No. I'm not contending that they have no jurisdiction, but all obstructions are currently handled in a court of law. With this legislation and the following "lawful content" mandates (bookmark this if you don't believe these are coming), they could simply turn off your ability to share the file in the first place without going to court to debate the legality of said file. In affect, it's bypassing the judicial check.
Currently my ISP doesn't throttle the traffic. I get the same throughput using BT as I do with Usenet. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but this legislation could only open the doors to block it completely and legally. I'm not saying the legislation is bad. I'm just debating on if it's needed at all. You can and do have the choice now to drop your ISP and pick up another. You may not like the speed you get, but that's a choice you have to weigh on your own.
How do you propose they determine that? When do the regulations come down to the ISPs to tell them to block torrents because they are now considered unlawful? What about ISOs? All it takes is a more sly Jack Thompson to come along and that "lawful content" wording becomes the end of the neutral Internet. (A truly neutral Internet would not discriminate types of content as all content would be permitted.)
The FCC neutrality states that they can however control/enforce what is being transmitted. It's basically like the FCC fining television stations for cursing or broadcasting porn... now they are trying to get the same ability over the Internet by giving them control and calling it network neutrality. They veil it by telling the consumers that they are trying to protect their right to download Grandpa's retirement party video, but also protecting them from "evil" things (that they decide.) [ie: unlimited ability to download that which is not censored]
But...but... businesses are the devil! We need to control them to protect the children./sarcasm (If you really couldn't tell.)
I find it funny how the government takes a chunk of our freedom (taxes) to decide which businesses we support (sales) and then blames the business for raising prices to cover expenses (taxes.)
I don't know the details of it, but I read that Windows 7 still pretty much does what Vista did, but they improved the responsiveness by shuffling some of the work off to threads and/or the GPU with Aero. It makes it feel snappier to the user giving them a giggly feeling without actually changing much. I'm not moving from XP for my game PC until the last possible moment and they'll be trying to rip it form my cold dead hands. I'm not going to go by Vista or 7 just to upgrade my game PC. It offers me nothing. I'm dreading the point when the company I work for forces it on me as well, but mainly because of the lack of usability of file explorer. They removed features I found helpful and jizzed up the screen with fancy crap I don't want and can't remove.
Your drinking game forgot the shot for every time someone says "Windows 7 is the best OS they've used in years." I can't believe how many times I've seen that posted (cut/paste?) all over the web.
Not to sounds snooty, but there are plenty of other sites you can go to if you desire Windows "love fests." Leave us to our own preferential articles.;)
NVIDIA fielded a question on this topic during the Q&A session, and insists that RealityServer applications will have a bandwidth footprint equal to or less than that of a YouTube video stream, and it erred on the side of "less." Assuming this is true, the new services should have little to no effect on current-generation networks.
Though, I had to disagree... We aren't talking about a tiny YouTube video screen here, I want full pixel 1920x1200 x 16bit x 60fps (at least) rendering, and I doubt that's less than a YouTube video.
"passengers?" Hmm... never heard this phrase before. Are those the fuzzy thing up front with soft padding that you can sit on or the soft fuzzy thing in the back seat where all the trash gets thrown? (I really should clean that out... it's getting hard to see when people sneak up behind me traveling at 45 in the left lane.)
My money is on: "It won't." And you can quote me on that.
They aren't going to patch in LAN if they have a guaranteed lock on all the users playing it. The only way I can see it getting put in is if people didn't buy the game and informed Blizzard that LAN play was the reason... which they won't do.
You're right about the OS for gaming (but the less honest guys can probably find a pirated XP Corporate Edition).
That still doesn't solve the problem. You actually have to buy games on alternative OSes so that game developers target them more often. If you just pirate Windows, you are still enforcing the "Windows for Gaming Platform" because developers will continue to make games for Windows. Other people around the world will see this and continue to buy Windows, thus keeping the circle alive.
As far as I'm aware though, Java's installer is a user initiated task and not automatically installed. They also (the last time I checked) offer you the ability to select which plug-ins you'd like installed.
I must say, this is the best reason for why this is unacceptable. The Plugin/Addon (whatever) could alter the operation of the application specifically and the user has no choice in it's installation. It could be considered targeted abuse. Is it so hard for a website that needs the.NET extension installed to ask the user if they want it?
They'll have to leave the major version number the same so it doesn't break the Internet. They'll call it IPv7, but it will be version 6.1 to keep this compatibility.
Slashdot Mirror
No. I'm not contending that they have no jurisdiction, but all obstructions are currently handled in a court of law. With this legislation and the following "lawful content" mandates (bookmark this if you don't believe these are coming), they could simply turn off your ability to share the file in the first place without going to court to debate the legality of said file. In affect, it's bypassing the judicial check.
Currently my ISP doesn't throttle the traffic. I get the same throughput using BT as I do with Usenet. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but this legislation could only open the doors to block it completely and legally. I'm not saying the legislation is bad. I'm just debating on if it's needed at all. You can and do have the choice now to drop your ISP and pick up another. You may not like the speed you get, but that's a choice you have to weigh on your own.
lawful content
How do you propose they determine that? When do the regulations come down to the ISPs to tell them to block torrents because they are now considered unlawful? What about ISOs? All it takes is a more sly Jack Thompson to come along and that "lawful content" wording becomes the end of the neutral Internet. (A truly neutral Internet would not discriminate types of content as all content would be permitted.)
The FCC neutrality states that they can however control/enforce what is being transmitted. It's basically like the FCC fining television stations for cursing or broadcasting porn... now they are trying to get the same ability over the Internet by giving them control and calling it network neutrality. They veil it by telling the consumers that they are trying to protect their right to download Grandpa's retirement party video, but also protecting them from "evil" things (that they decide.) [ie: unlimited ability to download that which is not censored]
But...but... businesses are the devil! We need to control them to protect the children. /sarcasm (If you really couldn't tell.)
I find it funny how the government takes a chunk of our freedom (taxes) to decide which businesses we support (sales) and then blames the business for raising prices to cover expenses (taxes.)
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" - Ronald Reagan
I don't know the details of it, but I read that Windows 7 still pretty much does what Vista did, but they improved the responsiveness by shuffling some of the work off to threads and/or the GPU with Aero. It makes it feel snappier to the user giving them a giggly feeling without actually changing much. I'm not moving from XP for my game PC until the last possible moment and they'll be trying to rip it form my cold dead hands. I'm not going to go by Vista or 7 just to upgrade my game PC. It offers me nothing. I'm dreading the point when the company I work for forces it on me as well, but mainly because of the lack of usability of file explorer. They removed features I found helpful and jizzed up the screen with fancy crap I don't want and can't remove.
Google: "filetype:torrent myMovieNameHere"
Censorship.
So it's the same as a Windows shortcut. These are metadata files that can possibly point to a location where you can download illegal content.
I'll admit ignorance on this, but shouldn't we include Ma Bell and the Post Office or is it unfair to include government initiated monopolies?
Yeah! The kicker is that none of them lock you out of features because you bought "the cheap one."
Your drinking game forgot the shot for every time someone says "Windows 7 is the best OS they've used in years." I can't believe how many times I've seen that posted (cut/paste?) all over the web.
Not to sounds snooty, but there are plenty of other sites you can go to if you desire Windows "love fests." Leave us to our own preferential articles. ;)
From TFA:
NVIDIA fielded a question on this topic during the Q&A session, and insists that RealityServer applications will have a bandwidth footprint equal to or less than that of a YouTube video stream, and it erred on the side of "less." Assuming this is true, the new services should have little to no effect on current-generation networks.
Though, I had to disagree... We aren't talking about a tiny YouTube video screen here, I want full pixel 1920x1200 x 16bit x 60fps (at least) rendering, and I doubt that's less than a YouTube video.
Murder in progress, definitely. My guess is the assailant is a demented clown from the sound of the laughing...
"passengers?" Hmm... never heard this phrase before. Are those the fuzzy thing up front with soft padding that you can sit on or the soft fuzzy thing in the back seat where all the trash gets thrown? (I really should clean that out... it's getting hard to see when people sneak up behind me traveling at 45 in the left lane.)
but perhaps that will change in the future
My money is on: "It won't." And you can quote me on that.
They aren't going to patch in LAN if they have a guaranteed lock on all the users playing it. The only way I can see it getting put in is if people didn't buy the game and informed Blizzard that LAN play was the reason... which they won't do.
You're right about the OS for gaming (but the less honest guys can probably find a pirated XP Corporate Edition).
That still doesn't solve the problem. You actually have to buy games on alternative OSes so that game developers target them more often. If you just pirate Windows, you are still enforcing the "Windows for Gaming Platform" because developers will continue to make games for Windows. Other people around the world will see this and continue to buy Windows, thus keeping the circle alive.
As far as I'm aware though, Java's installer is a user initiated task and not automatically installed. They also (the last time I checked) offer you the ability to select which plug-ins you'd like installed.
I must say, this is the best reason for why this is unacceptable. The Plugin/Addon (whatever) could alter the operation of the application specifically and the user has no choice in it's installation. It could be considered targeted abuse. Is it so hard for a website that needs the .NET extension installed to ask the user if they want it?
You've never heard of code names? Besides, Sholes is too easily turned into "as sholes" and I'm sure someone put a stopper on that one.
I pull my pictures off my EnV by pulling out the memory card and putting it in my laptop or PC... Sure it's not wireless, but it's NOT THAT hard.
They bid for $31 million. When the project money is almost exhausted, they'll come back asking for more to finish.
They'll have to leave the major version number the same so it doesn't break the Internet. They'll call it IPv7, but it will be version 6.1 to keep this compatibility.