TFS talks about efficiency. I can only guess that they can improve the bandwidth of the communication by using quantum teleportation but I'm not sure how and would be intrigued to find out.
Tim.
Seems like increasing the bandwidth could indeed be the case. From what I understand of how this is working, they are storing the information in the photon itself, which differs from how we send info with light today by just using the absence / presence of photons. Just by the fact that we can now leave the stream on the whole time we're sending info should boost the potential bandwidth.
This is just my layman's understanding from reading a bit into it this morning though; I could easily be wrong.
Mine is in the 600k range, and ISTR I registered it some time in 2004, after reading AC for quite a while. Being pessimistic, the OP could easily have been here 5 years. If you think that's "new around here" you're being silly and engaging in UID dick-waving.
I'm not sure exactly (and I wasn't around then, so take this with salt) but I think it probably had something to do with the populace being convinced that we needed stuff.
Why should love be free if you could turn a profit instead?
However, if you're picketing at a soldier's funeral and saying he deserved to die because "God hates fags", then you're A-OK and the cops won't bother you at all. If the cops are going to harass protesters, they could at least have the decency to harass the Westboro assholes too.
Yeah, but don't forget that these Westboro shitheads are basically the real life equivalent of internet trolls. As such, the proper response if you want them to go away (and I think we do) is to ignore them. Arresting them just makes them martyrs and puts their name in yet more papers.
I'm not saying that ignoring them is the morally right thing to do here, just the smartest.
The copyright holders already have copyright. Regardless of the moral arguments, copying a piece of media that you don't have the copyright for is illegal. As you pointed out, that is well and good and we already have laws set up to punish those who break it for better or worse.
What I don't agree with however, is eroding our rights to give copyright holders a bigger stick to beat people with. Especially when there is such a long history of big business using various laws that were written for other purposes to reduce competition and other shenanigans.
You want to mine the moon? Fine. Gather up some money and go mine the moon. These guys, they want to go get an asteroid. It's their money. It's not like they're asking you to pay for it.
I have no problems with how they spend their money... right up until they accidentally hurtle a metal-rich (read: very 'heavy') asteroid into the earth.
Just like how some people might have problems with a local billionaire announcing "I'm going to build nukes, launch them into space, and detonate them for fun."
If it were collectible, it would be quite noteworthy as one of the biggest anti-circumvention awards of all time. But, it's not collectible.
The linked op-ed doesn't say why.
This is pure conjecture on my part, but my assumption is that the creators and the servers it runs on live outside the US, which is also the reason they ignored the lawsuit. Just like TPB happily ignoring (and proudly displaying) all the various nastygrams sent from US lawyers over the years.
I suppose you're one of those people who, when asked how you are feeling, proceed to enumerate the various physical and mental ailments afflicting you. The rest of us just say "fine" and get on with things..
It's perspective, and furthermore the English language allows for large leeway when you consider things like context, tone of voice, body language, etc.
Ask a millionaire how they are doing, and he may answer fine. Ask some hungry kid in a 3rd world country who has only ever known hunger, and he might very well still answer "fine". Ask somebody who just had a heartattack how they're feeling and you might get an overly sarcastic "oh just fine." Or maybe even a sincere "great" if they're happy to be alive.
I would not call any of the above people liars, even though their present situations are vastly different.
Mine says I'm in "London, City of" and have downloaded Supernatural, Sanctuary, Twilight Saga, and Jasmine Webb Experience. All completely incorrect. Right country, wrong everything else. This web site is worse than useless.
It seems you don't understand what an IP address is.
But hey, congratulations! Your understanding of how the internet works is on par with most of our politicians and lobbyists. Perhaps you have a new career opportunity?
We still see this kind of XXXX coming up every leap year.
We're all adults (or close enough to it, anyway) here. I think we're all capable of seeing the word "shit" without our faces melting like that nazi who peeped in the ark.
My apologies to everyone who is now having their face melt off after reading that previous sentence.
As someone who has watched as youtube, controlled by google last I heard, has slowly whittled away at these supposed freedoms (this birdsong is copyright douchebag corp, your video offends a muslim in malaysia and has been taken offline, your video offends the catholic clergy and has been removed, etc), I find this deliciously ironic. Clean up your own house first, Schmidt.
I agree with your point, but I think you have it backwards.
Google is a global private company. The simple fact that Google is "forced" to obey the laws of China if it wishes to operate there is actually a perfect example of Schmidt's point. Currently China has power over Google, but little power over the global internet itself.
He's basically trying to prevent the internet from following in Toutube's footsteps.
It makes sense to me. How many dictators can a country have?
If a country has multiple people in some form of power, they will typically expend a decent amount of their resources towards removing power from their rival and granting it to themselves.
Even in countries like the US, where this sort of behavior is somewhat contained by the Constitution, you can still say there is X amount of political available because there are those boundaries set up between the branches. That wouldn't work if each branch had unlimited power by its very definition. Besides that, you still have political parties trying to undermine each other in the name of granting themselves more power.
What are you talking about? AT&T is proposing to *not* charge on the download side, i.e. not count the bandwidth towards the download cap of the end user. Instead, they would charge for it on the upload side, to the service provider who is delivering the content. Sure, the service provider may pass that charge right along to you, but that's *still* only one charge for the bandwidth by my math.
Oh? And do I get some kind of discount on my bill each month for this? Otherwise, all they're doing is upselling the bandwidth even more than they already are.
Most "normal" people don't get close to their 2GB caps. If they use 200MB normally, and watch Netflix on Wifi, they will likely end up paying more for this when Netflix has to raise prices.
So basically, your argument would only work if everybody routinely hit their caps and/or AT&T only charged by the MB.
The solution to this is to make such people notorious, so that potential customers think twice before doing business with them, same as any business that causes legitimate grievances and dissatisfied customers.
In the non-digital world, this is a feasible approach. Opening a store and stocking merchandise are both expensive acts- a shopkeeper can't keep reopening his or her store repeatedly. Changing your name or moving doesn't help with this.
In the digital world, this is far harder. You have no stock. You have no manufacturing costs. Changing your name / the location of your store is a trivial matter ranging from completely free to taking back a few loads of bottles for deposit and buying a new dev license.
Argh. OK, you are technically correct, and I humbly bow to your knowledge. I misspoke and was only trying to use the word "ancestor" to help differentiate various primates. I used it in the wrong way.
The problem with implicit agreements is that both parties can have their own versions. Which is what we have here.
Personally, I view the stuff like G+ suggesting people involved in previous searches just part of the service that Google is providing. I don't use it, but I can easily see how others could. It's not much different from the ability that Facebook has to suggest people based on various criteria, and I've never seen anybody get up in arms about that. Although granted, that is facebook, and this is a search engine.
It all comes down to personal taste., and the price we are wiling to pay for Google's services. You have reached the point where you're no longer willing to pay their asking price, and that's fine. I guess I'm still OK with the price I'm paying. Another year from now... who knows.
However, I still think you're deluding yourself about the changes in Google. There are no changes; they've just gotten better at what they do. And that is to consolidate all the various bits of information you choose to give them, compile it, and use it as part of their services that you are consuming.
Slashdot Mirror
What kind of fucking troll are you?!
A successful one, from the looks of it.
TFS talks about efficiency. I can only guess that they can improve the bandwidth of the communication by using quantum teleportation but I'm not sure how and would be intrigued to find out.
Tim.
Seems like increasing the bandwidth could indeed be the case. From what I understand of how this is working, they are storing the information in the photon itself, which differs from how we send info with light today by just using the absence / presence of photons. Just by the fact that we can now leave the stream on the whole time we're sending info should boost the potential bandwidth.
This is just my layman's understanding from reading a bit into it this morning though; I could easily be wrong.
Mine is in the 600k range, and ISTR I registered it some time in 2004, after reading AC for quite a while. Being pessimistic, the OP could easily have been here 5 years. If you think that's "new around here" you're being silly and engaging in UID dick-waving.
/slowclap
Pics or GTFO!
It said nothing of the GUI working on Linux, only that the games would.
64K? We had 32K, and most of that was reserved for other things so we couldn't actually use it.
32k? We had 1k and most of that was used by the OS and the video RAM.
1k? We just had an infinitely long roll of tape.
I'm not sure exactly (and I wasn't around then, so take this with salt) but I think it probably had something to do with the populace being convinced that we needed stuff.
Why should love be free if you could turn a profit instead?
More interestingly, how can a company that basically runs the internet be so bad at using the internet?
However, if you're picketing at a soldier's funeral and saying he deserved to die because "God hates fags", then you're A-OK and the cops won't bother you at all. If the cops are going to harass protesters, they could at least have the decency to harass the Westboro assholes too.
Yeah, but don't forget that these Westboro shitheads are basically the real life equivalent of internet trolls. As such, the proper response if you want them to go away (and I think we do) is to ignore them. Arresting them just makes them martyrs and puts their name in yet more papers.
I'm not saying that ignoring them is the morally right thing to do here, just the smartest.
I didn't see him/her making that point.
The copyright holders already have copyright. Regardless of the moral arguments, copying a piece of media that you don't have the copyright for is illegal. As you pointed out, that is well and good and we already have laws set up to punish those who break it for better or worse.
What I don't agree with however, is eroding our rights to give copyright holders a bigger stick to beat people with. Especially when there is such a long history of big business using various laws that were written for other purposes to reduce competition and other shenanigans.
You want to mine the moon? Fine. Gather up some money and go mine the moon. These guys, they want to go get an asteroid. It's their money. It's not like they're asking you to pay for it.
I have no problems with how they spend their money... right up until they accidentally hurtle a metal-rich (read: very 'heavy') asteroid into the earth.
Just like how some people might have problems with a local billionaire announcing "I'm going to build nukes, launch them into space, and detonate them for fun."
If it were collectible, it would be quite noteworthy as one of the biggest anti-circumvention awards of all time. But, it's not collectible.
The linked op-ed doesn't say why.
This is pure conjecture on my part, but my assumption is that the creators and the servers it runs on live outside the US, which is also the reason they ignored the lawsuit. Just like TPB happily ignoring (and proudly displaying) all the various nastygrams sent from US lawyers over the years.
I suppose you're one of those people who, when asked how you are feeling, proceed to enumerate the various physical and mental ailments afflicting you. The rest of us just say "fine" and get on with things..
It's perspective, and furthermore the English language allows for large leeway when you consider things like context, tone of voice, body language, etc.
Ask a millionaire how they are doing, and he may answer fine.
Ask some hungry kid in a 3rd world country who has only ever known hunger, and he might very well still answer "fine".
Ask somebody who just had a heartattack how they're feeling and you might get an overly sarcastic "oh just fine." Or maybe even a sincere "great" if they're happy to be alive.
I would not call any of the above people liars, even though their present situations are vastly different.
Oh, and don't forgot that America wouldn't exist if not for its military, so he should pack his bags and move to the arctic.
Hey look, I can create logical fallacies too!
Mine says I'm in "London, City of" and have downloaded Supernatural, Sanctuary, Twilight Saga, and Jasmine Webb Experience. All completely incorrect. Right country, wrong everything else. This web site is worse than useless.
It seems you don't understand what an IP address is.
But hey, congratulations! Your understanding of how the internet works is on par with most of our politicians and lobbyists. Perhaps you have a new career opportunity?
Hit 20GB for a couple months in a row and let me know how that works out for ya.
Why haven't these police officers been arrested?
Arrested by who? Their peers who do not want to be videotaped either?
By metacops, naturally.
But who metas the metacops?
We still see this kind of XXXX coming up every leap year.
We're all adults (or close enough to it, anyway) here. I think we're all capable of seeing the word "shit" without our faces melting like that nazi who peeped in the ark.
My apologies to everyone who is now having their face melt off after reading that previous sentence.
As someone who has watched as youtube, controlled by google last I heard, has slowly whittled away at these supposed freedoms (this birdsong is copyright douchebag corp, your video offends a muslim in malaysia and has been taken offline, your video offends the catholic clergy and has been removed, etc), I find this deliciously ironic.
Clean up your own house first, Schmidt.
I agree with your point, but I think you have it backwards.
Google is a global private company. The simple fact that Google is "forced" to obey the laws of China if it wishes to operate there is actually a perfect example of Schmidt's point. Currently China has power over Google, but little power over the global internet itself.
He's basically trying to prevent the internet from following in Toutube's footsteps.
It makes sense to me. How many dictators can a country have?
If a country has multiple people in some form of power, they will typically expend a decent amount of their resources towards removing power from their rival and granting it to themselves.
Even in countries like the US, where this sort of behavior is somewhat contained by the Constitution, you can still say there is X amount of political available because there are those boundaries set up between the branches. That wouldn't work if each branch had unlimited power by its very definition. Besides that, you still have political parties trying to undermine each other in the name of granting themselves more power.
What are you talking about? AT&T is proposing to *not* charge on the download side, i.e. not count the bandwidth towards the download cap of the end user. Instead, they would charge for it on the upload side, to the service provider who is delivering the content. Sure, the service provider may pass that charge right along to you, but that's *still* only one charge for the bandwidth by my math.
Oh? And do I get some kind of discount on my bill each month for this? Otherwise, all they're doing is upselling the bandwidth even more than they already are.
Most "normal" people don't get close to their 2GB caps. If they use 200MB normally, and watch Netflix on Wifi, they will likely end up paying more for this when Netflix has to raise prices.
So basically, your argument would only work if everybody routinely hit their caps and/or AT&T only charged by the MB.
At least he has one option. That is still more than some in the US get.
The solution to this is to make such people notorious, so that potential customers think twice before doing business with them, same as any business that causes legitimate grievances and dissatisfied customers.
In the non-digital world, this is a feasible approach. Opening a store and stocking merchandise are both expensive acts- a shopkeeper can't keep reopening his or her store repeatedly. Changing your name or moving doesn't help with this.
In the digital world, this is far harder. You have no stock. You have no manufacturing costs. Changing your name / the location of your store is a trivial matter ranging from completely free to taking back a few loads of bottles for deposit and buying a new dev license.
I can't stand incorrect usage of your/you're. Which pub are you going to? Perhaps we can meet up.
Argh. OK, you are technically correct, and I humbly bow to your knowledge. I misspoke and was only trying to use the word "ancestor" to help differentiate various primates. I used it in the wrong way.
The problem with implicit agreements is that both parties can have their own versions. Which is what we have here.
Personally, I view the stuff like G+ suggesting people involved in previous searches just part of the service that Google is providing. I don't use it, but I can easily see how others could. It's not much different from the ability that Facebook has to suggest people based on various criteria, and I've never seen anybody get up in arms about that. Although granted, that is facebook, and this is a search engine.
It all comes down to personal taste., and the price we are wiling to pay for Google's services. You have reached the point where you're no longer willing to pay their asking price, and that's fine. I guess I'm still OK with the price I'm paying. Another year from now... who knows.
However, I still think you're deluding yourself about the changes in Google. There are no changes; they've just gotten better at what they do. And that is to consolidate all the various bits of information you choose to give them, compile it, and use it as part of their services that you are consuming.