Along with it's various unpatched vulnerabilities... which will increase as they end support for it? That leaves the $2000 investment better spent on Win2K8.
it's many many times more than the minimum requirements.
No... it's not. Win2K is suited for that server. WinServer2003 isnt really. Gotta remember, look at the DataCenter requirements (remember the load we are considering):
CPUs too slow (and not upgradable in that machine beyond their current 550MHz). Memory is OK. And their "recommended" requirements do not take into account what happens once you apply all the service packs and hotfixes (hence XP was 128MB requirement - and now is a LOT more).
Though I'll admit I am at a loss why server 2008's requirements are so high in comparison to 2003's,
So am I...
especially with the new super-cut-down "core" version. Perhaps it just uses new instruction set extensions, so it doesn't actually require a 1GHz cpu, they just don't make any slower cpus with the necessary instructions.
I'm not saying you should change from Apache, clearly you're used to admining it and Windows Server is not cheap. However, IIS is a lot better than you make out.
IF I want to get a lot more hardware to throw at it.
Again, the issue here is, even if IIS is "as good as" Apache, it requires a lot more hardware under high loads to be as good. It's not just familiarity with Apache (I've managed IIS, Domino, DominoGo and Apache)... it's that I need full performance out of the web server, and if you call Microsoft (I did) they'll laugh at running a bunch of websites using Server2003 on a box as "underpowered" as the Netfinity I have.
To get the recommended "horsepower" would require something akin to my x440. So, why in the world would I want to use an old version of Windows Server (2003) on a machine so powerful, when WSeB and either Apache or LDGW can do the same thing on my ancient box? I'd rather simply set up another WSeB and Apache setup on the x440 and have even more availability that simply get the same as the Netfinity simply because I made the mistake of going Server2003/IIS.
To achieve the same on Server2008, I would need to spend about $20,000 to get a comparable server that is as highly redundant... yeah, I can get a "cheapo" box built with nice components... but I *need* a box, where for other than catastrophic failure, I can hot swap just about anything (NICs, fans, HDDs, power supplies, etc) or can ignore memory errors as the machine auto-switches to a new bank and marks a bank or module bad, or take full advantage of the RAID memory (or, as most server owners know it... RAM... but in the Netfinity's case, it's actually RAM with RAID chips and controllers and ECC and such to ensure constant uptime even in the event of a module or bank failure).
And of course, with how cheap the Netfinity's are, I can simply have a backup on standby for a catastrophic failure - which I do - and still pay far less while retaining the redundancy.
Hopefully that clarifies what I am trying to say...
IIS was soooo good that when Microsoft bought Hotmail and switched from SunOS and Solaris to IIS, it took many many times the number of servers for it to barely crawl along. (I was there... I worked for UUNet at the time... and any of you who know anything about the Internet from those days know exactly what I am referring to... and any of you who worked for UUNet know it even more (including who, at the time, was really doing MS's MSN and WebTV connections, routing and numerous servers).
What seems to be the big point for comparable performance is having a top of the line box for IIS. Not as much with Apache/Linux or Apache/WSeB or LDGW/WSeB.
Nowadays, that is becoming more important as WinServer2008 needs a LOT of resources in comparison to a similarly capable Apache/Linux or Apache/WSeB or LDGW/WSeB would need.
So, yeah, IIS may be "great" if you can throw the newest, fastest hardware at WinServer 2008 and IIS... but for the rest of us (who also want more flexibility without (a) hassles of installing a ton of extra modules and with (b) keeping to open source solutions) Apache wins hands down.
I've got no intentions of retiring my Netfinity 7000 M10 any time soon. But to run the latest WinServer/IIS, it doesnt even meet 1/2 the hardware requirements in virtually any area - and can outperform the latest WinServer/IIS combination on the latest hardware.
Or... I could always compare my box to an 8 year old review and limit myself to Win2K and an ancient, insecure version of IIS.
Which makes more sense?
(a) Keep running my same ancient hardware on the newest Linux or WSeB builds, along with either Apache or LDGW to get some damn solid performance?
(b) Run an ancient version of Windows (Win2K) and a very old version of IIS (v5 or v4)?
(c) Spend a bunch of money on a new server (or waste the power of our x440) to use the newest WinServer2008/IIS combination to get similar performance to choices (a) or (b) above?
It's all a matter of keeping reality in perspective... thus, your post really doesnt matter as it does not equate to anything that fits within my reality (unless you wanna dump a lot of money my way for an equally redundant machine so I can run Win Server 2008 and the newest IIS... but be warned, if you do that... it'll probably end up getting a faster (ie: less hardware hungry) OS like Linux, WSeB or eComStation and Apache).
Hmmm... this was just covered on the news this morning (or late last night) where they actually revealed how they are really doing it. Thus, I guess this speculation is late and outdated already...
Most houses have two phase. Usually two 100A legs nowadays. Or more accurately, two reversed phase 110V 100A "legs"
220V appliances in a house use each 110V phase.
In a breaker box, there is generally one "double" breaker feeding such devices... which connect to adjacent terminals in the box. The box is wired internally so that every other connection is the same leg, while the ones inbetween are the leg that is 180 degrees "off phase"
Now, on older houses that have not had their service upgraded, anything is possible. We've went into ones with single phase, 50A, 60A, 100A, etc connections... and others with two phase 100A, etc...
I'd say I know this from doing residential and commercial construction and wiring, but... oh, wait, that is why I know this.
Anyways, meters today generally seem to read the draw from each phase... not the "aggregate" load across both phases.
The reason to balance the loads isn't to save money... it's to save your house's wiring. Both phases share a common neutral and ground. It's the same thing I need to keep in mind when we do set lighting for Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2... our distro boxes are three phase, with each stringer have (3) 30A phases and sharing the same ground and neutral.
when my website was posted on wikipedia, it went down, even though it was hosted by microsuck.
No... I think you mean because it was hosted by Microsoft.
When Walter Koenig's son when missing (and was later found dead), Yahoo was bombing on the connection attempts to Walter's site due to links on Wikipedia and numerous news and info websites across the country. I took over the traffic on one of my servers (the slowest of the bunch) and managed to handle the 300-600 requests per second that the traffic was generating with no problem, all while maintaining an average of 10% CPU load on my ancient Quad 550MHz Xeon 3 Netfinity 7000 M10. I coulda dumped it on our 8-way IBM x440 - but for what reason? The ancient Netfinity didnt even seem to know it was doing anything... an 8-way 2.8GHz machine woulda been severe overkill.
The differences? (1) I dont run Windows Server and/or IIS Server for anything (they are truly toys not designed for handling traffic) - I run WSeB and either LDGW or latest Apache. (2) I dont CPU throttle or bandwidth throttle the connections (not that such would matter with a decent OS or web server - because as noted, we were averaging 10% or less CPU utilization, no real memory utilization (only a few megs more for file caching).
We ran out of outgoing bandwidth long before the server even knew it was doing any work (and that was at over 700 requests per second)... but our peak of 9-10Mbs is trivial compared to the bandwidth Yahoo and Microsoft allocate to their servers and still should not have triggered the server errors Walter's site was reporting - especially since we had to do the move when Walter's site was only serving a measly 80-150 requests per second (well, it was actually serving maybe 40% of those and returning errors the rest of the time).
Sometimes you get what you paid for... other times (using crappy web serving daemons on an even crappier OS) you dont even get that much.
> It's even more important in this particular scenario as the eye is generally drawn to the left or right most entry.
Citation for "this scenario" please.
Wow, sounds like I am on Wikipedia... Slashdot does not require cites or even accuracy... c'mon, we all know that!!!;-)
Why wouldn't smack in the center of the screen be just as good or even better?
Joking aside, you can look up various UI and reading (as in books) studies. You can look up eye tracking for advertising media and dig until you find studies... and you can look up how people who are "speed reading" fit that criteria... or a number of other related factors.
It's also the reason why menus and ads are put on left and right (and/or top/bottom) of pages/UIs - the eye easily tracks to them.
Does it apply to everyone? Probably not. But it supposedly applies to the vast majority of computer users. (supposedly as in, I did not conduct the studies, nor are the results mine)
Whether she was innocently infringing or not isn't really the point because it's fairly obvious that no teenager on the planet who pirates music doesn't know that it's illegal.
The problem is that she's in court for downloading 16 songs. Randomly attacking people who will find it difficult to defend themselves legally isn't the right way to go about reducing piracy.
Sadly, maybe it is. It proves that the average consumer (or non-consumer) is not safe from such attacks by the RIAA, since they have proven they will go after anyone they think is unable to defend themselves.
I think that's the point of their exercise. After all, most of us in this country fit within a wage category where we could not afford to fight the RIAA, and this case and similar ones scream "If we think you cant afford to fight to the end to win against us, then we will hunt you down and make an example of you"
Or, I could simply be reading a motive into the RIAAs actions that does not exist. Maybe they dont have any nefarious motives at all?;-)
Worst is, I suspect you don't need to be an experienced coder to have solved this in a more random manner. I suspect like with almost any programming tool, somewhere there is a better random number/selection generator available, which the coder simply chose not to use.
How did they benefit? It's a lot easier to make the case that the end user benefits for actually recieving two (non-concurrent) licenses for the price of a single license, given that the old software has been discontinued. I don't think the OEM price for Vista or Win7 is any different from XP, and the new versions are the replacements for the old - frankly they weren't required to offer an XP option at all (except by the oft-derided free market pressure that was upon them, of course - nothing bad to say about free markets when they help you out eh?), or any form of downgrade. You don't see Apple offering a free downgrade option from Leopard to Tiger, do you? Of course not, ordinarily the idea is absurd. The only difference is that this upgrade was not well-received, and it was offer a downgrade or lose customers.
Since they weren't even required to continue selling XP at all, how the hell can you argue that selling a license that includes a free license for XP is anything but a value-add for the customer?
I have a hard time wrapping idea around the concept of forcing someone to sell something they don't want to sell. The idea is absurd. It's very mafia-ish at the very least.
That's weird... I just realized something... and maybe this is the problem:
"Back in the day" many OEMs were selling the XP Downgrade at an additional cost. Nowadays, it seems one can buy a machine with Vista/Win7 or XP (with a Vista or Win7 license included) at the same price.
Perhaps that is the problem with this suit (or part of it) - nowadays there is no extra charge. When the lawsuit was initiated, virtually everyone (due to Microsoft per their claims) was charging an extra fee for the downgrade license.
Just two months ago, I purchased 4 XP machines for a client. They were the same price as the identical hardware with Vista or Win 7. They came with Vista restore disks but XP pre-installed. And a free upgrade coupon for Win7 (which was honored, btw)... meaning, for the price of one OS, it's come with XP pre-installed, Vista restore disks, and Win 7 upgrade on it's way in the mail (for the cost of S/H). (These were for Lenovo ThinkCentres)
A year and a few months ago, the machine would have been an extra $40-80 for the "downgrade" to preinstalled XP.
Perhaps they had a hard time proving it because there isn't anything available online to help them prove it now. Or they were checking the wrong manufacturers and didnt find any that still may be charging extra.
I am not sure why the above is modded flamebait. Sadly, it may be true.
If Verisign only "temporarily deactivate(d) the domains" then it makes it pretty easy to move them as soon as the "temporary deactivation" expires - or of course, these botnets can simply set up new domains and be up and running again before the end of today.
You may wish to review the blog of the guy who did the work behind the program. It seems that they most definitely were using the machines in such capacity and tried explaining it away to the students as a "glitchy web cam" or some such for all the complaints about the camera light coming on.
Now while that does not prove this specific incident was from that, it does make it more likely.
You also probably havent watched the various Baptist Televangelist sermons on Sunday morning TV either... watch one and count the crowd...
Not saying his sentiment applies to everyone - I for one hate making such a generalization. What I AM saying is that it does apply to a larger portion of the population than most would believe.
Don't most religions specifically exclude a lot of means - making them unjustified?
Technically, Christianity (when one strays into the Old Testament) does not... as a matter of fact, it either endorses, or demands such things. For instance killing thy neighbor. Except it gets far worse than that... in some cases, the method of killing is prescribed (and brutal), such as stoning to death, burned to death and so on.
And there are those who still believe those sections and solely dont follow them based off their fears of repercussions due to the "laws of man"
In this century (and the 20th) there are still those who have tried, attempted and/or succeeded in burning to death those who disagree with or break "god's law"
The entire premise of a religion where you have to slog through 70 years of life in order to get an eternal reward is a prime example of what the poster was talking about. Particularly with the "I am Saved" variety of Christianity.
That sounds a lot like the means justify the end. "The ends justify the means" is a phrase that means the end result is more important than how the result was achieved.
If the eternal reward justifies the means, then why slog through 70 years? Suicide now! That's the new-age alien cult method.
Christianity, while being *about* the ends, says that the means are very important, and that using the wrong means is proof of an attempt to reach the wrong end.
Not really, not with the full meaning behind it all... you see, in numerous sects of Christianity, it doesnt matter what you do during life, as long as you "accept Jesus into your heart" before you die.
That means you could be Hitler, and seconds before you die, "accept..." and go to heaven...
It's not quite the same as either. It's more like "the means dont really matter, as long as you accept Jesus on your deathbed"
Though, the actions of many sects of Christianity today still fall into the "ends justify the means" category as already discussed by someone else who mentioned the lobbying efforts and such nationwide. It just seems now, due to the laws of man, that such things are done in usually less violent fashion - unlike "back in the day" when "Converting the world to Christianity" was the goal/ends... and the means were conversion and failing that, killing the heathens leaving only the converted to achieve that goal.
19" to 26" seating... at the (nearly brand new) multiplex I go to in Stony Brook, the front row on the floor section before the tiered seating is the wide row. At a (nearly 90 year old) theater in Baltimore that recently closed, it was the end seats on the row and they used 4 different seat sizes in the theater.
And no, not every theater does this, but I have seen quite a few... and the age of the theater does not seem to matter.
And I worked at a Lowes for quite some time and never noticed it either... not until the owner of the theater in Baltimore pointed it out to me. They were doing a big event, I was helping out, and him and the manager pointed out which the larger seats were for the bigger boned customers and discussed the fun he had when they had re-upholstered the seats and had to take into account the different sizes.
They fly 3 the 737-300, 737-500 and 737-700. Note the 300 link above... rows front and back have narrower seats. SIX of 23 rows have narrower seats... inotherwords, over 25% of the seats are narrower.
And no, a regular economy seat will still not help if you have someone really obese next to you... but if it happens to be one of those six rows, things will definitely be worse.
As for your height, on certain of the 737's that SW flies (I think the 300 series, maybe others), seats 11B and 11C seem to be the best (if you dont mind an emergency exit row). Though I've also seen someone moved to the front row where there is no overhead compartment.
AA 737-800 shows that certain seats (like the back 3 rows) have reduced hip and shoulder room (though the stock chart does not show the seating width difference). The Emerg Exit seats also seem more crammed. The front seats seem more spacious (both in leg room and width).
There are others at that site as well... but it takes some digging.
American (and possibly others) seem to cram the seats closer depending on the shape of the plane where the seats are.
An example is this link: AA 737-800 [seatguru.com] shows that certain seats (like the back 3 rows) have reduced hip and shoulder room (though the stock chart does not show the seating width difference).
I've seen other charts for other planes (that I cannot find right now... found them when I was booking a flight a couple years back... I think for American) which showed two different sizes in Economy.
I was also on another flight (Delta I think?) where certain rows in Economy had only two seats instead of three so that they fit without a reduction in seat size.
In the ones near me (as well as ones I've been to in Baltimore), you will find some of the end seats are larger and/or there is a front row or three with larger seating.
In one particular one I've been to, the size difference was almost unnoticeable to the naked eye, but I knew the theater owner and he was talking about some of the issues he had to go through in re-upholstering the seats and pointed them out to me. I'd never noticed before. When I sat in the wide seats and the normal/narrower seats I did notice the difference (when I tried putting my arms and elbows by my side). In the wider seats, I could do so without feeling crammed in them. In the narrower seats, my arms were pressed against the arm rests. In that theater, it seemed the end seats were larger.
In the multiplex up the road from me, the front rows have larger seats (the lowest one in the tiered seating area right behind the rail - as well as the row on the "floor" section in front of the rail. Possibly others, but I did not make a study of it.
Theater seats seem to come in 19" to 26" widths. Presumably many theaters simply choose one size, while others choose multiple sizes depending on layout or willingness to accomodate larger customers.
Interestingly, I worked at a movie theater in the past too (a Lowes), and never noticed it at all until the theater owner in Baltimore pointed it out to me.
For airlines, an example is this link: AA 737-800 shows that certain seats (like the back 3 rows) have reduced hip and shoulder room (though the stock chart does not show the seating width difference).
Slashdot Mirror
You could easily run Server 2003 on that machine,
Along with it's various unpatched vulnerabilities... which will increase as they end support for it? That leaves the $2000 investment better spent on Win2K8.
it's many many times more than the minimum requirements.
No... it's not. Win2K is suited for that server. WinServer2003 isnt really. Gotta remember, look at the DataCenter requirements (remember the load we are considering):
http://www.petri.co.il/hardware_requirements_for_windows_server_2003.htm
CPUs too slow (and not upgradable in that machine beyond their current 550MHz). Memory is OK. And their "recommended" requirements do not take into account what happens once you apply all the service packs and hotfixes (hence XP was 128MB requirement - and now is a LOT more).
Though I'll admit I am at a loss why server 2008's requirements are so high in comparison to 2003's,
So am I...
especially with the new super-cut-down "core" version. Perhaps it just uses new instruction set extensions, so it doesn't actually require a 1GHz cpu, they just don't make any slower cpus with the necessary instructions.
I'm not saying you should change from Apache, clearly you're used to admining it and Windows Server is not cheap. However, IIS is a lot better than you make out.
IF I want to get a lot more hardware to throw at it.
Again, the issue here is, even if IIS is "as good as" Apache, it requires a lot more hardware under high loads to be as good. It's not just familiarity with Apache (I've managed IIS, Domino, DominoGo and Apache)... it's that I need full performance out of the web server, and if you call Microsoft (I did) they'll laugh at running a bunch of websites using Server2003 on a box as "underpowered" as the Netfinity I have.
To get the recommended "horsepower" would require something akin to my x440. So, why in the world would I want to use an old version of Windows Server (2003) on a machine so powerful, when WSeB and either Apache or LDGW can do the same thing on my ancient box? I'd rather simply set up another WSeB and Apache setup on the x440 and have even more availability that simply get the same as the Netfinity simply because I made the mistake of going Server2003/IIS.
To achieve the same on Server2008, I would need to spend about $20,000 to get a comparable server that is as highly redundant... yeah, I can get a "cheapo" box built with nice components... but I *need* a box, where for other than catastrophic failure, I can hot swap just about anything (NICs, fans, HDDs, power supplies, etc) or can ignore memory errors as the machine auto-switches to a new bank and marks a bank or module bad, or take full advantage of the RAID memory (or, as most server owners know it... RAM... but in the Netfinity's case, it's actually RAM with RAID chips and controllers and ECC and such to ensure constant uptime even in the event of a module or bank failure).
And of course, with how cheap the Netfinity's are, I can simply have a backup on standby for a catastrophic failure - which I do - and still pay far less while retaining the redundancy.
Hopefully that clarifies what I am trying to say...
Sounds quite possible. Which means, it was either speculation packaged as news, or actual news that the mainstream press didnt pick up on yet.
Been a long week though, and I dont remember for sure.
IIS was soooo good that when Microsoft bought Hotmail and switched from SunOS and Solaris to IIS, it took many many times the number of servers for it to barely crawl along. (I was there... I worked for UUNet at the time... and any of you who know anything about the Internet from those days know exactly what I am referring to... and any of you who worked for UUNet know it even more (including who, at the time, was really doing MS's MSN and WebTV connections, routing and numerous servers).
What seems to be the big point for comparable performance is having a top of the line box for IIS. Not as much with Apache/Linux or Apache/WSeB or LDGW/WSeB.
Nowadays, that is becoming more important as WinServer2008 needs a LOT of resources in comparison to a similarly capable Apache/Linux or Apache/WSeB or LDGW/WSeB would need.
So, yeah, IIS may be "great" if you can throw the newest, fastest hardware at WinServer 2008 and IIS... but for the rest of us (who also want more flexibility without (a) hassles of installing a ton of extra modules and with (b) keeping to open source solutions) Apache wins hands down.
I've got no intentions of retiring my Netfinity 7000 M10 any time soon. But to run the latest WinServer/IIS, it doesnt even meet 1/2 the hardware requirements in virtually any area - and can outperform the latest WinServer/IIS combination on the latest hardware.
Or... I could always compare my box to an 8 year old review and limit myself to Win2K and an ancient, insecure version of IIS.
Which makes more sense?
(a) Keep running my same ancient hardware on the newest Linux or WSeB builds, along with either Apache or LDGW to get some damn solid performance?
(b) Run an ancient version of Windows (Win2K) and a very old version of IIS (v5 or v4)?
(c) Spend a bunch of money on a new server (or waste the power of our x440) to use the newest WinServer2008/IIS combination to get similar performance to choices (a) or (b) above?
It's all a matter of keeping reality in perspective... thus, your post really doesnt matter as it does not equate to anything that fits within my reality (unless you wanna dump a lot of money my way for an equally redundant machine so I can run Win Server 2008 and the newest IIS... but be warned, if you do that... it'll probably end up getting a faster (ie: less hardware hungry) OS like Linux, WSeB or eComStation and Apache).
Link to an "over the cable" news report? Sure...
OTC://MyLocalNews.Channel/
Hmmm... this was just covered on the news this morning (or late last night) where they actually revealed how they are really doing it. Thus, I guess this speculation is late and outdated already...
Most houses have two phase. Usually two 100A legs nowadays. Or more accurately, two reversed phase 110V 100A "legs"
220V appliances in a house use each 110V phase.
In a breaker box, there is generally one "double" breaker feeding such devices... which connect to adjacent terminals in the box. The box is wired internally so that every other connection is the same leg, while the ones inbetween are the leg that is 180 degrees "off phase"
Now, on older houses that have not had their service upgraded, anything is possible. We've went into ones with single phase, 50A, 60A, 100A, etc connections... and others with two phase 100A, etc...
I'd say I know this from doing residential and commercial construction and wiring, but... oh, wait, that is why I know this.
Anyways, meters today generally seem to read the draw from each phase... not the "aggregate" load across both phases.
The reason to balance the loads isn't to save money... it's to save your house's wiring. Both phases share a common neutral and ground. It's the same thing I need to keep in mind when we do set lighting for Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2... our distro boxes are three phase, with each stringer have (3) 30A phases and sharing the same ground and neutral.
when my website was posted on wikipedia, it went down, even though it was hosted by microsuck.
No... I think you mean because it was hosted by Microsoft.
When Walter Koenig's son when missing (and was later found dead), Yahoo was bombing on the connection attempts to Walter's site due to links on Wikipedia and numerous news and info websites across the country. I took over the traffic on one of my servers (the slowest of the bunch) and managed to handle the 300-600 requests per second that the traffic was generating with no problem, all while maintaining an average of 10% CPU load on my ancient Quad 550MHz Xeon 3 Netfinity 7000 M10. I coulda dumped it on our 8-way IBM x440 - but for what reason? The ancient Netfinity didnt even seem to know it was doing anything... an 8-way 2.8GHz machine woulda been severe overkill.
The differences? (1) I dont run Windows Server and/or IIS Server for anything (they are truly toys not designed for handling traffic) - I run WSeB and either LDGW or latest Apache. (2) I dont CPU throttle or bandwidth throttle the connections (not that such would matter with a decent OS or web server - because as noted, we were averaging 10% or less CPU utilization, no real memory utilization (only a few megs more for file caching).
We ran out of outgoing bandwidth long before the server even knew it was doing any work (and that was at over 700 requests per second)... but our peak of 9-10Mbs is trivial compared to the bandwidth Yahoo and Microsoft allocate to their servers and still should not have triggered the server errors Walter's site was reporting - especially since we had to do the move when Walter's site was only serving a measly 80-150 requests per second (well, it was actually serving maybe 40% of those and returning errors the rest of the time).
Sometimes you get what you paid for... other times (using crappy web serving daemons on an even crappier OS) you dont even get that much.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you. I did not do the studies.
> It's even more important in this particular scenario as the eye is generally drawn to the left or right most entry.
Citation for "this scenario" please.
Wow, sounds like I am on Wikipedia... Slashdot does not require cites or even accuracy... c'mon, we all know that!!! ;-)
Why wouldn't smack in the center of the screen be just as good or even better?
Joking aside, you can look up various UI and reading (as in books) studies. You can look up eye tracking for advertising media and dig until you find studies... and you can look up how people who are "speed reading" fit that criteria... or a number of other related factors.
It's also the reason why menus and ads are put on left and right (and/or top/bottom) of pages/UIs - the eye easily tracks to them.
Does it apply to everyone? Probably not. But it supposedly applies to the vast majority of computer users. (supposedly as in, I did not conduct the studies, nor are the results mine)
Whether she was innocently infringing or not isn't really the point because it's fairly obvious that no teenager on the planet who pirates music doesn't know that it's illegal.
The problem is that she's in court for downloading 16 songs. Randomly attacking people who will find it difficult to defend themselves legally isn't the right way to go about reducing piracy.
Sadly, maybe it is. It proves that the average consumer (or non-consumer) is not safe from such attacks by the RIAA, since they have proven they will go after anyone they think is unable to defend themselves.
I think that's the point of their exercise. After all, most of us in this country fit within a wage category where we could not afford to fight the RIAA, and this case and similar ones scream "If we think you cant afford to fight to the end to win against us, then we will hunt you down and make an example of you"
Or, I could simply be reading a motive into the RIAAs actions that does not exist. Maybe they dont have any nefarious motives at all? ;-)
Wow, rather insightful - and true. The same is done often in TV shows and such, with the last credit all by itself...
And...
John Doe as Someone
It's even more important in this particular scenario as the eye is generally drawn to the left or right most entry.
Of course, being able to say "Gee, we're last more times than anyone else" then becomes an invalid excuse for the lack of randomness.
Worst is, I suspect you don't need to be an experienced coder to have solved this in a more random manner. I suspect like with almost any programming tool, somewhere there is a better random number/selection generator available, which the coder simply chose not to use.
How did they benefit? It's a lot easier to make the case that the end user benefits for actually recieving two (non-concurrent) licenses for the price of a single license, given that the old software has been discontinued. I don't think the OEM price for Vista or Win7 is any different from XP, and the new versions are the replacements for the old - frankly they weren't required to offer an XP option at all (except by the oft-derided free market pressure that was upon them, of course - nothing bad to say about free markets when they help you out eh?), or any form of downgrade. You don't see Apple offering a free downgrade option from Leopard to Tiger, do you? Of course not, ordinarily the idea is absurd. The only difference is that this upgrade was not well-received, and it was offer a downgrade or lose customers.
Since they weren't even required to continue selling XP at all, how the hell can you argue that selling a license that includes a free license for XP is anything but a value-add for the customer?
I have a hard time wrapping idea around the concept of forcing someone to sell something they don't want to sell. The idea is absurd. It's very mafia-ish at the very least.
That's weird... I just realized something... and maybe this is the problem:
"Back in the day" many OEMs were selling the XP Downgrade at an additional cost. Nowadays, it seems one can buy a machine with Vista/Win7 or XP (with a Vista or Win7 license included) at the same price.
Perhaps that is the problem with this suit (or part of it) - nowadays there is no extra charge. When the lawsuit was initiated, virtually everyone (due to Microsoft per their claims) was charging an extra fee for the downgrade license.
Just two months ago, I purchased 4 XP machines for a client. They were the same price as the identical hardware with Vista or Win 7. They came with Vista restore disks but XP pre-installed. And a free upgrade coupon for Win7 (which was honored, btw)... meaning, for the price of one OS, it's come with XP pre-installed, Vista restore disks, and Win 7 upgrade on it's way in the mail (for the cost of S/H). (These were for Lenovo ThinkCentres)
A year and a few months ago, the machine would have been an extra $40-80 for the "downgrade" to preinstalled XP.
Perhaps they had a hard time proving it because there isn't anything available online to help them prove it now. Or they were checking the wrong manufacturers and didnt find any that still may be charging extra.
I am not sure why the above is modded flamebait. Sadly, it may be true.
If Verisign only "temporarily deactivate(d) the domains" then it makes it pretty easy to move them as soon as the "temporary deactivation" expires - or of course, these botnets can simply set up new domains and be up and running again before the end of today.
You may wish to review the blog of the guy who did the work behind the program. It seems that they most definitely were using the machines in such capacity and tried explaining it away to the students as a "glitchy web cam" or some such for all the complaints about the camera light coming on.
Now while that does not prove this specific incident was from that, it does make it more likely.
You also probably havent watched the various Baptist Televangelist sermons on Sunday morning TV either... watch one and count the crowd...
Not saying his sentiment applies to everyone - I for one hate making such a generalization. What I AM saying is that it does apply to a larger portion of the population than most would believe.
Don't most religions specifically exclude a lot of means - making them unjustified?
Technically, Christianity (when one strays into the Old Testament) does not... as a matter of fact, it either endorses, or demands such things. For instance killing thy neighbor. Except it gets far worse than that... in some cases, the method of killing is prescribed (and brutal), such as stoning to death, burned to death and so on.
And there are those who still believe those sections and solely dont follow them based off their fears of repercussions due to the "laws of man"
In this century (and the 20th) there are still those who have tried, attempted and/or succeeded in burning to death those who disagree with or break "god's law"
Various sects of Christianity though, still hold it as such.
The entire premise of a religion where you have to slog through 70 years of life in order to get an eternal reward is a prime example of what the poster was talking about. Particularly with the "I am Saved" variety of Christianity.
That sounds a lot like the means justify the end. "The ends justify the means" is a phrase that means the end result is more important than how the result was achieved. If the eternal reward justifies the means, then why slog through 70 years? Suicide now! That's the new-age alien cult method. Christianity, while being *about* the ends, says that the means are very important, and that using the wrong means is proof of an attempt to reach the wrong end.
Not really, not with the full meaning behind it all... you see, in numerous sects of Christianity, it doesnt matter what you do during life, as long as you "accept Jesus into your heart" before you die.
That means you could be Hitler, and seconds before you die, "accept..." and go to heaven...
It's not quite the same as either. It's more like "the means dont really matter, as long as you accept Jesus on your deathbed"
Though, the actions of many sects of Christianity today still fall into the "ends justify the means" category as already discussed by someone else who mentioned the lobbying efforts and such nationwide. It just seems now, due to the laws of man, that such things are done in usually less violent fashion - unlike "back in the day" when "Converting the world to Christianity" was the goal/ends... and the means were conversion and failing that, killing the heathens leaving only the converted to achieve that goal.
19" to 26" seating... at the (nearly brand new) multiplex I go to in Stony Brook, the front row on the floor section before the tiered seating is the wide row. At a (nearly 90 year old) theater in Baltimore that recently closed, it was the end seats on the row and they used 4 different seat sizes in the theater.
And no, not every theater does this, but I have seen quite a few... and the age of the theater does not seem to matter.
And I worked at a Lowes for quite some time and never noticed it either... not until the owner of the theater in Baltimore pointed it out to me. They were doing a big event, I was helping out, and him and the manager pointed out which the larger seats were for the bigger boned customers and discussed the fun he had when they had re-upholstered the seats and had to take into account the different sizes.
Here's a link to Southwest... and no, they do not fly only one model:
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Southwest_Airlines/Southwest_Airlines_Boeing_737-300.php
They fly 3 the 737-300, 737-500 and 737-700. Note the 300 link above... rows front and back have narrower seats. SIX of 23 rows have narrower seats... inotherwords, over 25% of the seats are narrower.
And no, a regular economy seat will still not help if you have someone really obese next to you... but if it happens to be one of those six rows, things will definitely be worse.
As for your height, on certain of the 737's that SW flies (I think the 300 series, maybe others), seats 11B and 11C seem to be the best (if you dont mind an emergency exit row). Though I've also seen someone moved to the front row where there is no overhead compartment.
AA 737-800 shows that certain seats (like the back 3 rows) have reduced hip and shoulder room (though the stock chart does not show the seating width difference). The Emerg Exit seats also seem more crammed. The front seats seem more spacious (both in leg room and width).
There are others at that site as well... but it takes some digging.
The back seats on the 737-800 series seem to be narrower too due to the curve of the fuselage.
American (and possibly others) seem to cram the seats closer depending on the shape of the plane where the seats are.
An example is this link: AA 737-800 [seatguru.com] shows that certain seats (like the back 3 rows) have reduced hip and shoulder room (though the stock chart does not show the seating width difference).
I've seen other charts for other planes (that I cannot find right now... found them when I was booking a flight a couple years back... I think for American) which showed two different sizes in Economy.
I was also on another flight (Delta I think?) where certain rows in Economy had only two seats instead of three so that they fit without a reduction in seat size.
Sure... look at the seats.
In the ones near me (as well as ones I've been to in Baltimore), you will find some of the end seats are larger and/or there is a front row or three with larger seating.
In one particular one I've been to, the size difference was almost unnoticeable to the naked eye, but I knew the theater owner and he was talking about some of the issues he had to go through in re-upholstering the seats and pointed them out to me. I'd never noticed before. When I sat in the wide seats and the normal/narrower seats I did notice the difference (when I tried putting my arms and elbows by my side). In the wider seats, I could do so without feeling crammed in them. In the narrower seats, my arms were pressed against the arm rests. In that theater, it seemed the end seats were larger.
In the multiplex up the road from me, the front rows have larger seats (the lowest one in the tiered seating area right behind the rail - as well as the row on the "floor" section in front of the rail. Possibly others, but I did not make a study of it.
Theater seats seem to come in 19" to 26" widths. Presumably many theaters simply choose one size, while others choose multiple sizes depending on layout or willingness to accomodate larger customers.
Interestingly, I worked at a movie theater in the past too (a Lowes), and never noticed it at all until the theater owner in Baltimore pointed it out to me.
For airlines, an example is this link: AA 737-800 shows that certain seats (like the back 3 rows) have reduced hip and shoulder room (though the stock chart does not show the seating width difference).