The spammer is not a danger to society, just a pain in the arse so an appropriate punishment is a small prison sentence, coupled with a phenomenal fine - e.g. 10 million dollars.
Well, what if there were 10000 that did exactly what he did. Would they be a danger to society? What if there were 1 Million people sending spam like him? Do we want to live in that kind of society?
I argue that if we don't want our society being like him, then he is a danger to society.
At my university, I attended once of these rare "distinguished" lectures that usually involve really famous people. Some bigshot from Intel was describing how in the future everyone would have a 1 TeraFLOP computer in their homes... It would use advanced modeling/prediction algorithms to help the user. (Something similar to weather prediction, but for other tasks specific to the individual such as buying groceries, etc). Well, the lecture seemed like crap. (Doesn't he realize that most of the users are still struggling with basic day-to-day tasks and aren't going to spend the time or effort required to *configure* such a complex program, much less actually use it?)
I believe that once the majority of the public gets used to having 2 or 4 cores in their desktop/laptop, Intel will be screwed. At that point, once core can handle the user's tasks and the other core can handle anti-virus and other background programs. The second nail in the coffin will probably be FLASH drives replacing hard-drives. I find that most of the perceived sluggishness of a computer is due to the hard-drive and not due to the processing speed. (e.g. try network-booting a Linux workstation and see what makes it appear slow). I've tried using laptop hard drives in desktops for a while now (to have a quieter computer). I'm starting to wonder if any "new" computer only seems fast because its harddrive is faster/performs better than the one in the "old" computer.
As it is, I'm typing this on my 1-Ghz Pentium III laptop. It's not the fastest around, but it does what I need (web, email, writing papers, software development, occasional games) very well. Several years ago, I bought it used for $400 and can't *justify* to myself the need for a faster computer right now.
It's no different than if the shop had an electrical outlet on the wall outside and he was plugging in his extension cord to take power back to his place. The shop was providing the wi-fi as a service for customers along with the table, the chairs, the warm room, and the overhead lights. He was not a customer so he was not entitled to use the wi-fi. Just because he could, doesn't mean he had a right to it.
Let's say you are meeting a friend at a coffee shop. You walk into a coffee shop, open up your laptop, plug it into the wall and check your email. You see a late email from your friend that he isn't going to be able to make it. So you pack your things up and walk out the door. You did not buy anything because your friend did not show and thus you had no purpose in staying.
Did you commit a felony? You have used the shop's electricity, indoor space, and internet access without permission. (The store owner does not permit non-customers to use the facilities). Did your actions deserve that you be automatically excluded from most (well paying) jobs? There is a dangerously fine line between this situtation and the one described in the article. (e.g. let's say you meet your friend weekly for years and he doesn't show half the time).
What exactly defines a "customer"? It is one who buys goods,services -- but WHEN??? If I buy coffee daily in January, February, and March, does this make me a "customer" at any point in April?
What if you live behind the shop? You walk in buy a coffee, and return home where you make use of the free WiFi provided by the shop. How long does that cup of coffee entitle you to use the WiFi from the shop? [A cup of coffee per day could be cheaper than paying for high-speed internet at home]
Looks like Sparta,MI only has population of 4,159. Looks like the police chief coerced the shop owner into believing what happened was wrong. I think the chief had a personal dislike for the "offender" or wanted to drum up some funds for a raise^H^H^H^H^H^H^ the police department.
DHS will attempt to create national a database of irrational numbers....
After all, computer security could be improved if we keep these pesky numbers out of our calculations. By Federal Law, all numerical calculations will require verifification with the National Irrational Number Database (NIHD) to ensure these numbers do not penetrate our borders.
Sorry, but my initial reply wasn't very to-the-point.
Let's say I run an investment company. Each time you pay me "X" and I will pay you "0.9 * X".
Let's assume your initial investment is fixed. Can you keep re-investing your money (using only what you initially own and receive from me) to create a life-long income? (No you can't).
What are people in the future going to power ethanol producers with? Ethanol?!?!?!? ROTFL.
As long as farm land and feasible corn productuction are finite, ethanol is not a good option.
Who cares if it requires more energy or not? If the greenhouse emissions are equivalent, then it comes down to which is cheaper.
Well, energy is going to be scarce in the future, right? In the recent past, energy prices were almost equal regardless of medium (cost of 1 gal of gasoline was nearly the same as the equivalent energy in electricity).
The whole point of getting stuff from the ground is that we can do it cheaply in the sense that we get more energy out of the material than we spend extracting/processing/transporting it. That's why Oil is Big Business. If we could get the same thing from raking and burning leaves, things would be much different....
Spending more energy than we extract from ethanol actually *increases* overall energy consumption (over something like gasoline). This transforms ethanol from an energy "source" (loosely speaking) to something more of a carrier (like an efficient battery). I don't see how this can be a viable option (in anything but a very short-term view), for both economic as well as environmental reasons.
To me, it seems like using ethanol for cars is like running our car off non-rechargable alkaline batteries. (The require more energy to produce than they yield). It's just stupid. But right now government subsidies make "Stupid" "Profitable"... And that my friends, will be the decline of our great civilization...
The firewall required to do this isn't any less complex than a current NAT/stateful-firewall, but it provides several advantages. Rather than having only one externally-facing address for the entire LAN, and routing traffic based on the port or TCP connection, you can just route based on the IPv6 address, and create all sorts of (in)flexible rules based on how much trust you have in the destination device, which can include creating further subnets that are isolated from each other, for security purposes.
Interesting view. I've always considered using NAT and having only one external IP to be a huge advantage. If I have another machine/device (e.g. friend's laptop, new PDA, etc), I don't want it to be visible to the Internet.
I think most cable/DSL users (at home) have their computer connected directly to Internet, with *maybe* a software firewall (such as the one built-in to XP). If it is possible in any way for them to connect multiple devices (laptop, PDA, phone, desktop) into their adsl/cable modem without a firewall, *THEY WILL FIND A WAY*.
If IPV6 gives everyone their own block of ~256 addresses, then perhaps NAT routers could go off the market... Or what if DSL/Cable operators decide to charge a small fee for each IP address? (Not the high fees for IPV4 addresses, but something that might make that new PDA incur a small recurring or *monthly* charge)
Doesn't big business crave these tiny monthly fees that they can lure people into? All they would have to do is to integrate the IPV6 firewall into cable/adsl modem. This would have two advantages:
1) (Foolproof) Prevent users from connecting insecure devices directly to the Internet. 2) Open a new business plan where the internet operator can decide what devices/services the user can plug into the modem. (If NAT is dead, then most [unskilled] users will be stuck with this). 3) [disad] The Federal govt could assign IPs to each person or device. E.g. They would create a database of which user and which devices had which IPs.
Yes, the average slashdotter will find a way to do his own NAT. But if these devices leave the commercial market, the general public will be subject to the whims of the ISPs.
Do you have a copy of StarOffice from the mid-to-late 90's? Try running that in Linux now. Do you have a copy of MetroX from say, 1998? Try running that in Linux now. Are you still using the original Linux binaries for any games released in the late 90's?
Running old software (>10 years old) in Linux is actually pretty straightforward. All you need are the older versions of the libraries that it was designed for. That's it. Most distributions still maintain "compatibility" packages for older versions of GCC, X-related libraries, etc. I believe little has changed in the kernel such that backward computability was ever broken.
In Linux, you can run "ldd" on a binary and it will tell you what libraries it needs and what it found on your system.
If you actually remember how Windows software worked ~10-15 years ago, you probably remember games complaining that different versionf of the Microsoft runtime libraries such as VBRUN300.DLL were not found.
If we didn't have the luxury of increasing the transistor count by an order of magnitude every few years, we'd have to rely on better processor design.
We'd also have to rely on better software design too!
Then again, this guy does not represent the govt... Perhaps he is only stating that the RIAA won't prosecute in civil courts [since they've already gotten the federal laws on their side]?
On an related note, it didn't matter that the airlines ticket counter representative said it would be okay for me to carry my luggage on the plane. TSA thought it was too big and forced me to check it in. By the book, I think TSA trumps airline employees. Is digital content any different?
I just figured that the "intelligent painter" had a monopoly on this section of the universe and decided to paint plants green. It's not like he has much competition...
Or perhaps he owns patents on many other plant colors. The first green algae/plants were the only ones not smited out of existence.
But Aristotle overreached. "A=A" is a fine definition for the equals sign, but it says nothing about "A" whatsoever. And although this law works just fine in the abstract, it's impossible to apply to reality when you get down to the really real stuff. (Besides, most people commute it to "A=B" by ignoring all the differences between A and B, which is... ignorant.)
Whoa... That gives me a completely different perspective on life.
As an electrical engineer, it also reminds me the "mistake" people often make when applying math to describe real systems. Fixed and floating point arithmetic is not exact. Some people propose these highly complex algorithms after learning 500 ways to factor and diagnoalize matricies while completely overlooking the difference between exact arithmetic and approximate arithmetic. They truly do ignore the difference (literally!) between A and B and assume that "A=B" just because the math book says it must be so. This can have really bad consequences...
In one case, the author said that I had basically ruined his life by wrecking the whole concept of the book that he had been writing for the last few years. In subsequent emails, he was begging me to come up with a solution (e.g. diamond sword, coated with steel, etc.?)...
Perhaps the author should consider a hero that scratches the enemy to death. He shall be named "Sir Scratch-a-lot"
Did you read the article? It was about changing computer science to be what they think women want. That strikes me as far more stereotyping than letting the field be what it is.
Letting the field be what it is? Wouldn't that be a field mostly defined by men?
Humans enslave their body and mind to uphold a "civilization" that seems to successfully slow if not halt evolution. (I don't see how evolution can help humans get past biological problems that don't manifest themselves after the typical childbearing age of 20-40). As the parent mentioned, our current society does not support evolution very well.
How many years do we spend in school? How many years working? How many years enjoying life? Biologically, our practices are probably doing quite a bit of harm to the species. Is this really progress?
Are we really living a better lifestyle than the rest of the animal kingdom? I wonder at times...
At the end of the project, you've spent years on a project that'll never quite work right to save a bit of bandwidth for people that should have just gone and bought the song from iTunes in the first place if they wanted it that damned bad. And if they don't want it that bad, they aren't going to bother with some specialized P2P program that only has 1 advantage: It can tell some files are alike. (And probably has tons of disadvantages compared to the already-existing applications.)
After spending several years of my life in grad school, I'm beginning to think that s loy of university research is like that.
I think processor companies already do something similar w/o an FPGA.
The difference between the Pentiums and the Celeron (or whatever they called now) used to be mainly cache size -- this might have been motivated from yield considerations (in terms of the cache, since that is a large portion of the chip area). I remember reading something along the lines that they might have a few extra cache lines that can be used to replace a bad one (during the time of manufacture), by blowing a tiny fuse, etc. And I guess that if a particular chip doens't have enough good cache lines for a Pentium, then it becomes a Celeron...
I'm not a hardware designer, but I would think that a general-purpose FPGA wouldn't map well for processor implementation. My guess is that heat/power and/or speed considerations would prevent anything very reconfigurable/not-very-specialized to be used in a modern desktop CPU.
OTOH, modern Intel processors do still use some kind of microcode that can be updated via software (e.g. when the OS is running). I *think* microcode is only used to implement really complex operations or weird instructions that are seldom used. It isn't going to be used for fast things like simple arithmetic operations, etc.
I am an accountant and you are correct. There are a few issues here though. One is showing intent to turn a profit. This will allow expenses to be used as business deductions.
Alternatively it can be looked at as an investment. As an investment active/pasive rules would apply hence losses can only be set against like category gains. Another problem here is determining the costs basis for the virtual items sold which could be very complex to determine but it possible. It comes down to determining the portion of you stake in the game that was sold and your "investment" in the game. If you want to try to deduct your cost basis maticulous record keeping is the key, both as "investments" are made and the % of your stake in the "investment" sold at the time of sale.
Interesting interpretation. If game play constitutes an investment then does the Securities and Exchange commission get involved? If my game "investment" is based upon my actions in the game (e.g. not publicly known), then would this be insider trading?
Isn't that what separates "owning/running a business" from "investing in a business"?
I don't really know, I'm not an accountant. Just food for thought.
Telecommuting is too popular for this tactic to work in the US. There are some very powerful companies that have a vested interest in VPNs being reliable and responsive. How many of you think Cisco would let ISPs get away with this? Sure, Cisco sells lots of expensive hardware to ISPs, but they also sell a lot of hardware and software to businesses and consumers so that VPNs can be established.
Also, I know that many employees of my local and state governments use VPNs daily. If their VPN connections get any slower, they will be well-nigh unusable. This is essentially a lower-stakes version of NTP wanting to cripple every congressman's BlackBerry. Our monopolies seem to be forgetting rule #1: don't piss off your regulators! I think you mighty be overlooking something.
If a company allows an employee to telecommute from home, who pays for the internet bill? What doe the conditions in your ISP's Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) state? I know TimeWarner/Roadrunner state something like that it may not be used for any *enterprise* purpose.
I think this article is just highlighting a really evil practice. The cable companies are attempting to screw everyone to coerce the telecommuters to upgrade their service from "Residential" to "Business" class. (Essentially the same bandwidth, but the price is much higher). I wouldn't be surprised if they even offered an "enchanced" residential service for an extra fee.
Slashdot Mirror
I've also noticed it has been relatively quiet. I wasn't sure if my mail was working or not.
Although my blacklisted email addresses are still getting pounded a decent amount.
The spammer is not a danger to society, just a pain in the arse so an appropriate punishment is a small prison sentence, coupled with a phenomenal fine - e.g. 10 million dollars.
Well, what if there were 10000 that did exactly what he did. Would they be a danger to society? What if there were 1 Million people sending spam like him? Do we want to live in that kind of society?
I argue that if we don't want our society being like him, then he is a danger to society.
The parent makes many execellent points.
At my university, I attended once of these rare "distinguished" lectures that usually involve really famous people. Some bigshot from Intel was describing how in the future everyone would have a 1 TeraFLOP computer in their homes... It would use advanced modeling/prediction algorithms to help the user. (Something similar to weather prediction, but for other tasks specific to the individual such as buying groceries, etc). Well, the lecture seemed like crap. (Doesn't he realize that most of the users are still struggling with basic day-to-day tasks and aren't going to spend the time or effort required to *configure* such a complex program, much less actually use it?)
I believe that once the majority of the public gets used to having 2 or 4 cores in their desktop/laptop, Intel will be screwed. At that point, once core can handle the user's tasks and the other core can handle anti-virus and other background programs. The second nail in the coffin will probably be FLASH drives replacing hard-drives. I find that most of the perceived sluggishness of a computer is due to the hard-drive and not due to the processing speed. (e.g. try network-booting a Linux workstation and see what makes it appear slow). I've tried using laptop hard drives in desktops for a while now (to have a quieter computer). I'm starting to wonder if any "new" computer only seems fast because its harddrive is faster/performs better than the one in the "old" computer.
As it is, I'm typing this on my 1-Ghz Pentium III laptop. It's not the fastest around, but it does what I need (web, email, writing papers, software development, occasional games) very well. Several years ago, I bought it used for $400 and can't *justify* to myself the need for a faster computer right now.
It's no different than if the shop had an electrical outlet on the wall outside and he was plugging in his extension cord to take power back to his place. The shop was providing the wi-fi as a service for customers along with the table, the chairs, the warm room, and the overhead lights. He was not a customer so he was not entitled to use the wi-fi. Just because he could, doesn't mean he had a right to it.
Let's say you are meeting a friend at a coffee shop. You walk into a coffee shop, open up your laptop, plug it into the wall and check your email. You see a late email from your friend that he isn't going to be able to make it. So you pack your things up and walk out the door. You did not buy anything because your friend did not show and thus you had no purpose in staying.
Did you commit a felony? You have used the shop's electricity, indoor space, and internet access without permission. (The store owner does not permit non-customers to use the facilities). Did your actions deserve that you be automatically excluded from most (well paying) jobs? There is a dangerously fine line between this situtation and the one described in the article. (e.g. let's say you meet your friend weekly for years and he doesn't show half the time).
What exactly defines a "customer"? It is one who buys goods,services -- but WHEN??? If I buy coffee daily in January, February, and March, does this make me a "customer" at any point in April?
What if you live behind the shop? You walk in buy a coffee, and return home where you make use of the free WiFi provided by the shop. How long does that cup of coffee entitle you to use the WiFi from the shop? [A cup of coffee per day could be cheaper than paying for high-speed internet at home]
Looks like Sparta,MI only has population of 4,159. Looks like the police chief coerced the shop owner into believing what happened was wrong. I think the chief had a personal dislike for the "offender" or wanted to drum up some funds for a raise^H^H^H^H^H^H^ the police department.
DHS will attempt to create national a database of irrational numbers....
After all, computer security could be improved if we keep these pesky numbers out of our calculations. By Federal Law, all numerical calculations will require verifification with the National Irrational Number Database (NIHD) to ensure these numbers do not penetrate our borders.
Sorry, but my initial reply wasn't very to-the-point.
Let's say I run an investment company. Each time you pay me "X" and I will pay you "0.9 * X".
Let's assume your initial investment is fixed. Can you keep re-investing your money (using only what you initially own and receive from me) to create a life-long income? (No you can't).
What are people in the future going to power ethanol producers with? Ethanol?!?!?!? ROTFL.
As long as farm land and feasible corn productuction are finite, ethanol is not a good option.
Who cares if it requires more energy or not? If the greenhouse emissions are equivalent, then it comes down to which is cheaper.
Well, energy is going to be scarce in the future, right? In the recent past, energy prices were almost equal regardless of medium (cost of 1 gal of gasoline was nearly the same as the equivalent energy in electricity).
The whole point of getting stuff from the ground is that we can do it cheaply in the sense that we get more energy out of the material than we spend extracting/processing/transporting it. That's why Oil is Big Business. If we could get the same thing from raking and burning leaves, things would be much different....
Spending more energy than we extract from ethanol actually *increases* overall energy consumption (over something like gasoline). This transforms ethanol from an energy "source" (loosely speaking) to something more of a carrier (like an efficient battery). I don't see how this can be a viable option (in anything but a very short-term view), for both economic as well as environmental reasons.
To me, it seems like using ethanol for cars is like running our car off non-rechargable alkaline batteries. (The require more energy to produce than they yield). It's just stupid. But right now government subsidies make "Stupid" "Profitable"... And that my friends, will be the decline of our great civilization...
All the major UK parties have "Law and Order" as a plank of their manifestos
Wow. I didn't realize TV serials in the US were that popular in the UK
...that Americans don't text while driving.
All we need now is the few thousand people driving Hummers do be trying to text their friends while speeding down the interstate in heavy traffic.
The firewall required to do this isn't any less complex than a current NAT/stateful-firewall, but it provides several advantages. Rather than having only one externally-facing address for the entire LAN, and routing traffic based on the port or TCP connection, you can just route based on the IPv6 address, and create all sorts of (in)flexible rules based on how much trust you have in the destination device, which can include creating further subnets that are isolated from each other, for security purposes.
Interesting view. I've always considered using NAT and having only one external IP to be a huge advantage. If I have another machine/device (e.g. friend's laptop, new PDA, etc), I don't want it to be visible to the Internet.
I think most cable/DSL users (at home) have their computer connected directly to Internet, with *maybe* a software firewall (such as the one built-in to XP). If it is possible in any way for them to connect multiple devices (laptop, PDA, phone, desktop) into their adsl/cable modem without a firewall, *THEY WILL FIND A WAY*.
If IPV6 gives everyone their own block of ~256 addresses, then perhaps NAT routers could go off the market... Or what if DSL/Cable operators decide to charge a small fee for each IP address? (Not the high fees for IPV4 addresses, but something that might make that new PDA incur a small recurring or *monthly* charge)
Doesn't big business crave these tiny monthly fees that they can lure people into? All they would have to do is to integrate the IPV6 firewall into cable/adsl modem. This would have two advantages:
1) (Foolproof) Prevent users from connecting insecure devices directly to the Internet.
2) Open a new business plan where the internet operator can decide what devices/services the user can plug into the modem. (If NAT is dead, then most [unskilled] users will be stuck with this).
3) [disad] The Federal govt could assign IPs to each person or device. E.g. They would create a database of which user and which devices had which IPs.
Yes, the average slashdotter will find a way to do his own NAT. But if these devices leave the commercial market, the general public will be subject to the whims of the ISPs.
Do you have a copy of StarOffice from the mid-to-late 90's? Try running that in Linux now. Do you have a copy of MetroX from say, 1998? Try running that in Linux now. Are you still using the original Linux binaries for any games released in the late 90's?
Running old software (>10 years old) in Linux is actually pretty straightforward. All you need are the older versions of the libraries that it was designed for. That's it. Most distributions still maintain "compatibility" packages for older versions of GCC, X-related libraries, etc. I believe little has changed in the kernel such that backward computability was ever broken.
In Linux, you can run "ldd" on a binary and it will tell you what libraries it needs and what it found on your system.
If you actually remember how Windows software worked ~10-15 years ago, you probably remember games complaining that different versionf of the Microsoft runtime libraries such as VBRUN300.DLL were not found.
Just an after the fact observation, which yes, has held approximately true until now. But its NOT A LAW and stop treating it as such !!
My theory:
If you work for AMD/Intel/etc and your (non-technical manager) thinks its a law... It's *THE LAW*.
(or else you will probably be looking for a new job)
If we didn't have the luxury of increasing the transistor count by an order of magnitude every few years, we'd have to rely on better processor design.
We'd also have to rely on better software design too!
I was wondering about that.
Then again, this guy does not represent the govt... Perhaps he is only stating that the RIAA won't prosecute in civil courts [since they've already gotten the federal laws on their side]?
On an related note, it didn't matter that the airlines ticket counter representative said it would be okay for me to carry my luggage on the plane. TSA thought it was too big and forced me to check it in. By the book, I think TSA trumps airline employees. Is digital content any different?
I just figured that the "intelligent painter" had a monopoly on this section of the universe and decided to paint plants green. It's not like he has much competition...
Or perhaps he owns patents on many other plant colors. The first green algae/plants were the only ones not smited out of existence.
But Aristotle overreached. "A=A" is a fine definition for the equals sign, but it says nothing about "A" whatsoever. And although this law works just fine in the abstract, it's impossible to apply to reality when you get down to the really real stuff. (Besides, most people commute it to "A=B" by ignoring all the differences between A and B, which is... ignorant.)
Whoa... That gives me a completely different perspective on life.
As an electrical engineer, it also reminds me the "mistake" people often make when applying math to describe real systems. Fixed and floating point arithmetic is not exact. Some people propose these highly complex algorithms after learning 500 ways to factor and diagnoalize matricies while completely overlooking the difference between exact arithmetic and approximate arithmetic. They truly do ignore the difference (literally!) between A and B and assume that "A=B" just because the math book says it must be so. This can have really bad consequences...
In one case, the author said that I had basically ruined his life by wrecking the whole concept of the book that he had been writing for the last few years. In subsequent emails, he was begging me to come up with a solution (e.g. diamond sword, coated with steel, etc.?)...
Perhaps the author should consider a hero that scratches the enemy to death. He shall be named "Sir Scratch-a-lot"
Did you read the article? It was about changing computer science to be what they think women want. That strikes me as far more stereotyping than letting the field be what it is.
Letting the field be what it is? Wouldn't that be a field mostly defined by men?
Indeed.
Humans enslave their body and mind to uphold a "civilization" that seems to successfully slow if not halt evolution. (I don't see how evolution can help humans get past biological problems that don't manifest themselves after the typical childbearing age of 20-40). As the parent mentioned, our current society does not support evolution very well.
How many years do we spend in school? How many years working? How many years enjoying life? Biologically, our practices are probably doing quite a bit of harm to the species. Is this really progress?
Are we really living a better lifestyle than the rest of the animal kingdom? I wonder at times...
What kind of lifetime are you expecting?
What about things like theft, hail, wind, tree branches, neighborhood kids with baseballs?
I know it could be a good investment, but these risks somewhat concern me if it will take 10-20 years to pay it off.
evil is really the result of stubborn, even aggressive stupidity.
Wow... I should read more... Dantes already knew that our C.i.C would be Evil. I can't exactly call him "Dr. Evil" since he is not educated.
At the end of the project, you've spent years on a project that'll never quite work right to save a bit of bandwidth for people that should have just gone and bought the song from iTunes in the first place if they wanted it that damned bad. And if they don't want it that bad, they aren't going to bother with some specialized P2P program that only has 1 advantage: It can tell some files are alike. (And probably has tons of disadvantages compared to the already-existing applications.)
After spending several years of my life in grad school, I'm beginning to think that s loy of university research is like that.
I think processor companies already do something similar w/o an FPGA.
The difference between the Pentiums and the Celeron (or whatever they called now) used to be mainly cache size -- this might have been motivated from yield considerations (in terms of the cache, since that is a large portion of the chip area). I remember reading something along the lines that they might have a few extra cache lines that can be used to replace a bad one (during the time of manufacture), by blowing a tiny fuse, etc. And I guess that if a particular chip doens't have enough good cache lines for a Pentium, then it becomes a Celeron...
I'm not a hardware designer, but I would think that a general-purpose FPGA wouldn't map well for processor implementation. My guess is that heat/power and/or speed considerations would prevent anything very reconfigurable/not-very-specialized to be used in a modern desktop CPU.
OTOH, modern Intel processors do still use some kind of microcode that can be updated via software (e.g. when the OS is running). I *think* microcode is only used to implement really complex operations or weird instructions that are seldom used. It isn't going to be used for fast things like simple arithmetic operations, etc.
Interesting reading: http://kerneltrap.org/node/2678
I am an accountant and you are correct. There are a few issues here though. One is showing intent to turn a profit. This will allow expenses to be used as business deductions.
Alternatively it can be looked at as an investment. As an investment active/pasive rules would apply hence losses can only be set against like category gains. Another problem here is determining the costs basis for the virtual items sold which could be very complex to determine but it possible. It comes down to determining the portion of you stake in the game that was sold and your "investment" in the game. If you want to try to deduct your cost basis maticulous record keeping is the key, both as "investments" are made and the % of your stake in the "investment" sold at the time of sale.
Interesting interpretation. If game play constitutes an investment then does the Securities and Exchange commission get involved? If my game "investment" is based upon my actions in the game (e.g. not publicly known), then would this be insider trading?
Isn't that what separates "owning/running a business" from "investing in a business"?
I don't really know, I'm not an accountant. Just food for thought.
Also, I know that many employees of my local and state governments use VPNs daily. If their VPN connections get any slower, they will be well-nigh unusable. This is essentially a lower-stakes version of NTP wanting to cripple every congressman's BlackBerry. Our monopolies seem to be forgetting rule #1: don't piss off your regulators! I think you mighty be overlooking something.
If a company allows an employee to telecommute from home, who pays for the internet bill? What doe the conditions in your ISP's Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) state? I know TimeWarner/Roadrunner state something like that it may not be used for any *enterprise* purpose.
I think this article is just highlighting a really evil practice. The cable companies are attempting to screw everyone to coerce the telecommuters to upgrade their service from "Residential" to "Business" class. (Essentially the same bandwidth, but the price is much higher). I wouldn't be surprised if they even offered an "enchanced" residential service for an extra fee.