I can think of only two explanations, assuming their CPU-related benchmarks aren't memory-constrained. If they compiled the benchmark suite on each system, then perhaps there's some major regression in the newer versions of gcc that's negatively affecting the test results on all newer versions of ubuntu. This seems pretty unlikely.
The other is that it's a scheduling issue. Why would a benchmark that *only* exercises the CPU run slower on one version of Ubuntu compared to the other? Probably because it's not getting all of the CPU. Or being interrupted continually, etc. They should run the tests w/ "nice" turned all the way up, to suggest to the OS that they get *all* the CPU they want. I suspect if they did, that all the CPU-bound tests, at least, would have near-identical results. I/O is a different matter entirely.
Tell your boss it's a bad idea to break these websites' terms of service. He'll probably override you and tell you to do the project anyway.
Code up the project just like he asks. Demonstrate that it works.
Shortly afterwards, email the sites in question from a non-work friend's account and let them know (with specific information) the accounts and IP addresses that are violating their terms of service. Hopefully the accounts will be disabled, and/or your employer's IP range will be blocked.
Throw up your hands and tell your boss, "Well, I guess they figured out what we were doing!"
Unlike other popular members of the genre, Carrion Fields does not allow players to purchase in-game advantages with OOC currency. In other words, it's a level playing field.
That's what I get for not reading the article. In that case its even less relevant. Suffice it to say that the comparison between FF and IE8, while still not favorable to IE, looks a LOT better for IE than the comparison of FF to IE7.
If you've even remotely been keeping up with FireFox, WebKit and IE progress, it's no surprise that IE8 fares poorly. It fared poorly the day it was released, which was about two months ago. Why are we getting this story now?
As a side note, IE8 does fix the pathologically bad performance IE6/IE7 exhibited on certain SunSpider benchmarks. That alone should improve its overall SunSpider score by an order of magnitude. Its javascript engine will still be 2-3X slower than FireFox and Safari, but it will at least be in the same "ball park".
Semantics. Assigning legal repercussions to broadcasting certain content is effectively creating a filter. It is impossible to assign legal percussions to content providers on the net because they're either effectively anonymous or located outside the FCC's jurisdiction. Since it's not possible to filter by assigning legal repercussions, and it's not possible to filter by on-the-fly examination of content or the use of black lists, it is effectively not possible to filter net content. I've never said otherwise. My original comment was in regard to the motivation for such filtering, not its feasibility. All the arguments in FCC vs. Pacifica, i.e. the basis for the FCC's ability to establish and enforce, via the legal system, standards for broadcast TV, also apply to free wireless net access.
But since we already established that it's not possible to effectively filter net content, I'm left with the conclusion that free wireless broadband is a bad idea.
TV broadcasts are filtered at the content level by the content providers. Obviously that's not something anybody can enforce on a global network. If hardware (or "working" software) filtering were ubiquitous on computing equipment then I doubt the FCC would be proposing the free wireless be filtered. I agree with you that such filtering is not likely to work. My point was that the motivation for such filtering is the same as for broadcast TV. Actually, the impossibility of effective filtering is probably a good argument against free wireless broadband.
Free broadband is essentially the same as broadcast TV. There are content restrictions on broadcast TV for the same reason they're proposing there be content restrictions on this free net access. Obviously they're going to be much less effective on the net access, but the motivation for putting them there is valid in both cases.
Because "Turn that shit off" just doesn't waste enough tax money.
Yes, parents should take an active role in choosing what content their children are exposed to. No, parents shouldn't use the TV as a babysitter. But guess what? No parent is going to be right next to his child (or children) every minute of every day. It's just not possible (or arguably healthy). Tools like this provide a "line of last defense" for when the parent isn't around.
I'm on board with this. Mainly because it represents corporate America making the job of parents more difficult. If you want to market a toy, market it to the consumer who will ultimately make the decision to buy (or not buy) that toy, i.e. the parent.
The side effect, though, is that children's television would be devoid of advertising and thus unprofitable. So it would all but disappear from for-profit stations. (Which isn't necessarily a bad thing).
Of course its about the money. And I don't have a problem with that. At its root, everything Comcast does is based on the money, since they're a for-profit venture with an obligation to their shareholders.
"How much profit the provider will make", with regard to where they set the usage cap, is based on how many people it will effect, since banging up against some cap is going to piss most people off. So, when deciding where to set the cap, you set it so that you get the most "bang" (i.e. bandwidth savings) for your "buck" (i.e. upset users who may terminate service).
As long as the curve is such that there's a small subset of users in the upper range whose usage level is orders of magnitude higher than eveyrone else, it will be profitable for Comcast to put a cap on usage. Or, alternately, to charge on a per-unit basis for bandwidth consumed above some "base" level.
Presumably the 250GB figure is based on the distribution of usage patterns for Comcast's customers. I'm guessing it was set so that it will have no impact on the vast majority of users, but will curtail the activities of the heaviest n% of users.
As long as the general shape of that usage curve stays the same, i.e. a small group of super-heavy users at the top, then Comcast's model remains valid. They may just need to slide the cap upwards as bandwidth usage increases across-the-board.
What would screw them is if somehow the curve flattened out, where all users were using approximately the same bandwidth. But I don't see that happening any time soon, if ever.
Again, speaking personally, I won't get digital HD cable because the compression is so assy. I would, however, get an HDTV for OTA broadcasts. If I were forced to buy a tuner box, that would provide a nice excuse for me to go ahead and take the plunge and go all digital.
Speaking personally, I have a standard SD CRT and a DVD player. If I were to upgrade to a 1080p HDTV, I would most likely buy a blu-ray player. Media cost isn't an issue for me since I don't buy movies, I just rent them from brick-and-morter stores or Netflix, or my wife checks them out from the library.
I wonder how large the "rent only" demographic is?
Blu-ray adoption is hindered by the fact that a great many people still have SD televisions, so they see absolutely no benefit from Blu-ray over DVD. As people continue to ditch their CRTs, which should accelerate once analog broadcasts are dropped next year, Blu-ray adoption will continue to grow.
Read his original article. He's not suggesting creationism be taught as science, or even as non-science. He's suggesting that, when students raise objections to evolutionary theory, even objections based on a creationist foundation, that those objections be discussed in a scientific context. He's also suggesting that, rather than try to "change students' minds", science teachers focus on simply presenting the standard scientific view of cosmology. That seems perfectly reasonable.
I set Firefox to clear all personal information whenever I shut it down. I have it configured not to accept non-session cookies unless they're from sites I've white listed. How is privacy mode different? Or, is it merely that it opts not to store files (or add anything to the browsing history) in real time, i.e. not just when you close the application?
I've heard good things about tigerdirect.com. Also, you can use newegg's excellent research functions to figure out what components you want, then go buy them at a Fry's if there's one near you. For me, the best thing about newegg is their search tools, the fact that they have fairly accurate specs, and that they include photos of everything. You might also check resellerratings.com, and see which PC hardware sellers are highly rated.
I suppose they could trick you into giving it up. Either a physical or cryptographic key. Here's how I'd do it:
Get a warrant to install surveillance in the guy's house. Aim cameras aimed at places where he'd likely use the laptop. Also keep him under constant surveillance. If it is possible without destroying data, replace his hard drive with a identical, empty, encrypted one. Keep the original as evidence. Give the guy back his laptop and release him. If he turns it on and tries to log in, hopefully you catch the keystrokes on film. If he's smart and just destroys it, then you hopefully have him on tape destroying the machine, which could be used to bolster the prosecution's allegations of guilt.
Seems like the same concept should apply here. You have a repository for storing things that is protected by a lock and key. Now, clearly they can get a warrant to open the safe by force, but that isn't always feasible when it comes to encryption. When it comes to a physical lock and key, can they compel you to cough up the key?
Slashdot Mirror
I can think of only two explanations, assuming their CPU-related benchmarks aren't memory-constrained. If they compiled the benchmark suite on each system, then perhaps there's some major regression in the newer versions of gcc that's negatively affecting the test results on all newer versions of ubuntu. This seems pretty unlikely.
The other is that it's a scheduling issue. Why would a benchmark that *only* exercises the CPU run slower on one version of Ubuntu compared to the other? Probably because it's not getting all of the CPU. Or being interrupted continually, etc. They should run the tests w/ "nice" turned all the way up, to suggest to the OS that they get *all* the CPU they want. I suspect if they did, that all the CPU-bound tests, at least, would have near-identical results. I/O is a different matter entirely.
http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html#alan
Err, pardon my brain fart. The MUD is actually hosted at "carrionfields.com 9999". "www.carrionfields.com" is the website.
www.carrionfields.com 9999
Unlike other popular members of the genre, Carrion Fields does not allow players to purchase in-game advantages with OOC currency. In other words, it's a level playing field.
Open Source Meatware.
That's what I get for not reading the article. In that case its even less relevant. Suffice it to say that the comparison between FF and IE8, while still not favorable to IE, looks a LOT better for IE than the comparison of FF to IE7.
If you've even remotely been keeping up with FireFox, WebKit and IE progress, it's no surprise that IE8 fares poorly. It fared poorly the day it was released, which was about two months ago. Why are we getting this story now?
As a side note, IE8 does fix the pathologically bad performance IE6/IE7 exhibited on certain SunSpider benchmarks. That alone should improve its overall SunSpider score by an order of magnitude. Its javascript engine will still be 2-3X slower than FireFox and Safari, but it will at least be in the same "ball park".
Semantics. Assigning legal repercussions to broadcasting certain content is effectively creating a filter. It is impossible to assign legal percussions to content providers on the net because they're either effectively anonymous or located outside the FCC's jurisdiction. Since it's not possible to filter by assigning legal repercussions, and it's not possible to filter by on-the-fly examination of content or the use of black lists, it is effectively not possible to filter net content. I've never said otherwise. My original comment was in regard to the motivation for such filtering, not its feasibility. All the arguments in FCC vs. Pacifica, i.e. the basis for the FCC's ability to establish and enforce, via the legal system, standards for broadcast TV, also apply to free wireless net access.
But since we already established that it's not possible to effectively filter net content, I'm left with the conclusion that free wireless broadband is a bad idea.
TV broadcasts are filtered at the content level by the content providers. Obviously that's not something anybody can enforce on a global network. If hardware (or "working" software) filtering were ubiquitous on computing equipment then I doubt the FCC would be proposing the free wireless be filtered. I agree with you that such filtering is not likely to work. My point was that the motivation for such filtering is the same as for broadcast TV. Actually, the impossibility of effective filtering is probably a good argument against free wireless broadband.
Take it up with the U.S. Supreme Court:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission_v._Pacifica_Foundation
Free broadband is essentially the same as broadcast TV. There are content restrictions on broadcast TV for the same reason they're proposing there be content restrictions on this free net access. Obviously they're going to be much less effective on the net access, but the motivation for putting them there is valid in both cases.
Because "Turn that shit off" just doesn't waste enough tax money.
Yes, parents should take an active role in choosing what content their children are exposed to. No, parents shouldn't use the TV as a babysitter. But guess what? No parent is going to be right next to his child (or children) every minute of every day. It's just not possible (or arguably healthy). Tools like this provide a "line of last defense" for when the parent isn't around.
I'm on board with this. Mainly because it represents corporate America making the job of parents more difficult. If you want to market a toy, market it to the consumer who will ultimately make the decision to buy (or not buy) that toy, i.e. the parent.
The side effect, though, is that children's television would be devoid of advertising and thus unprofitable. So it would all but disappear from for-profit stations. (Which isn't necessarily a bad thing).
Of course its about the money. And I don't have a problem with that. At its root, everything Comcast does is based on the money, since they're a for-profit venture with an obligation to their shareholders.
"How much profit the provider will make", with regard to where they set the usage cap, is based on how many people it will effect, since banging up against some cap is going to piss most people off. So, when deciding where to set the cap, you set it so that you get the most "bang" (i.e. bandwidth savings) for your "buck" (i.e. upset users who may terminate service).
As long as the curve is such that there's a small subset of users in the upper range whose usage level is orders of magnitude higher than eveyrone else, it will be profitable for Comcast to put a cap on usage. Or, alternately, to charge on a per-unit basis for bandwidth consumed above some "base" level.
Presumably the 250GB figure is based on the distribution of usage patterns for Comcast's customers. I'm guessing it was set so that it will have no impact on the vast majority of users, but will curtail the activities of the heaviest n% of users.
As long as the general shape of that usage curve stays the same, i.e. a small group of super-heavy users at the top, then Comcast's model remains valid. They may just need to slide the cap upwards as bandwidth usage increases across-the-board.
What would screw them is if somehow the curve flattened out, where all users were using approximately the same bandwidth. But I don't see that happening any time soon, if ever.
If you can handle the limited nature of their word processor.
Again, speaking personally, I won't get digital HD cable because the compression is so assy. I would, however, get an HDTV for OTA broadcasts. If I were forced to buy a tuner box, that would provide a nice excuse for me to go ahead and take the plunge and go all digital.
Speaking personally, I have a standard SD CRT and a DVD player. If I were to upgrade to a 1080p HDTV, I would most likely buy a blu-ray player. Media cost isn't an issue for me since I don't buy movies, I just rent them from brick-and-morter stores or Netflix, or my wife checks them out from the library.
I wonder how large the "rent only" demographic is?
Blu-ray adoption is hindered by the fact that a great many people still have SD televisions, so they see absolutely no benefit from Blu-ray over DVD. As people continue to ditch their CRTs, which should accelerate once analog broadcasts are dropped next year, Blu-ray adoption will continue to grow.
Read his original article. He's not suggesting creationism be taught as science, or even as non-science. He's suggesting that, when students raise objections to evolutionary theory, even objections based on a creationist foundation, that those objections be discussed in a scientific context. He's also suggesting that, rather than try to "change students' minds", science teachers focus on simply presenting the standard scientific view of cosmology. That seems perfectly reasonable.
I set Firefox to clear all personal information whenever I shut it down. I have it configured not to accept non-session cookies unless they're from sites I've white listed. How is privacy mode different? Or, is it merely that it opts not to store files (or add anything to the browsing history) in real time, i.e. not just when you close the application?
I've heard good things about tigerdirect.com. Also, you can use newegg's excellent research functions to figure out what components you want, then go buy them at a Fry's if there's one near you. For me, the best thing about newegg is their search tools, the fact that they have fairly accurate specs, and that they include photos of everything. You might also check resellerratings.com, and see which PC hardware sellers are highly rated.
I suppose they could trick you into giving it up. Either a physical or cryptographic key. Here's how I'd do it:
Get a warrant to install surveillance in the guy's house. Aim cameras aimed at places where he'd likely use the laptop. Also keep him under constant surveillance. If it is possible without destroying data, replace his hard drive with a identical, empty, encrypted one. Keep the original as evidence. Give the guy back his laptop and release him. If he turns it on and tries to log in, hopefully you catch the keystrokes on film. If he's smart and just destroys it, then you hopefully have him on tape destroying the machine, which could be used to bolster the prosecution's allegations of guilt.
Seems like the same concept should apply here. You have a repository for storing things that is protected by a lock and key. Now, clearly they can get a warrant to open the safe by force, but that isn't always feasible when it comes to encryption. When it comes to a physical lock and key, can they compel you to cough up the key?