> one of the victims saying how awful it was to vomit for hours on end.
One of the most common side effects of Osteltamivir (Tamiflu) - seen in over one in ten treated - is nausea and vomiting, sometimes diarrhoea. Almost all cases of suspected swine flu since a couple of weeks ago would be treated with Tamiflu.
A worrying fact is that the flu virus splits into separate strands inside the cell, and if another flu virus is present, they can swap strands, effectively recombining into totally new strains. There are already strains resistant to the Tamiflu in the wild.
is going to lose a couple of percent of market share to AMD's Phenom". Talking out of the arse, maybe, but it doesn't make them enemies of Sun, Intel or Apple. But that seems to be lost on a whole slew of True Believers, who can't seem to see any shades between "you're 100% in Apple's camp and singing praise to it" and "you're 100% the sworn enemy of Apple and have an axe to grind." Yes, it seems he was following a popular example... Cf: "Either you're With Us, or Against US" - George W Bush, 2001. President of the United States and arguably the (unelected) President of the World.
I don't see the logical link between Firefox and p2p <snip> And finally, there are different p2p protocols for different purposes. This one apparently is only bittorrent. The author talks about sharing his movies with his parents, but that isn't what bittorrent is optimized for; bt is optimized for sharing a single, big file that lots and lots of people
I tend to agree, I think this is basically hitching on Firefox's success to create a P2P application in the hopes that it will become the main way of interacting with your buddies - presumably an IM feature is in the pipeline for these guys too. The only real advantage to the user is that extensions are easy to install on public terminals.
What I would like to see is an extension to Firefox that allows any HTTP request to be torrented, at the option of the web server. In this scenario, Firefox's HTTP headers would notify the server that it is capable of accepting a torrent (instead of the resource itself) and the web server could then choose whether to send the requested resource as usual (e.g. for small files) or a torrent (for big files which are frequently requested). Under heavy load, a web server could then just spit out torrents, and the/. effect would be significantly minimised.
I am involved in the upkeep of a travel photography and travel journal site and as we move towards better support for video blogging, it would make a lot of sense for large, popular video downloads to automagically turn into torrents, reducing costs, and improving availability and response times from our servers.
The key here would be to make it totally invisible/transparent to the average user, and sell it to them on the basis that web pages and big video downloads would happen faster...
So does this mean that I can declare myself a sovereign entity and leverage fines on Microsoft too? I mean, just because they've been around for years before me doesn't mean that I can't make some new laws for my new governing body and then fine the hell out of them!
Sure if your sovereign entity happens to encompass enough citizens, and the company happens to do business in your territory. Bear in mind that Taiwan isn't even considered a country by neighbouring China, but Microsoft still observes their rules and regulations, since not doing so would result in loss of revenue.
The EU isn't a two-bit banana republic (it's a 25-bit group of states tied together by flimsy bits of string and bureacrat which of course is much more respectable, actually not that unlike the United States at one time in history), but it still encompasses over 450m citizens who have just as much of a right as any other citizen anywhere else in the world to not being shafted by anti-competitive and economically damaging practices. Just because it happens to be a a US company breaking the laws instead of an EU one, should the EU suddenly bow and whimper?
Just because they send a bill to Redmond, do they really think it will get paid?
In that case, when an 'international' (read: non-US) company sends a US government organisation an invoice, how they know it will be paid? According to your logic, everyone needs to be based in the same territory to have their legal and commercial relationships honoured. Currently this would have to be the US, in a few years maybe China (now that's a scary thought)...
The EU has just the same right to dictate terms to anti-competitive companies, whatever their origin, as the US did in splitting its own home-grown AT&T. This is to protect the best interests of their citizens, and frankly if the US hadn't recently turned into such a whore for anyone with a lobby group, it would be doing the same, possibly more aggressively.
The fact that the EU is taking some action at all is a damn miracle. I for one personally hope they spend the revenue on developing EU-grown free software solutions to tackle the interoperability problems Microsoft is being fined for in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
> one of the victims saying how awful it was to vomit for hours on end.
One of the most common side effects of Osteltamivir (Tamiflu) - seen in over one in ten treated - is nausea and vomiting, sometimes diarrhoea. Almost all cases of suspected swine flu since a couple of weeks ago would be treated with Tamiflu. A worrying fact is that the flu virus splits into separate strands inside the cell, and if another flu virus is present, they can swap strands, effectively recombining into totally new strains. There are already strains resistant to the Tamiflu in the wild.
I tend to agree, I think this is basically hitching on Firefox's success to create a P2P application in the hopes that it will become the main way of interacting with your buddies - presumably an IM feature is in the pipeline for these guys too. The only real advantage to the user is that extensions are easy to install on public terminals.
What I would like to see is an extension to Firefox that allows any HTTP request to be torrented, at the option of the web server. In this scenario, Firefox's HTTP headers would notify the server that it is capable of accepting a torrent (instead of the resource itself) and the web server could then choose whether to send the requested resource as usual (e.g. for small files) or a torrent (for big files which are frequently requested). Under heavy load, a web server could then just spit out torrents, and the /. effect would be significantly minimised.
I am involved in the upkeep of a travel photography and travel journal site and as we move towards better support for video blogging, it would make a lot of sense for large, popular video downloads to automagically turn into torrents, reducing costs, and improving availability and response times from our servers.
The key here would be to make it totally invisible/transparent to the average user, and sell it to them on the basis that web pages and big video downloads would happen faster...
Sure if your sovereign entity happens to encompass enough citizens, and the company happens to do business in your territory. Bear in mind that Taiwan isn't even considered a country by neighbouring China, but Microsoft still observes their rules and regulations, since not doing so would result in loss of revenue.
The EU isn't a two-bit banana republic (it's a 25-bit group of states tied together by flimsy bits of string and bureacrat which of course is much more respectable, actually not that unlike the United States at one time in history), but it still encompasses over 450m citizens who have just as much of a right as any other citizen anywhere else in the world to not being shafted by anti-competitive and economically damaging practices. Just because it happens to be a a US company breaking the laws instead of an EU one, should the EU suddenly bow and whimper?
Just because they send a bill to Redmond, do they really think it will get paid?
In that case, when an 'international' (read: non-US) company sends a US government organisation an invoice, how they know it will be paid? According to your logic, everyone needs to be based in the same territory to have their legal and commercial relationships honoured. Currently this would have to be the US, in a few years maybe China (now that's a scary thought)...
The EU has just the same right to dictate terms to anti-competitive companies, whatever their origin, as the US did in splitting its own home-grown AT&T. This is to protect the best interests of their citizens, and frankly if the US hadn't recently turned into such a whore for anyone with a lobby group, it would be doing the same, possibly more aggressively.
The fact that the EU is taking some action at all is a damn miracle. I for one personally hope they spend the revenue on developing EU-grown free software solutions to tackle the interoperability problems Microsoft is being fined for in the first place.