AMD/GlobalFoundries has the most to lose here IMO since right now most people are running 32 bit operating systems and in any case x86-64 is an extention of x86
Perhaps, but both AMD & Intel would have to stop all of their current x86 runs. AMD would have to flip to ARM without x86, but Intel would have to redesign every one of their current x86 chips - I believe they all have the -64 extensions encoded on the chips.
In this economy & with the margin on chips, I have to agree this is posturing & it'll be settled without any serious consequences.
> we are oversubscribed around 70:1 between our customers' bandwidth and our pipe.
I assume that's theoretical. If your actual traffic was 70x your pipe you'd have a very different complaint.
ISPs always oversell their base bandwidth because they know that not everyone is going to use it at the same time. In general it's described in the ratio of sold:actual bandwidth. Most of the ones I am familiar with are overselling in the 10:1 to 20:1 range. In general practice, this generally results in a 90% peak usage & under 50% lull usage. At a 70:1 oversell rate, I would expect to see some pretty bad packet loss & even worse ping times for most of the day.
In another comment, someone calculated that it takes less than 6 people maxing their bandwidth to saturate the network. I guestimated that w/ a 3Mb/s cable connection, 20 people watching streaming video - Netflix, ABC.com, etc - would saturate the network with each person using less than 1/3 of their connection. So your point of figuring out who & what is actually eating their bandwidth is right on point.
You don't want to punish customers for how much they download so much as when they download.
The guy who downloads 100Gb overnight when no one else is online? He isn't a problem.
The 100 users who all connect and download from together at peak hour? They are the problem.
At a 70:1 oversell, management is the problem. If this were a 10:1 (normal) or 20:1 (iffy) then your assessment would be correct. However, given the level of oversell, there's not much you can actually do to fix this.
Think about it, it's cable probably in the 3-6Mb/s range - given the problems & the "us or dialup" scenario most likely closer to 3. Worst case, they have 400 customers => 400 X 3Mb/s = 1200Mb/s sold. Factor in 70:1 & we have 17Mb/s or roughly 12 T1 lines to the backbone. If 20 people decide to stream a video from ABC, Netflix, wherever, then they've saturated the network. Thats 5% of the customer base using less than 1/3 of their bandwidth at a time and the network is starting to die. Cutting P2P and throttling the rest isn't really going to fix this unless you also hack out everything that's streaming - Utube & Hulu and every online radio station.
Their argument is couched in cute technical details like "the tracker doesn't host the content" or similar. To me that is a weasel argument because it avoids the root goal of that argument.
The reason it's "couched in cute technical details" is because the law is written very specifically, and stretching it to reach torrents as "copyright infringement" stretches it to include deep linking is copyright infringement. Laws are supposed to be strictly interpreted - not bent & twisted until someone thinks it's good. If you get to bend & twist them, then god only knows how & when it's going to be applied next.
I don't disagree that TPB is geared to making a living off of pirated materials, but if the MPAA & RIAA want to take on TPB, then they need to take on Google too, because Google has everything TPB does, plus some. Google won't respond to a takedown for a torrent's listing anymore than TPB will, because only the owner of the torrent file can request it. Anything else is a violation of the DMCA & has some hefty penalties.
They could have taken a different road. They could have responded to takedown notices but I think we all know they might as well close down if they do that.
Actually, under a strict reading of the DMCA, nothing on TPB is subject to a takedown notice, even if they were subject to the law.
In order to issue a takedown notice, you have to be the copyright owner or authorized by the owner. The owners of the small torrent files stored on TPB are the people who put them there, not the owners of the copyrighted material the torrents point to. Only in the twisted minds of the US court system is giving directions to something(deep linking) considered copying it(copyright infringement).
No that is not correct. You buy a CD like you buy a book. You only need a "license" if the copyright holder has to give you a limited subset of his or her limited monopoly on copying/distribution. You buy the CD, you do not need any of the copying/distribution rights that are reserved to the copyright holder.
The whole point is that the RIAA is arguing that music is only "sold" when it's convenient for them to deal with it in those terms. Otherwise it's licensed. I am looking at 15 of 20 random CD's having the notice that 'unauthorized lending' is prohibited.
Copying to buffers for use as intended was supposed to be covered under law. According to Blizzard V Michael Donnelly it actually requires a valid license. That's software, but as we are fond of pointing out here, data is data. If copying software to ram is a copyright violation without a valid license, then copying music to the ram buffers in an MP3 player without a valid license is also a violation.
The original statement is sort of a unintended consequence train with all of the push to increase copyright strength.
Um...I would disagree. Net Neutrality should (and, I believe, is generally accepted to) mean that my provider cannot screw with my traffic because it suits their interests to do so. What happens if they decide to throttle voip traffic due to 'network congestion', but the start of such throttling just happens to coincide with the launch of their own voip service? It has to be an open pipe, period.
Mandating an open pipe is stupid and ignores the reality of the latency sensitivity of the varying protocols. QoS is built around the reality that certain protocols are latency sensitive and others aren't. VOIP needs priority over p2p because a variance of 100ms delay induces a noticeable degradation in the sound quality. Bittorrent, HTML, and SMTP are virtually immune to latency of up to 1000ms - at which point some stacks start doing resends.
There is a massive difference between QoS shaping and aggressive throttling. Shaping ensures that the available bandwidth is used in the most efficient manner, aggressive throttling simply chokes protocols and leaves bandwidth unused.
You can use a round-robin scheduler to prioritize other traffic over p2p (in other words, let p2p soak up the bandwidth that remains after all the "normal" internet activities have taken their share). But there is a world of difference between that and what these companies apparently want to do: filter content selectively and block some protocols entirely.
QoS shaping and network neutrality are 2 separate issues. However, it's convenient for ISP's to lump them together - and 90% of the people in politics neither know the difference nor care to learn about it.
Network neutrality is about treating all sources & destinations as equivalent peers. Under network neutrality there is no difference between going to www.google.com or www.goat.se [shudder]. Opposing neutrality is arguing for the ability to treat the 2 end points differently - based either on moral standards or on a pay-for-play basis.
Under QoS shaping, traffic patterns are adjusted based on protocol and congestion. VOIP & Video conferencing are latency sensitive. HTML & SMTP are not. Bittorrent certainly isn't. By performing QoS shaping, the system ensures that VOIP calls are clear, while still allotting bandwidth to Bittorrent.
Putting the 2 issues together under the same argument allows ISP's to argue that denying them QoS would destroy them, while ignoring that their real goal is to implement tier-by-endpoint structures.
replaying of digital music - downloads or CD - require copying of data to a buffer
Using a legitimate copy of digital media is a violation of copyright if there is a lack of a valid license.
All music sold to and played by minors results in technical copyright violations. Since the RIAA heavily promotes music sales to minors, they are guilty of inducing copyright infringement.
There is a guy in jail for contempt of court in his divorce for not turning over financial records the wife says exists, he says they don't. I think it's 7 or 8 years now he's been rotting there.
Look, any way you slice this, Terry Childs held something at ransom or rendered useless that didn't belong to him.
Or he was performing his job of maintaining system security by refusing to give up the system root passwords to an unknown number of people listening in on a speakerphone. That's not holding anything for ransom, it's being responsible. He gave the passwords up directly to the mayor - IE no middlemen.
Making sure the job and one's successors succeed is critical to any IT role (if just for the "hit by a bus" factor) and this guy failed miserably at that.
Double check the storyline - he brought this up months before the shit hit the fan & was shot down with "their's no one we can spare to learn this shit - take care of it". He was fucking told to be God. Now their whining because he didn't magically make the documentation appear with no help and no time. The story specifically indicates that people assigned to work with him were routinely yanked away to cover other shitstorms.
Bluntly, his manager tried to fire him & when it failed he sandbagged him with an unreasonable request and has escalated that into criminal proceedings. Yes, in secure environments, verbal requests for passwords are unreasonable. Note that the charges related to not handing over the passwords aren't included in the formal charges being brought against him. That's a fairly good indicator that the DA understands that this is a cluster fuck of egos. The supervisor's ego was bruised when his firing got overturned & he's gone way outside the box to get back at Childs.
Was Childs following best practices? I would say no since there wasn't a sealed list of the passwords in a vault somewhere. On the other hand, the rest of the city wasn't exactly following best practices either.
They also deny bail, Childs was denied bail when he was initially arrested under the theory he posed a threat to the network. I don't know if he has since been offered bail or not.
Your CF card is going to use the USB interface which maxes out at about 40Mbps as opposed to using an internal SSD's SATAII interface which maxes at 300Mbps. Not quite an order of magnitude, but close.
On the other hand, if you're going to use an external SSD connected to the USB port, then you wouldn't see any difference between the 2 in terms of speed. Lifespan might be longer w/ the SSD due to better wear leveling, but in either case you're probably going to lose or break it before you get to the fail point.
half the router manufacturers can't even keep basic IP routing with NAT working reliably,
Amen to that, I have a DSL modem/router from my service provider that can't figure out how to make one LAN PC talk to another internal computer when it's addressed by the modem's external IP address. I know the routing information is correct because it works using the internal address from the LAN & the external address when out in the wild - but you can't use the external address when on the LAN.
Unfortunately, if the teacher says "go to the office" and the student says "Fuck off", the only thing the teacher is legally allowed to do is summon the principle.
Once the principle comes & is similarly told to "fuck off" it goes to the police. School officials have been stripped of everything remotely similar to authority.
Of course if this happens too much, they will require you to produce a CC# and SSN for each EULA that gets sent back to the company. Or even force you get it at the store you bought the box from.
Absolutely not. The software industry lives by "pig in a poke" contracts and by convincing people buying software that that's exactly what they do - buy software. If you have to sign a contract & actually agree to the license before you buy, people would stop buying. In fact, you wouldn't be able to sell this type of software to anyone under the age of 18 at all.
Think of it, loosing the entire under 18 demographic for game software. Listen, I can hear SOE & MS games screaming in terror right now.
The ANI number (the number that's going to get billed for the call) is always provided to the receiving party. The Caller ID is so much garbage & always has been. The big differences are that the CNID number is presented with the call and is defined by the originator of the call (or the switch if no data is present), and the ANI is presented upon completion of the call and is defined by the switch that places the call.
800 number operations frequently just grab the ANI to work with instead of the CNID, that way they don't have to worry about the areas that don't provide CNIDs (those "no data" calls)
Well, except one's illegal and the other is presumably not.
Both are perfectly legal. Businesses spoof caller ID all day long. Work from home? Spoof the ID to the work number. Have 45 direct dial extensions in the office but want callbacks to go to the main switchboard unless the agent gives out the number? Spoof all the calls to the switchboard number.
Bad is spoofing Bob's number down the street when calling 911. Stupid is using the caller ID provided instead of the switching information provided to determine the source of 911 calls.
The fact of the matter is that the number can be spoofed and some of us don't want our number to show up for one reason or another.
Actually there are 2 numbers that get broadcast with every call - one is the actual originating/tracking number. The other is the displayed caller ID. You can spoof the caller ID number, but the number that originates the call is there for billing purposes & is tacked on at the switch when you place the call.
A restraining order is just "words" when somebody shows up to beat you up.
Amen to that. My first wife's mother was killed by an ex-boyfriend who was out on bail for "menacing with a pistol"* and who had a restraining order. He bought a shotgun & a combat knife with an active restraining order.
* - menacing with a pistol = put a loaded gun to her head, handcuffed her to him, and lost his nerve trying to suicide by cop.
Ethanol isn't a viable alternative to fossil fuels as long as it's principally made from grains & high sugar saps/juices. Check the conversion rates between growing/processing the ethanol and the energy in the ethanol. Under current production methods, it's pretty close to break even.
If/when ethanol is commercially made from the woody biomass of existing crops, then it will be a potential contender since the growth portion of the cost is removed. Bio-diesel generally has a better net gain, but it's still not a wonder drug for the problem.
Software distribution is different than physical distribution of books. I'm not saying I approve of the current status quo, but until it gets changed, they distribute "Software Licenses" not "Software", and part of the License is a non-negotiable agreement as to what you can and cannot do with the software.
This has already failed in court a couple of times. Specifically the "No Resale" portion of the licenses. Right of first sale rather than the license agreement has been upheld in a couple of courts where software licenses from bankrupt companies were resold.
In addition to that, there are a substantial number of clauses in most commercial software that are not valid in the face of local consumer protection laws - specifically that the software is sold as is with no warranty of serviceability for it's intended use. Imagine if your new car came with a warranty disclaimer that it's not Ford's fault if the car blows up the first time you turn the key.
What I have always found interesting is this notion that creating a literary work is so much more important than an engineering work.
Patent - 17 - 20 year maximum depending on the type of patent.
Copyright - Life + 50 or 120 years for a company.
Patent - $4-18K to register and renew patent
Copyright - free
Patent - 20 pages to 20 boxes of paperwork
Copyright - magically appears at the moment of creativity
Can someone, anyone, tell me why "Oops I did it again" needs more financial incentive than the artificial kidney or the heart lung machine?
For gods sakes you morons look at what you're doing & pay fucking attention to the consequences. Copyrights now extend through 6 generations and 2 lifespans. Look at the numbers, after 10 years, the royalties on works are generally worthless.
Copyright law has vastly overstepped it's bounds. In the US it's supposed to promote advancement in the arts & sciences, not guarantee a revenue stream for life.
Come on, they have a page on their site dedicated solely to mocking companies that send them cease and desist letters on their piracy. They pretty much openly say "Ha ha, you can't get us, and we're going to continue to do it anyway. Fuck you and your copyright".
Actually, if you read the paged dedicated to mocking companies that send them c&d orders, you'll see that the majority of the mocking is because lawyers are sending a bunch of Swedish guys C&D orders based on American & UK law. Since they aren't subject to those laws - and last time I checked the page, nobody had sent in a C&D quoting a valid reason using Swedish law - why shouldn't they thumb their noses at them? It's certainly what we would do in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, but both AMD & Intel would have to stop all of their current x86 runs. AMD would have to flip to ARM without x86, but Intel would have to redesign every one of their current x86 chips - I believe they all have the -64 extensions encoded on the chips.
In this economy & with the margin on chips, I have to agree this is posturing & it'll be settled without any serious consequences.
ISPs always oversell their base bandwidth because they know that not everyone is going to use it at the same time. In general it's described in the ratio of sold:actual bandwidth. Most of the ones I am familiar with are overselling in the 10:1 to 20:1 range. In general practice, this generally results in a 90% peak usage & under 50% lull usage. At a 70:1 oversell rate, I would expect to see some pretty bad packet loss & even worse ping times for most of the day.
In another comment, someone calculated that it takes less than 6 people maxing their bandwidth to saturate the network. I guestimated that w/ a 3Mb/s cable connection, 20 people watching streaming video - Netflix, ABC.com, etc - would saturate the network with each person using less than 1/3 of their connection. So your point of figuring out who & what is actually eating their bandwidth is right on point.
At a 70:1 oversell, management is the problem. If this were a 10:1 (normal) or 20:1 (iffy) then your assessment would be correct. However, given the level of oversell, there's not much you can actually do to fix this.
Think about it, it's cable probably in the 3-6Mb/s range - given the problems & the "us or dialup" scenario most likely closer to 3. Worst case, they have 400 customers => 400 X 3Mb/s = 1200Mb/s sold. Factor in 70:1 & we have 17Mb/s or roughly 12 T1 lines to the backbone. If 20 people decide to stream a video from ABC, Netflix, wherever, then they've saturated the network. Thats 5% of the customer base using less than 1/3 of their bandwidth at a time and the network is starting to die. Cutting P2P and throttling the rest isn't really going to fix this unless you also hack out everything that's streaming - Utube & Hulu and every online radio station.
The reason it's "couched in cute technical details" is because the law is written very specifically, and stretching it to reach torrents as "copyright infringement" stretches it to include deep linking is copyright infringement. Laws are supposed to be strictly interpreted - not bent & twisted until someone thinks it's good. If you get to bend & twist them, then god only knows how & when it's going to be applied next.
I don't disagree that TPB is geared to making a living off of pirated materials, but if the MPAA & RIAA want to take on TPB, then they need to take on Google too, because Google has everything TPB does, plus some. Google won't respond to a takedown for a torrent's listing anymore than TPB will, because only the owner of the torrent file can request it. Anything else is a violation of the DMCA & has some hefty penalties.
Actually, under a strict reading of the DMCA, nothing on TPB is subject to a takedown notice, even if they were subject to the law.
In order to issue a takedown notice, you have to be the copyright owner or authorized by the owner. The owners of the small torrent files stored on TPB are the people who put them there, not the owners of the copyrighted material the torrents point to. Only in the twisted minds of the US court system is giving directions to something(deep linking) considered copying it(copyright infringement).
The whole point is that the RIAA is arguing that music is only "sold" when it's convenient for them to deal with it in those terms. Otherwise it's licensed. I am looking at 15 of 20 random CD's having the notice that 'unauthorized lending' is prohibited.
Copying to buffers for use as intended was supposed to be covered under law. According to Blizzard V Michael Donnelly it actually requires a valid license. That's software, but as we are fond of pointing out here, data is data. If copying software to ram is a copyright violation without a valid license, then copying music to the ram buffers in an MP3 player without a valid license is also a violation.
The original statement is sort of a unintended consequence train with all of the push to increase copyright strength.
Mandating an open pipe is stupid and ignores the reality of the latency sensitivity of the varying protocols. QoS is built around the reality that certain protocols are latency sensitive and others aren't. VOIP needs priority over p2p because a variance of 100ms delay induces a noticeable degradation in the sound quality. Bittorrent, HTML, and SMTP are virtually immune to latency of up to 1000ms - at which point some stacks start doing resends.
There is a massive difference between QoS shaping and aggressive throttling. Shaping ensures that the available bandwidth is used in the most efficient manner, aggressive throttling simply chokes protocols and leaves bandwidth unused.
QoS shaping and network neutrality are 2 separate issues. However, it's convenient for ISP's to lump them together - and 90% of the people in politics neither know the difference nor care to learn about it.
Network neutrality is about treating all sources & destinations as equivalent peers. Under network neutrality there is no difference between going to www.google.com or www.goat.se [shudder]. Opposing neutrality is arguing for the ability to treat the 2 end points differently - based either on moral standards or on a pay-for-play basis.
Under QoS shaping, traffic patterns are adjusted based on protocol and congestion. VOIP & Video conferencing are latency sensitive. HTML & SMTP are not. Bittorrent certainly isn't. By performing QoS shaping, the system ensures that VOIP calls are clear, while still allotting bandwidth to Bittorrent.
Putting the 2 issues together under the same argument allows ISP's to argue that denying them QoS would destroy them, while ignoring that their real goal is to implement tier-by-endpoint structures.
All music sold to and played by minors results in technical copyright violations. Since the RIAA heavily promotes music sales to minors, they are guilty of inducing copyright infringement.
This could be fun.
My bad, we're up to 14 years now:Chadwick.
There is a guy in jail for contempt of court in his divorce for not turning over financial records the wife says exists, he says they don't. I think it's 7 or 8 years now he's been rotting there.
Or he was performing his job of maintaining system security by refusing to give up the system root passwords to an unknown number of people listening in on a speakerphone. That's not holding anything for ransom, it's being responsible. He gave the passwords up directly to the mayor - IE no middlemen.
Double check the storyline - he brought this up months before the shit hit the fan & was shot down with "their's no one we can spare to learn this shit - take care of it". He was fucking told to be God. Now their whining because he didn't magically make the documentation appear with no help and no time. The story specifically indicates that people assigned to work with him were routinely yanked away to cover other shitstorms.
Bluntly, his manager tried to fire him & when it failed he sandbagged him with an unreasonable request and has escalated that into criminal proceedings. Yes, in secure environments, verbal requests for passwords are unreasonable. Note that the charges related to not handing over the passwords aren't included in the formal charges being brought against him. That's a fairly good indicator that the DA understands that this is a cluster fuck of egos. The supervisor's ego was bruised when his firing got overturned & he's gone way outside the box to get back at Childs.
Was Childs following best practices? I would say no since there wasn't a sealed list of the passwords in a vault somewhere. On the other hand, the rest of the city wasn't exactly following best practices either.
They also deny bail, Childs was denied bail when he was initially arrested under the theory he posed a threat to the network. I don't know if he has since been offered bail or not.
Your CF card is going to use the USB interface which maxes out at about 40Mbps as opposed to using an internal SSD's SATAII interface which maxes at 300Mbps. Not quite an order of magnitude, but close.
On the other hand, if you're going to use an external SSD connected to the USB port, then you wouldn't see any difference between the 2 in terms of speed. Lifespan might be longer w/ the SSD due to better wear leveling, but in either case you're probably going to lose or break it before you get to the fail point.
Amen to that, I have a DSL modem/router from my service provider that can't figure out how to make one LAN PC talk to another internal computer when it's addressed by the modem's external IP address. I know the routing information is correct because it works using the internal address from the LAN & the external address when out in the wild - but you can't use the external address when on the LAN.
Unfortunately, if the teacher says "go to the office" and the student says "Fuck off", the only thing the teacher is legally allowed to do is summon the principle.
Once the principle comes & is similarly told to "fuck off" it goes to the police. School officials have been stripped of everything remotely similar to authority.
Absolutely not. The software industry lives by "pig in a poke" contracts and by convincing people buying software that that's exactly what they do - buy software. If you have to sign a contract & actually agree to the license before you buy, people would stop buying. In fact, you wouldn't be able to sell this type of software to anyone under the age of 18 at all.
Think of it, loosing the entire under 18 demographic for game software. Listen, I can hear SOE & MS games screaming in terror right now.
The ANI number (the number that's going to get billed for the call) is always provided to the receiving party. The Caller ID is so much garbage & always has been. The big differences are that the CNID number is presented with the call and is defined by the originator of the call (or the switch if no data is present), and the ANI is presented upon completion of the call and is defined by the switch that places the call.
800 number operations frequently just grab the ANI to work with instead of the CNID, that way they don't have to worry about the areas that don't provide CNIDs (those "no data" calls)
Both are perfectly legal. Businesses spoof caller ID all day long. Work from home? Spoof the ID to the work number. Have 45 direct dial extensions in the office but want callbacks to go to the main switchboard unless the agent gives out the number? Spoof all the calls to the switchboard number.
Bad is spoofing Bob's number down the street when calling 911. Stupid is using the caller ID provided instead of the switching information provided to determine the source of 911 calls.
Actually there are 2 numbers that get broadcast with every call - one is the actual originating/tracking number. The other is the displayed caller ID. You can spoof the caller ID number, but the number that originates the call is there for billing purposes & is tacked on at the switch when you place the call.
Amen to that. My first wife's mother was killed by an ex-boyfriend who was out on bail for "menacing with a pistol"* and who had a restraining order. He bought a shotgun & a combat knife with an active restraining order.
* - menacing with a pistol = put a loaded gun to her head, handcuffed her to him, and lost his nerve trying to suicide by cop.
Ethanol isn't a viable alternative to fossil fuels as long as it's principally made from grains & high sugar saps/juices. Check the conversion rates between growing/processing the ethanol and the energy in the ethanol. Under current production methods, it's pretty close to break even.
If/when ethanol is commercially made from the woody biomass of existing crops, then it will be a potential contender since the growth portion of the cost is removed. Bio-diesel generally has a better net gain, but it's still not a wonder drug for the problem.
This has already failed in court a couple of times. Specifically the "No Resale" portion of the licenses. Right of first sale rather than the license agreement has been upheld in a couple of courts where software licenses from bankrupt companies were resold.
In addition to that, there are a substantial number of clauses in most commercial software that are not valid in the face of local consumer protection laws - specifically that the software is sold as is with no warranty of serviceability for it's intended use. Imagine if your new car came with a warranty disclaimer that it's not Ford's fault if the car blows up the first time you turn the key.
What I have always found interesting is this notion that creating a literary work is so much more important than an engineering work.
Can someone, anyone, tell me why "Oops I did it again" needs more financial incentive than the artificial kidney or the heart lung machine?
For gods sakes you morons look at what you're doing & pay fucking attention to the consequences. Copyrights now extend through 6 generations and 2 lifespans. Look at the numbers, after 10 years, the royalties on works are generally worthless.
Copyright law has vastly overstepped it's bounds. In the US it's supposed to promote advancement in the arts & sciences, not guarantee a revenue stream for life.
Actually, if you read the paged dedicated to mocking companies that send them c&d orders, you'll see that the majority of the mocking is because lawyers are sending a bunch of Swedish guys C&D orders based on American & UK law. Since they aren't subject to those laws - and last time I checked the page, nobody had sent in a C&D quoting a valid reason using Swedish law - why shouldn't they thumb their noses at them? It's certainly what we would do in the US.