if it was in the same price range.
no, actually. You are the naieve one.
What choice does the rest of the world have but to pirate, if you only release your show in 1 country/language? Or only accept credit card payments?
Nobody's giving you the finger by pirating unless you are simply ignorant to what pirating is. It's not "Stealing", it's sending a message to the creator of "I'm unable to buy this the way I want".
" I imagine you must also cheer when banker's foreclose on junk mortgages (and double-dip by shorting them) and wall streeter's game stocks and profit while Gramma's pension halves in value."
what does this have to do with a magazine, exactly? you went so far off the deep end that this really doesn't have any association with the article or my comment. It's not theft, and it's not necessarily redistribution. If you download the copy someone else provided, are you then guilty of redistribution? The MPAA/RIAA would love to say yes, but reality (and the legal system worldwide) would tend to disagree.
This has been covered extremely well by everything is a remix ( http://everythingisaremix.info/ ). I highly suggest people watching that if they want to realize how long ago creativity left everything that was original from Hollywood and simply became remixes of everything from Hollywood.
Which begs the question and/or makes it seem ridiculous when anyone tries to assert ownership of these ideas, when they don't even come up with it themselves.
the wrong approach for dealing with piracy is going after those who do it.
the right approach is offering something which doesn't give them a reason to "pirate" it. Not to mention that the term isn't even correct, you can't pirate an ebook/magazine.
example: having your magazine available worldwide without restrictions.
example: offering something in the digital version that print doesn't.
TLDR version: put in effort to make a good magazine instead of doing the lazy step of "we need more control to deal with piracy"
yes, that stuff has it's own needs category which neither tablets nor regular notebooks can cover.
why would you buy a proprietary locked device just to unlock it? Seems like a lot of effort.
wrong. Tablets replace notebooks.
While surface isn't compelling (considering it's price is excessively high for what it offers), having a tablet completely replaces the need for a laptop. The tablet is the device bridging smartphone to desktop.
Who said I'm telling them they can't put up an ad?
I'm just refusing to look at it.
Putting up an ad and relying on nothing else is a sign of laziness/failed business.
the fact that people ever thought for a second that they shouldn't have the right to see what they're looking for on a website and not ads or other shit is the problem. It's like when people defend websites that threaten others, saying their ad revenue is the only way they survive when other options exist. Screw ads. Allow em when *you* choose because you're okay with it, not just because you dare to go to websites.
I encourage people to always adblock on techreport, because they threaten to nuke user accounts that talk about using adblocking. That's not the right approach.
you're thinking way, way too hard. Why does any one individual need to buy them out? All it takes is a hedge fund of some large players, who combined can surpass apple's valuation. Bam, shell company, someone else owns them. Can you think of individuals and/or entities that could easily put down for that? Any company that thinks they're ever not subject to the risk of buyout is simply waiting for it to happen, 100% of the time. You should always be vigilant against buyout, otherwise someone will buy your dream and shut it down. Not that anyone would want apple anyway given an almost yearlong continuing slump, but eh.