Yes. And I'm already paying for internet service. I'm paying for internet service. Online play is internet service. Online play is internet service. I'm already paying the person who provides my internet access to be able to play online. And MS asking my to pay them, too. Next thing you know, game developers will also want their fair share of the profits from online play. Because that's no longer included in the cost of the game. So they'll start charging you. So you're paying $50/month for internet access, $60/year for XBL server access, and another $60/year to unlock multiplayer in a game you've payed for, payed for access to the internet for, and paid for the ability to access the server of. What happened to paying $20-$30 for a game, with multiplayer, with servers, with no monthly fee, except that of your ISP charging for internet access?
I currently live literally 4.5 miles from the center of the 10th largest city in America, and it is most definitely a problem for me. Right in the middle of Silicon Valley for me.
A spatial difference of as little as a foot can take my phone from 4 bars to 1.
In the cellular service market, it's not so easy. Contracts last two years, and you have to pay large sums to get out of them. They claim it's to be able to offer reduced-price hardware. It's not. This is *specifically* to stop behavior like this.
If a competitor offers a cheaper plan, it's still not worth it for the customer to switch, because of the fees. Thus, one of the "competitors" sees that they can raise prices/reduce availability, *and* not lose customers. Other cellular providers follow suit, simply because doubling the price right now nets them far more money than even a 10% bump in customers, oh, say, about two years from now.
Except what it ends up being is not 10 cents per gigabyte, but 10, or even 100 dollars.
People are (or at least I am) fed up with the exorbitant prices for what should by now be basic services ($99 a month for unlimited voice? it doesn't cost you nearly that much to carry it; not to mention the cost of text messages), arbitrary limitations (no tethering allowed? but i can visit the exact same webpage on my phone, and it'll cost you more bandwidth because I don't have the ability to block ads; only 2Gb/mo? why?) and arbitrary extra fees ($20/mo to enable tethering? "Carrier Cost Recovery Fee"? WTF? So, you're charging us for your costs, and then your charging for your costs again, on top of that?).
For this kind of stuff, you'd really want a virtualized solution. With Knoppix, it's still easy to hose your system. dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sda1comes to mind.
Look at Virtualbox: http://www.virtualbox.org/ and there are portable (current) versions out there. On there, you can install Ubuntu, Fedora, what-have-you.
Don't just repeal the DMCA. Completely reverse it. I have every moral right to make a copy of something I own for my own personal use. Any DRM that tries to make that more difficult should be outlawed.
Also, you don't always know ahead of time what you're downloading, or exactly how many bytes it is. Being charged a monthly rate is sane, because people can choose how much you want to pay, whereas if you charge per byte, metering your usage is not an effective use of your time.
As another example, if you give your kids a phone, and explain to them that data usage is per byte so they shouldn't use it too much, they won't know how much is "too much." Is downloading pictures ok? Is downloading music? Is streaming music? Is downloading games? Is surfing youtube? Is doing any other number of things you can possibly do with a phone these days? And how many minutes per day? Can you explain that to your kids? Do you know yourself?
Charging based on usage is inherently bad for the customer. This argument could be applied to electricity or water usage (and maybe it should be, I don't know), except that with electricity, you have a reasonable expectation that if you have a 500W heater, 20 100W lightbulbs, and a 500 W PSU in your computer, and a 150W TV, you're not going to use more than 2500 kWh a given month, and high chances you're not going to use more than, say, 1250 kWh a given month if you don't leave the lights on all day. With electricity, you have all the current you can use, effectively the equivalent of unlimited bandwidth, but you use more or less the same from month to month (depending on the weather). With a resource like data, you can use 1 MB one month, and then 1 GB the next.
So, let me get this straight. You want to do voice, over ip, over voice. And you think that's more efficient? The frequency bands for phone lines were selected so you could group as many of them together as you could and still have something that sounds like voice. That's what gave us 56k. Now, you want the same line to carry the same traffic, plus internet traffic, plus ip headers, plus voip/tcp/udp/whateverp headers. And you think you'll get something decent? Good luck with that.
At this point, they can push just about anything, and people will say "at least it's better than Vista" and happily buy it. Especially if it has the "Oooh, shiny" factor. The average consumer's memory is that of the average goldfish, and until that changes, in the long run, MS's failure with Vista will have little to no effect on them.
Or they could leave IE as it is, and kill Trident. Interface with Gecko, instead, or WebKit, or KHTML, or anything even remotely standards-compliant.
That is seriously my only issue with IE. I don't care about security, extensibility, what have you. Let people use w/e they feel like using. I don't care if Joe Public gets a virus on his machine. I *do* care about having to spend 90% of my time checking to see if things work with Trident, instead of actually developing.
From TFA, the "hack" only works if you have physical access to the phone. Security always fails when you give someone physical access.
Nothing to see here, move along.
The thing is not whether he is for the law or not, a judge must be for the rule of law in general, so this is not really the point.
Just a quick nit to pick here.
A judge must not be for the rule of law in general. A judge must be for human rights. If a law violates human rights is broken, it is the law that's wrong, not the person breaking it. In America, we consider the Constitution the be-all end-all of human rights, and so a judge's oath is to the constitution, not the law.
Even if a law is technically "right," a judge must be for the intent of the law, not the letter of it.
But your point is still valid.
I'm pretty sure they just meant that the encryption would be offloaded from the main microcontroller (having a separate chip encrypt a stream, instead of the main one, would save a large amount of power, and would leave more computing power for everything else). And that's encryption, as in what you use to connect over HTTPS (good) not encryption as in DRM (bad), although it would probably save power on that, too. It's the same type of encryption either way, it just doesn't drain your batter as fast the new way.
Actually, yes. That's exactly the way it's supposed to work. The economy stagnates because of the lack of cash flow. If the people won't get the cash moving, it's up to the government, and they do this by forcing you to spend money (a.k.a., taxes) on things you need (like roads, welfare, etc.). Same goes for the companies, except companies don't need roads, welfare, etc., so they give it back to them in a lump of cash that they'll be hundreds of times more likely to spend on something useful. What needs to happen is that cash needs to start moving again, and this is exactly what this plan will accomplish.
My Uni runs Condor (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/condor/) on some of the Linux labs. It's horrible, because the computers tend to lock up whenever they're in use. Supposedly, it's supposed to go to sleep, or transfer to another workstation if the one it's running on starts being in use (e.g., keyboard keys being pressed or mouse moving), but it seems like at least the version we have doesn't do that at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. And I'm already paying for internet service. I'm paying for internet service. Online play is internet service. Online play is internet service. I'm already paying the person who provides my internet access to be able to play online. And MS asking my to pay them, too. Next thing you know, game developers will also want their fair share of the profits from online play. Because that's no longer included in the cost of the game. So they'll start charging you. So you're paying $50/month for internet access, $60/year for XBL server access, and another $60/year to unlock multiplayer in a game you've payed for, payed for access to the internet for, and paid for the ability to access the server of. What happened to paying $20-$30 for a game, with multiplayer, with servers, with no monthly fee, except that of your ISP charging for internet access?
And they were good games, too.
You mean it cost you $2099. Don't forget you have to buy a Mac to be able to develop for the iPhone.
I currently live literally 4.5 miles from the center of the 10th largest city in America, and it is most definitely a problem for me. Right in the middle of Silicon Valley for me.
A spatial difference of as little as a foot can take my phone from 4 bars to 1.
In the cellular service market, it's not so easy. Contracts last two years, and you have to pay large sums to get out of them. They claim it's to be able to offer reduced-price hardware. It's not. This is *specifically* to stop behavior like this.
If a competitor offers a cheaper plan, it's still not worth it for the customer to switch, because of the fees. Thus, one of the "competitors" sees that they can raise prices/reduce availability, *and* not lose customers. Other cellular providers follow suit, simply because doubling the price right now nets them far more money than even a 10% bump in customers, oh, say, about two years from now.
Except what it ends up being is not 10 cents per gigabyte, but 10, or even 100 dollars.
People are (or at least I am) fed up with the exorbitant prices for what should by now be basic services ($99 a month for unlimited voice? it doesn't cost you nearly that much to carry it; not to mention the cost of text messages), arbitrary limitations (no tethering allowed? but i can visit the exact same webpage on my phone, and it'll cost you more bandwidth because I don't have the ability to block ads; only 2Gb/mo? why?) and arbitrary extra fees ($20/mo to enable tethering? "Carrier Cost Recovery Fee"? WTF? So, you're charging us for your costs, and then your charging for your costs again, on top of that?).
Ugh.
At that point, you're better off walking the 140 feet your 14-gal tank will give you.
For this kind of stuff, you'd really want a virtualized solution. With Knoppix, it's still easy to hose your system.
dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sda1comes to mind.
Look at Virtualbox: http://www.virtualbox.org/ and there are portable (current) versions out there. On there, you can install Ubuntu, Fedora, what-have-you.
Dude, no whey!
You, sir, rain supreme.
Don't just repeal the DMCA. Completely reverse it. I have every moral right to make a copy of something I own for my own personal use. Any DRM that tries to make that more difficult should be outlawed.
Hello, "DMCA2 put up notice"?
Also, you don't always know ahead of time what you're downloading, or exactly how many bytes it is. Being charged a monthly rate is sane, because people can choose how much you want to pay, whereas if you charge per byte, metering your usage is not an effective use of your time. As another example, if you give your kids a phone, and explain to them that data usage is per byte so they shouldn't use it too much, they won't know how much is "too much." Is downloading pictures ok? Is downloading music? Is streaming music? Is downloading games? Is surfing youtube? Is doing any other number of things you can possibly do with a phone these days? And how many minutes per day? Can you explain that to your kids? Do you know yourself? Charging based on usage is inherently bad for the customer. This argument could be applied to electricity or water usage (and maybe it should be, I don't know), except that with electricity, you have a reasonable expectation that if you have a 500W heater, 20 100W lightbulbs, and a 500 W PSU in your computer, and a 150W TV, you're not going to use more than 2500 kWh a given month, and high chances you're not going to use more than, say, 1250 kWh a given month if you don't leave the lights on all day. With electricity, you have all the current you can use, effectively the equivalent of unlimited bandwidth, but you use more or less the same from month to month (depending on the weather). With a resource like data, you can use 1 MB one month, and then 1 GB the next.
So, let me get this straight. You want to do voice, over ip, over voice. And you think that's more efficient? The frequency bands for phone lines were selected so you could group as many of them together as you could and still have something that sounds like voice. That's what gave us 56k. Now, you want the same line to carry the same traffic, plus internet traffic, plus ip headers, plus voip/tcp/udp/whateverp headers. And you think you'll get something decent? Good luck with that.
Funny, I thought Linux was a Colonel.
At this point, they can push just about anything, and people will say "at least it's better than Vista" and happily buy it. Especially if it has the "Oooh, shiny" factor. The average consumer's memory is that of the average goldfish, and until that changes, in the long run, MS's failure with Vista will have little to no effect on them.
Or they could leave IE as it is, and kill Trident. Interface with Gecko, instead, or WebKit, or KHTML, or anything even remotely standards-compliant. That is seriously my only issue with IE. I don't care about security, extensibility, what have you. Let people use w/e they feel like using. I don't care if Joe Public gets a virus on his machine. I *do* care about having to spend 90% of my time checking to see if things work with Trident, instead of actually developing.
From TFA, the "hack" only works if you have physical access to the phone. Security always fails when you give someone physical access. Nothing to see here, move along.
That's not so bad... Here in Japan, I see fliers for the Happiness Party everywhere I go.
The thing is not whether he is for the law or not, a judge must be for the rule of law in general, so this is not really the point.
Just a quick nit to pick here. A judge must not be for the rule of law in general. A judge must be for human rights. If a law violates human rights is broken, it is the law that's wrong, not the person breaking it. In America, we consider the Constitution the be-all end-all of human rights, and so a judge's oath is to the constitution, not the law. Even if a law is technically "right," a judge must be for the intent of the law, not the letter of it. But your point is still valid.
"Seriously", don't pretend you care about the environment by posting anti-science NIMBY twaddle, read some real science.
Don't know if you're being serious here. Once you're reading it, it's no longer "science." You can do science. You can't read it.
Don't they already do this? Not to mention, machine code is already a form of encryption.
I'm pretty sure they just meant that the encryption would be offloaded from the main microcontroller (having a separate chip encrypt a stream, instead of the main one, would save a large amount of power, and would leave more computing power for everything else). And that's encryption, as in what you use to connect over HTTPS (good) not encryption as in DRM (bad), although it would probably save power on that, too. It's the same type of encryption either way, it just doesn't drain your batter as fast the new way.
Actually, yes. That's exactly the way it's supposed to work. The economy stagnates because of the lack of cash flow. If the people won't get the cash moving, it's up to the government, and they do this by forcing you to spend money (a.k.a., taxes) on things you need (like roads, welfare, etc.). Same goes for the companies, except companies don't need roads, welfare, etc., so they give it back to them in a lump of cash that they'll be hundreds of times more likely to spend on something useful. What needs to happen is that cash needs to start moving again, and this is exactly what this plan will accomplish.
I do NOT recall having sex with that woman.
My Uni runs Condor (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/condor/) on some of the Linux labs. It's horrible, because the computers tend to lock up whenever they're in use. Supposedly, it's supposed to go to sleep, or transfer to another workstation if the one it's running on starts being in use (e.g., keyboard keys being pressed or mouse moving), but it seems like at least the version we have doesn't do that at all.