The article is talking about the "free iteration", so presumably there is also some "non-free iteration" that would have more premium services, if one so desired
The news feature needs a lot of work before it's going to be able to compete with Google News. I did a quick search for "Israel" and got 50+ stories all about the same thing, referencing comments made yesterday about the new PM of Palestine being a potential target of Israeli security forces. Google news is smart enough to give me ONE result on this story, and links to the 695 "related" stories (MS take note on this feature). The end result is that I get to see multiple stories about different topics, all on the first page. Of course, since MS can only seem to cram 4 results per "page" it doesn't really matter much anyway. I also noticed that all the news links in Google seemed "fresher" than the Live results, in that they weren't all from at least 8 hours ago.
Also, it's interesting how they chose/stole the same colors from Google, but I guess that's to be expected.
End result is, I won't be switching off Google anytime soon.
Link to the patent in question: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,838,906.WKU.&OS=PN/5,838,906&RS =PN/5,838,906
Is it just me or does this patent seem vague and cover a lot of broad topics? (shakes head and wonders what kind of cave-dwelling morons work at the US patent office)
Right but my point is, its NOT a Britney Spears song. If I was to go onto a p2p network, load up my shared directory with "dummy" files renamed to popular songs with the.mp3 extension, am I now a valid target of the RIAA? Obviously, if anyone actually downloaded these songs they would see they are nothing and contain no audio information, but the filename would suggest that they do. It's not illegal to say the name of a band/song, so unless the RIAA is actually downloading mp3s from people, I don't see how they have any legal footing.
How does the RIAA determine if someone is sharing somesthing 'illegally'? If I rename "foo.txt" to "Britney Spears LOLZ Live hehehekk.mp3" do I suddenly become a copyright violator? Are they making any actual efforts in these cases to be sure that the suspected copyright violations are, in fact, violations? Granted, probably >99% of the people who are sharing mp3s have accurate names, but that doesn't mean you can do a quick search and report the names of every result you find and expect to win a lawsuit.
My school a couple years ago shut down network access for anyone sharing anything with an.mp3 extension. Nevermind the fact that some of those mp3s were not copyrighted, or were the personal works of the people who owned the computer. They just did a blanket sweep on *.mp3. Stupid, yes. Did they get away with it? No (after a lot of hassle).
What TV show was it where the guy goes nuts and drives his terrified in-laws off a cliff in a drunken rage?
There are clearly larger issues at work here causing these people to go nuts (looking in the direction of Communism...) The article makes little mention of the cause-and-effect of this behavior, other than this stuff happened to start around the same time westernized television showed up.
And I'm sure that marijuana which grows all over the place there was only used to "feed the pigs" before TV, as well. Right...
This question seems kind of silly to be asking... of course we will always needs TelCo's and ISPs, who do you think is running DNS/DHCP/Routing/etc etc etc that keeps the Internet actually *working*?
Wireless at some point will still be "wired" in the network. You're not going to achieve OC48 speeds by sending bits through the air, thus there will still be a necessity for backbones (and someone to support them) unless you are planning on having the world's slowest network.
Not trying to flamebait, but next time you might want to check up on your networking info before posting a question like this.
that all the other streams are going to back-off during collisions. TCP normally backs off when a packet is lost because it assumes that the router buffer is full. It seems like if *everyone* used FastTCP, and no one backed off, it would simply DOS routers all over the Internet. Basically, a router buffer fills up, but everyone keeps sending at an astronomical rate, leading to 100% packet loss. Eventually it would back down far enough that the buffer would open up again, but only briefly, and the process would repeat.
TCP was designed to be fair, not a bully algorithm. This thing goes in and violates that fairness principle, by being a bully while everyone else plays nicely. TCP works for the benefit of everyone, by having a universal understanding that unless everyone plays nicely, everyone loses.
Hopefully this won't catch on...
Those people have paid 8%, yet those of us in their 20's now will pay over 20%, and probably won't see any of it come back to us when we retire. Where's the fairness in that?
At some point social security is going to die. Might as well be now, before it gets too far out of hand. Didn't plan for retirement? Oh well, you lose. I'm 22 and I've already started my retirement fund.
Slashdot Mirror
It's certainly dead if it's a Vista-exclusive
Does this mean the GoDaddy girl will finally testify before Congress, just like in the commercials?
The article is talking about the "free iteration", so presumably there is also some "non-free iteration" that would have more premium services, if one so desired
The news feature needs a lot of work before it's going to be able to compete with Google News. I did a quick search for "Israel" and got 50+ stories all about the same thing, referencing comments made yesterday about the new PM of Palestine being a potential target of Israeli security forces. Google news is smart enough to give me ONE result on this story, and links to the 695 "related" stories (MS take note on this feature). The end result is that I get to see multiple stories about different topics, all on the first page. Of course, since MS can only seem to cram 4 results per "page" it doesn't really matter much anyway. I also noticed that all the news links in Google seemed "fresher" than the Live results, in that they weren't all from at least 8 hours ago.
Also, it's interesting how they chose/stole the same colors from Google, but I guess that's to be expected.
End result is, I won't be switching off Google anytime soon.
Stables - Neeeeeiiighhh, we ain't got that
Link to the patent in question: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,838,906.WKU.&OS=PN/5,838,906&RS =PN/5,838,906
Is it just me or does this patent seem vague and cover a lot of broad topics? (shakes head and wonders what kind of cave-dwelling morons work at the US patent office)
Right but my point is, its NOT a Britney Spears song. If I was to go onto a p2p network, load up my shared directory with "dummy" files renamed to popular songs with the .mp3 extension, am I now a valid target of the RIAA? Obviously, if anyone actually downloaded these songs they would see they are nothing and contain no audio information, but the filename would suggest that they do. It's not illegal to say the name of a band/song, so unless the RIAA is actually downloading mp3s from people, I don't see how they have any legal footing.
How does the RIAA determine if someone is sharing somesthing 'illegally'? If I rename "foo.txt" to "Britney Spears LOLZ Live hehehekk.mp3" do I suddenly become a copyright violator? Are they making any actual efforts in these cases to be sure that the suspected copyright violations are, in fact, violations? Granted, probably >99% of the people who are sharing mp3s have accurate names, but that doesn't mean you can do a quick search and report the names of every result you find and expect to win a lawsuit.
.mp3 extension. Nevermind the fact that some of those mp3s were not copyrighted, or were the personal works of the people who owned the computer. They just did a blanket sweep on *.mp3. Stupid, yes. Did they get away with it? No (after a lot of hassle).
My school a couple years ago shut down network access for anyone sharing anything with an
SCO awarded patent on breathable air technology, stock in Nature down 50%
What TV show was it where the guy goes nuts and drives his terrified in-laws off a cliff in a drunken rage?
There are clearly larger issues at work here causing these people to go nuts (looking in the direction of Communism...) The article makes little mention of the cause-and-effect of this behavior, other than this stuff happened to start around the same time westernized television showed up.
And I'm sure that marijuana which grows all over the place there was only used to "feed the pigs" before TV, as well. Right...
You want to make 500 hops between end-hosts? Real-time applications would never survive on a network built like this
This question seems kind of silly to be asking... of course we will always needs TelCo's and ISPs, who do you think is running DNS/DHCP/Routing/etc etc etc that keeps the Internet actually *working*?
Wireless at some point will still be "wired" in the network. You're not going to achieve OC48 speeds by sending bits through the air, thus there will still be a necessity for backbones (and someone to support them) unless you are planning on having the world's slowest network.
Not trying to flamebait, but next time you might want to check up on your networking info before posting a question like this.
that all the other streams are going to back-off during collisions. TCP normally backs off when a packet is lost because it assumes that the router buffer is full. It seems like if *everyone* used FastTCP, and no one backed off, it would simply DOS routers all over the Internet. Basically, a router buffer fills up, but everyone keeps sending at an astronomical rate, leading to 100% packet loss. Eventually it would back down far enough that the buffer would open up again, but only briefly, and the process would repeat. TCP was designed to be fair, not a bully algorithm. This thing goes in and violates that fairness principle, by being a bully while everyone else plays nicely. TCP works for the benefit of everyone, by having a universal understanding that unless everyone plays nicely, everyone loses. Hopefully this won't catch on...
Those people have paid 8%, yet those of us in their 20's now will pay over 20%, and probably won't see any of it come back to us when we retire. Where's the fairness in that?
At some point social security is going to die. Might as well be now, before it gets too far out of hand. Didn't plan for retirement? Oh well, you lose. I'm 22 and I've already started my retirement fund.