Unfortunately Red Hat can't compete with that (yet). If minutes of downtime = millions in losses, Official support that always gets the job done is a requirement that can't be ignored.
If a company is in a business where minutes of downtime means millions (of dollars) in losses, then they have the resources to be able to afford a guru on staff and official support is limited to hardware.
Their services _are_ for hire. They get a contract paid for by the sales of the cd/dvd. If those royalties
That's not for hire, that's speculation or in more current terms, its being a venture capitalist. Putting up money or other resource in the hope of making a return on the investment is not the selling of a service.
If those royalties dried up because everyone used some paypal tip jar instead of purchasing the cd/dvd, they would not get paid as much for the next project.
Funny, all those other enablers would get paid just as well regardless of what method the artist was paid through. How come record companies with their "channels" would suffer unless they weren't as useful as they like to say they are?
I apologize for wasting your time quibbling over a minor detail of some long-forgotten post, and I am humbled and honored by your dedication to correcting my error.
Therefore, by encouraging my fans to pay me directly I would be discouraging them from paying all of the people who really made all of the success happen, with my singing & dancing only being the main feature that sold the product. Whether I like them or not, they made the difference between being a Friday night band at the cafe and being in every teenager's iPod in the country.
The question is - did they make a positive difference or a negative one? By that I mean, are those people a barrier to every one trying to be succesful or they enablers to people trying to be succesful. And if they are enablers, why is it that their services are not for hire like a lawyer, recording engineer, acting coach, or voice trainer?
More recent copyrights are, for me, a stickier issue and one I'm still mulling over. Currently, I do infringe on recent copyrights but make an effort to purchase whatever I feel is worth the money. For example, while I download Battlestar Galactica I also make sure to buy the DVD sets when they come out. Likewise with Futurama. Arrested Development may have to be my next purchase, purely from having downloaded episodes and enjoying them enough to think they deserve my money.
Along those lines, I really wish that musicians and tv/movie actors/writers/directors and probably production companies (vs distributors), would put paypal tip jars on their websites. I would love to give some money directly to the creative people responsible for some of the content which I might have infringed if I ever did that sort of thing.
Today, if you grab an album of high-quality MP3s off the net and really like it, your only choice 99% of the time is to go buy an unnecessary second copy and pay the unnecessary middle-men their unnecessarily huge proportion of the take. I'm reasonably sure that $3-$4 minus paypal fees is more money than most see from an equivalent retail CD or itunes sale.
If the reason hardly anyone has such a tipjar is they think no pirate in his right mind would admit to being a pirate by making such a payment, then just identify the tipjar as contributions for future, as-yet-unreleased productions and then there would no longer even be a hint of a guilty admission. Hell, they might actually get some money donated specifically because the person has officially bought their current stuff and is enough of a fan that they want to encourage future work. Stranger things have happened.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the reason hardly anyone has such a tipjar is that there is standard boilerplate in their contracts with the MAFIAA that forbid such forms of disintermediation.
You would be competing with PCs in the home (both the PC part and the home part). So you would need to offer services and features that kids can't get at home. Thinking up a list of such things is going to take more effort than I'm willing to put into a slashdot post.
But, let me give you an example from a different culture and a tangentially related service.
In Korea, at least in South Korea, kids live at home until marriage. That makes it really difficult for kids and even young adults to get any nookie time away from the stern and extremely conservative eye of the previous generation.
Consequently, afternoon and evening rentals of small "party rooms" have become fairly popular. They call them "bangs" there, as in "karaoke-bang" or "dvd-bang." They are rooms in restraunts or clubs which you rent out for a group to do things like karaoke, dvd watching, or eat a nice meal plus whatever else you feel like - with no worry that your parents are watching your every move, be it clumsy or suave.
I'm not suggesting you get set up to rent out "gaming-bangs" (although I'm not suggesting otherwise either) - I'm just using them as an example of how human nature wants what it wants and it will find a way. If you can figure out what people want from group gaming or what they want from something that can be easily related to gaming, and that they can't easily get elsewhere, then you have a shot at success.
No, h.264 @ 600MB/hr does not equal HD-DVD in terms of quality.
It can, when there are other limitations involved. For example, if all you have is an SDTV display, then both formats will be effectively equal in quality. That may also be true for higher-resolution displays, particularly ones with lower contrast and restricted color gamuts. Or, if the source material is poorly mastered, the 600MB/hr data-rate may be sufficient to capture all of useful information there is in the original, making the higher data-rate of HD-DVD superflous. Or, if the viewer is extremely near-sighted. So, there are lots of situations in which the original statement could be true.
But clearly, the best possible quality out of HD-DVD is going to exceed the best possible quality out of the 600MB/hr stuff.
By legislation, a warrant is all it takes to make ANY entity report to the government. Since you didn't say anything about not requiring a warrant, or requiring a rubber-stamp warrant which lots of cops don't even need a special court for, then the obvious conclusion is that "to report" is present progressive tense.
didn't say that there was anything automatic about libraries and bookstores reporting your reading habits to the government. What I said was that libraries and bookstores are required to report your reading habits to the government--meaning that the government can obtain this information whenever they want, without a conventional search warrant and without any suspicion of wrongdoing on your part whatsoever.
That may have been what you meant, but that is certainly not what:
I believe that libraries and bookstores in the US are already required by legislation to report to the government.
I believe that libraries and bookstores in the US are already required by legislation to report to the government.
Absolutely not. The closest it comes to what you are saying is that the PATRIOT act requires that the libraries not inform you if you have been the target of a search by the feds. But there is no automatic reporting policy in place. In fact, librarians are one of the last bastions of privacy in America. The ALA routinely fights the good fight on capitol hill against such proposals -- They don't always win, but even then they do what they can, like leaning on the providers of major lending/collection tracking software to add features like a default purge of lending history once a book is returned so that patrons can be assured that even "legal" searches won't get any historical data.
Do you remember in the wake of 9/11 how one person asked a Post Office clerk if there were any stamps without American flags on them and got detained and questioned?
Nope, but if you have a URL I would love to see it.
But savvy enough to understand a watermark but not savvy enough to avoid typing "how to kill your wife" in a search box? I LOVE this guy!
A couple of different movies, both foreign and domestic, have titles that are variations on that phrase. If he's looking at gory pictures with watermarks, he's probably more interested in seeing crime scene photos and such than he is in instructions for actually commiting a crime.
So it suggests that this person, while they may have had an idle curiosity towards the subject, was either well-versed or well-instructed enough about such things to know the name of that site, which I had no idea existed until today.
Hardly. All it suggests is that one of their previous searches about this stuff produced a web page where someone made a casual reference to the "steak and cheese" website -- like "these pictures are nothing compared to the stuff on steak & cheese". So the guy typed it into the search engine to find out exactly what website was being referred too.
That exact sequence of events happens all the time when people look up other stuff. This particular guy seems to be on a "50 faces of death" kick, so it is no surprise that sort of thing would happen in his searches too.
Even games that arent exactly TCP are typically a reliable messaging system on top of UDP that pretty much mimics TCP.
With that said, I cant see how this network card could reduce your latency by more than 1ms or 2ms round trip.
Given the constraints - TCP and various homegrown reliable protocols on top of UDP, it isn't too hard to come up with some options to improve latency. But they all involve violating the RFCs.
First you have to wrap head around one important factor that can absolutely kill latency for any transport with guaranteed delivery -- packet loss. Packet loss means you have to discover what packets were lost and then retransmit them - those two steps can easily introduce delays on the order of seconds.
So one trick would be to pre-send the retransmits. Send duplicate packets spaced apart by a few miliseconds. If the other end receives multiple copies of the same packet, it will silently discard any extras - but if one copy gets lost en route, the other packet might still make it through, thus eliminating the whole timeout/retransmit cycle. It should be possible to do this for both TCP and UDP.
However, doing something like that is very unfriendly because it wastes resources. The primary reason packets get lost en route is because of bandwidth saturation. So, if you double or triple your traffic you are just making the problem worse. If you are the only one out of thousands who "breaks the rules" you will probably get away with it and probably even benefit from it since packet loss will be a somewhat even distribution among all traffic, so chances are if one of your packets gets dropped the copy won't get dropped - instead someone else's packet gets dropped.
But if a significant minority of users were to do the same thing, it would probably result in a complete collapse of any usuable bandwidth. Which is exactly the kind of thing I would expect a bunch of MBA's to come up with.
Also, a couple weeks ago I booked a room at a hostel over the internet, and apparently I mistyped my credit card information, so they asked me if I could to to them again over email. You know, I just said "No, I'll call you."
I send my credit card numbers over email all the time. But I only use "throw-away" numbers that are generated on the fly and can only be charged by a single vendor up to a specific amount (pre-set by myself). Most of the big card issuers offer a similar service for free (last I heard, MBNA, which has offered it for at least 5-6 years now, has not had a single instance of succesful fraud involving such throw-away numbers, never mind free, they ought to be paying me to use the service).
Google bans sites which return different results for normal user-agents and for the Google search-bot.
Labelling it "malware" will have the same effect as banning anyway, so they will have nothing to lose. Google can only ban a site if they catch it.
Plus, there are clearly exceptions - news sites that let google index content that normally requires a username/password. I used to regularly get into such sites simply by setting my user-agent to that of the google spider. That doesn't work so much anymore since they wised up and now probably check the source IP too.
But it would be trivial for the malware site to do the reverse - google spiders run into authentication requirements to get to the badware pages, but everyone else can get in without authentication.
This is one of those ideas that sounds good in theory, but isn't likely to help much in the long run.
The reason it won't work very well is that all the malware sites have to do is present a non-malware version of their pages to google's spiders. If they don't see the malware, they can't know it is there for everybody else.
So, at first we will see Google correctly identify malware sites, and that will be effective for just long enough that people will come to expect that sites without a malware warning are safe. By then, someone will have come up with an automated systems for giving google a "clean" version of the website and serving malware to everyone else. This automation will spread rapidly and then google will no longer be effective - but now some number of people will have started to rely on google's warnings (or rather lack of warning), thus making them more vulnerable than before.
I think another poster's idea is much better - include malware detection as part of the pagerank score. Don't advertise it, don't spell it out, just do it. Malware sites will sink to the end of the search results (where they belong anyway since they are rarely useful for anything but malware distribution). Eventually the malware distributors will figure it out and start feeding "good" pages to google's spyder - but at least no regular users will ever be lulled into a false sense of security by thinking that the lack of a warning is an indication of safety.
Encryption just shoots yourself in the foot, since an ISP can just put all encrypted traffic into the lowest-speed or highest-cost tier. So instead of the ISP penalizing VoIP, now they will penalize all your traffic.
Which is exactly what they will do anyway.
Your only hope is for a (stupid) ISP to take a contract to provide "enhanced" service to traffic based on the type of traffic. Then you can tunnel your own protocols inside packets that look like the "enhanced" service.
But, if the ISP does the intelligent thing and "enhances" traffic based only on the end-points, then there is nothing you can do, but get a new ISP which you probably can't do anyway because regulation has already restricted the choice to two or less for the majority of Americans.
Sure you can get a bigger house and stuff, but what about the 'quality' of living. I like the restaurants in bigger cities personally.
Not just a bigger house, but servants too. Maid, chef, gardner, driver. Having people do all the crap work for you makes life really nice.
Plus, Indians are the only culture to have figured out how to make vegetarian food taste good, you'll eat healthier (not that you have to stick to vegetables or anything, just that blandness will no longer be a motivation to avoid the veggies).
That and the fact that there are more jobs AFAIK.
Yeah, finding a job that lets you hire all those people is definitely not so easy. So, make a bundle here, sell your house, and then "retire" over there.
Woohoo! You are a fool. If you disagree, please spend another hour writing sophistry in a vain attempt to prove that your slashdot dick is bigger than mine!
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately Red Hat can't compete with that (yet). If minutes of downtime = millions in losses, Official support that always gets the job done is a requirement that can't be ignored.
If a company is in a business where minutes of downtime means millions (of dollars) in losses, then they have the resources to be able to afford a guru on staff and official support is limited to hardware.
When HP says "a number of customers", I assume they don't just mean 5 or 10.
Actually it was 3.14159265 customers who spoke up.
Their services _are_ for hire. They get a contract paid for by the sales of the cd/dvd. If those royalties
That's not for hire, that's speculation or in more current terms, its being a venture capitalist. Putting up money or other resource in the hope of making a return on the investment is not the selling of a service.
If those royalties dried up because everyone used some paypal tip jar instead of purchasing the cd/dvd, they would not get paid as much for the next project.
Funny, all those other enablers would get paid just as well regardless of what method the artist was paid through. How come record companies with their "channels" would suffer unless they weren't as useful as they like to say they are?
I apologize for wasting your time quibbling over a minor detail of some long-forgotten post, and I am humbled and honored by your dedication to correcting my error.
Damn straight.
Therefore, by encouraging my fans to pay me directly I would be discouraging them from paying all of the people who really made all of the success happen, with my singing & dancing only being the main feature that sold the product. Whether I like them or not, they made the difference between being a Friday night band at the cafe and being in every teenager's iPod in the country.
The question is - did they make a positive difference or a negative one? By that I mean, are those people a barrier to every one trying to be succesful or they enablers to people trying to be succesful. And if they are enablers, why is it that their services are not for hire like a lawyer, recording engineer, acting coach, or voice trainer?
Clunky, horrible UI but with the germ of a good UI hidden within
You had such a great opportunity for a pun but wasted it on a wheat metaphor with that extra 'r', considering the history of GEM.
Not anymore. Mine keeps reading "88:88" (and 88 seconds) ever since the LCD display got clobbered.
Once we switch over to metric time, you'll be fine.
Along those lines, I really wish that musicians and tv/movie actors/writers/directors and probably production companies (vs distributors), would put paypal tip jars on their websites. I would love to give some money directly to the creative people responsible for some of the content which I might have infringed if I ever did that sort of thing.
Today, if you grab an album of high-quality MP3s off the net and really like it, your only choice 99% of the time is to go buy an unnecessary second copy and pay the unnecessary middle-men their unnecessarily huge proportion of the take. I'm reasonably sure that $3-$4 minus paypal fees is more money than most see from an equivalent retail CD or itunes sale.
If the reason hardly anyone has such a tipjar is they think no pirate in his right mind would admit to being a pirate by making such a payment, then just identify the tipjar as contributions for future, as-yet-unreleased productions and then there would no longer even be a hint of a guilty admission. Hell, they might actually get some money donated specifically because the person has officially bought their current stuff and is enough of a fan that they want to encourage future work. Stranger things have happened.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the reason hardly anyone has such a tipjar is that there is standard boilerplate in their contracts with the MAFIAA that forbid such forms of disintermediation.
You would be competing with PCs in the home (both the PC part and the home part). So you would need to offer services and features that kids can't get at home. Thinking up a list of such things is going to take more effort than I'm willing to put into a slashdot post.
But, let me give you an example from a different culture and a tangentially related service.
In Korea, at least in South Korea, kids live at home until marriage. That makes it really difficult for kids and even young adults to get any nookie time away from the stern and extremely conservative eye of the previous generation.
Consequently, afternoon and evening rentals of small "party rooms" have become fairly popular. They call them "bangs" there, as in "karaoke-bang" or "dvd-bang." They are rooms in restraunts or clubs which you rent out for a group to do things like karaoke, dvd watching, or eat a nice meal plus whatever else you feel like - with no worry that your parents are watching your every move, be it clumsy or suave.
I'm not suggesting you get set up to rent out "gaming-bangs" (although I'm not suggesting otherwise either) - I'm just using them as an example of how human nature wants what it wants and it will find a way. If you can figure out what people want from group gaming or what they want from something that can be easily related to gaming, and that they can't easily get elsewhere, then you have a shot at success.
No, h.264 @ 600MB/hr does not equal HD-DVD in terms of quality.
It can, when there are other limitations involved.
For example, if all you have is an SDTV display, then both formats will be effectively equal in quality. That may also be true for higher-resolution displays, particularly ones with lower contrast and restricted color gamuts.
Or, if the source material is poorly mastered, the 600MB/hr data-rate may be sufficient to capture all of useful information there is in the original, making the higher data-rate of HD-DVD superflous.
Or, if the viewer is extremely near-sighted.
So, there are lots of situations in which the original statement could be true.
But clearly, the best possible quality out of HD-DVD is going to exceed the best possible quality out of the 600MB/hr stuff.
By legislation, a warrant is all it takes to make ANY entity report to the government. Since you didn't say anything about not requiring a warrant, or requiring a rubber-stamp warrant which lots of cops don't even need a special court for, then the obvious conclusion is that "to report" is present progressive tense.
That may have been what you meant, but that is certainly not what:
says or even implies.
Steve Balmer?
I believe that libraries and bookstores in the US are already required by legislation to report to the government.
Absolutely not. The closest it comes to what you are saying is that the PATRIOT act requires that the libraries not inform you if you have been the target of a search by the feds. But there is no automatic reporting policy in place. In fact, librarians are one of the last bastions of privacy in America. The ALA routinely fights the good fight on capitol hill against such proposals -- They don't always win, but even then they do what they can, like leaning on the providers of major lending/collection tracking software to add features like a default purge of lending history once a book is returned so that patrons can be assured that even "legal" searches won't get any historical data.
Do you remember in the wake of 9/11 how one person asked a Post Office clerk if there were any stamps without American flags on them and got detained and questioned?
Nope, but if you have a URL I would love to see it.
But savvy enough to understand a watermark but not savvy enough to avoid typing "how to kill your wife" in a search box? I LOVE this guy!
A couple of different movies, both foreign and domestic, have titles that are variations on that phrase. If he's looking at gory pictures with watermarks, he's probably more interested in seeing crime scene photos and such than he is in instructions for actually commiting a crime.
Hardly. All it suggests is that one of their previous searches about this stuff produced a web page where someone made a casual reference to the "steak and cheese" website -- like "these pictures are nothing compared to the stuff on steak & cheese". So the guy typed it into the search engine to find out exactly what website was being referred too.
That exact sequence of events happens all the time when people look up other stuff. This particular guy seems to be on a "50 faces of death" kick, so it is no surprise that sort of thing would happen in his searches too.
You don't have to retransmit. Many things can coded in such a way that any lost data can be ignored without ill effects.
Yes, you are correct for some types of games. However, you have ignored the predicated constraint of a reliable protocol.
A network card can't do anything about the way the software is designed, but it can fart around with the network protocols itself.
First you have to wrap head around one important factor that can absolutely kill latency for any transport with guaranteed delivery -- packet loss. Packet loss means you have to discover what packets were lost and then retransmit them - those two steps can easily introduce delays on the order of seconds.
So one trick would be to pre-send the retransmits. Send duplicate packets spaced apart by a few miliseconds. If the other end receives multiple copies of the same packet, it will silently discard any extras - but if one copy gets lost en route, the other packet might still make it through, thus eliminating the whole timeout/retransmit cycle. It should be possible to do this for both TCP and UDP.
However, doing something like that is very unfriendly because it wastes resources. The primary reason packets get lost en route is because of bandwidth saturation. So, if you double or triple your traffic you are just making the problem worse. If you are the only one out of thousands who "breaks the rules" you will probably get away with it and probably even benefit from it since packet loss will be a somewhat even distribution among all traffic, so chances are if one of your packets gets dropped the copy won't get dropped - instead someone else's packet gets dropped.
But if a significant minority of users were to do the same thing, it would probably result in a complete collapse of any usuable bandwidth. Which is exactly the kind of thing I would expect a bunch of MBA's to come up with.
Also, a couple weeks ago I booked a room at a hostel over the internet, and apparently I mistyped my credit card information, so they asked me if I could to to them again over email. You know, I just said "No, I'll call you."
I send my credit card numbers over email all the time. But I only use "throw-away" numbers that are generated on the fly and can only be charged by a single vendor up to a specific amount (pre-set by myself). Most of the big card issuers offer a similar service for free (last I heard, MBNA, which has offered it for at least 5-6 years now, has not had a single instance of succesful fraud involving such throw-away numbers, never mind free, they ought to be paying me to use the service).
Google bans sites which return different results for normal user-agents and for the Google search-bot.
Labelling it "malware" will have the same effect as banning anyway, so they will have nothing to lose. Google can only ban a site if they catch it.
Plus, there are clearly exceptions - news sites that let google index content that normally requires a username/password. I used to regularly get into such sites simply by setting my user-agent to that of the google spider. That doesn't work so much anymore since they wised up and now probably check the source IP too.
But it would be trivial for the malware site to do the reverse - google spiders run into authentication requirements to get to the badware pages, but everyone else can get in without authentication.
This is one of those ideas that sounds good in theory, but isn't likely to help much in the long run.
The reason it won't work very well is that all the malware sites have to do is present a non-malware version of their pages to google's spiders. If they don't see the malware, they can't know it is there for everybody else.
So, at first we will see Google correctly identify malware sites, and that will be effective for just long enough that people will come to expect that sites without a malware warning are safe. By then, someone will have come up with an automated systems for giving google a "clean" version of the website and serving malware to everyone else. This automation will spread rapidly and then google will no longer be effective - but now some number of people will have started to rely on google's warnings (or rather lack of warning), thus making them more vulnerable than before.
I think another poster's idea is much better - include malware detection as part of the pagerank score. Don't advertise it, don't spell it out, just do it. Malware sites will sink to the end of the search results (where they belong anyway since they are rarely useful for anything but malware distribution). Eventually the malware distributors will figure it out and start feeding "good" pages to google's spyder - but at least no regular users will ever be lulled into a false sense of security by thinking that the lack of a warning is an indication of safety.
Encryption just shoots yourself in the foot, since an ISP can just put all encrypted traffic into the lowest-speed or highest-cost tier. So instead of the ISP penalizing VoIP, now they will penalize all your traffic.
Which is exactly what they will do anyway.
Your only hope is for a (stupid) ISP to take a contract to provide "enhanced" service to traffic based on the type of traffic. Then you can tunnel your own protocols inside packets that look like the "enhanced" service.
But, if the ISP does the intelligent thing and "enhances" traffic based only on the end-points, then there is nothing you can do, but get a new ISP which you probably can't do anyway because regulation has already restricted the choice to two or less for the majority of Americans.
Sure you can get a bigger house and stuff, but what about the 'quality' of living. I like the restaurants in bigger cities personally.
Not just a bigger house, but servants too. Maid, chef, gardner, driver. Having people do all the crap work for you makes life really nice.
Plus, Indians are the only culture to have figured out how to make vegetarian food taste good, you'll eat healthier (not that you have to stick to vegetables or anything, just that blandness will no longer be a motivation to avoid the veggies).
That and the fact that there are more jobs AFAIK.
Yeah, finding a job that lets you hire all those people is definitely not so easy. So, make a bundle here, sell your house, and then "retire" over there.
Woohoo! You are a fool. If you disagree, please spend another hour writing sophistry in a vain attempt to prove that your slashdot dick is bigger than mine!