This seems like an awful lot of computing and wasted material just to shoot down a projectile at long distance. Who is to say that the projectile would even hit its target? We've had ERA for a while... Let the projectile come to you. If defense contractors and the armed services had to spend their own money instead of yours and mine, we wouldn't be doing any of this crazy stuff. It's only a good product if it's inexpensive and does what it is supposed to.
Would it not be better for MS to release individual patches as they are deemed (and I use this word loosely) stable? I can understand the reasoning behind a monthly update, but so many individual users are set for auto-updates. Also, businesses could then install the patches they deem necessary, while avoiding or reverting from patches which cause problems on their networks. This method would prevent the 1-month window (or longer in the case of Service Packs) that hackers have for exploiting a known vulnerability.
Maybe Gentoo is radically different, but if I recall correctly, "nice" only sets processing priority, as opposed to overall burden. You could have 20 processes running, or 1, and regardless of their 'nice' setting, either could take up to a maximum of 100% processing power available. Computers are built to take this sort of abuse, that's why we have fans and heat-sinks. Just don't overclock if you're that worried. 'nice' only determines which process will have first dibs on that processing power. Basically, you will have the CPU running at 100% until the remaining processes require a total less than 100%. It is only useful for processes you wish to complete ASAP, or for something you can put on the back burner until there isn't anything more important to crunch. This truly is a non-article.
It amazes me that any news group or individual is willing to place the equivalent of 'blind faith' in these purported studies. How were the test subjects selected? Was there a control group? Do young men in general believe that it is OK to smoke marajuana and drink alcohol? Was the study designed to prove this particular outcome, or did it stumble upon this while 100 guys were playing GTA? Anyone who knows anything about statistics can see that information in such studies is warped or misrepresented in an attempt to prove/disprove some widely contended POV (i.e. video games made me do it). The only reason this study is "controversial": there is no scientific blueprint listed for this study. Take any new statistics with a grain of salt... everyone has an agenda.
It could be considered false advertising, or a breach of the service agreement. As I understand it, the problem is that new customers are given preferential treatment over long-standing customers. Newer customers are also given preference over high-volume customers. It isn't that these 'dependable' customers are refused service, it is that their level of service becomes deprecated because of (an assumed) continuation of service. In law, nothing is AssUMeD, therefore an explicit statement of the terms of service detailed above would remedy any claims of false advertising or contractual breach. Chances are, nobody reads the terms-of-service anyway...
Last time I checked, patenting was only for "new and innovative" methodologies and products. What I read in the article is neither. It is common sense to give people the products they want in the order they want them, and to give repeat customers a flat-rate on rentals. I suppose Netflix should look elsewhere for their innovations. They could try pantenting their screw over your customers business methodology...
We can safely assume that most of these companies adhere to the minimum computer security system standards. The minimum standards are about as good as not having any security whatsoever. What companies can get away with in terms of liability in identity theft is analogous to getting a girl pregnant, then not being ordered to pay child support because you wore a condom (albeit an expired one). Verily, all this act would do is let a customer know they are the victim of identity theft, with no effective method of recourse. Sure, pull all your business/assets from the company, but some guy already has your information. What is needed is a higher standard of computer security within companies which hold sensitive user information, rather than the FTC auditing a company after the customers are screwed-over. Just some more bureaucratic red tape and more tax dollars spent on the appearance of security... err, I mean, keeping the people safe.
The music industry needs to realize that what they are seeing is an economic 'dead-weight loss'. Most people that pirate music and other copyrighted content are not the same people who would buy said content if it couldn't be pirated. Since the first tape recorders, people have been "pirating" content. The only difference between then and now is that record labels and other content producers want a bigger piece of the pie. By attempting to reach a very diverse population, they manage to fail in targeting most audiences, and instead churn-out media with very little intellectual/entertainment value. I think that companies just need to bite the bullet and accept that there are some people who aren't going to pay for their content. I'll go out and buy a great movie if I see one, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $40 just to show my friends how horrible the new King Kong was. By maliciously prosecuting those who simply download the media made available to them, content producers feel that they are setting an example for those who would steal their rightful revinues. In fact, there is always going to be a certain percentage of the population that will not buy their CD/DVD regardless of the price. Suck it up, take the money you've got, and be happy you've got more than Kevin Federline's record label.
Slashdot Mirror
This seems like an awful lot of computing and wasted material just to shoot down a projectile at long distance. Who is to say that the projectile would even hit its target? We've had ERA for a while... Let the projectile come to you. If defense contractors and the armed services had to spend their own money instead of yours and mine, we wouldn't be doing any of this crazy stuff. It's only a good product if it's inexpensive and does what it is supposed to.
Would it not be better for MS to release individual patches as they are deemed (and I use this word loosely) stable? I can understand the reasoning behind a monthly update, but so many individual users are set for auto-updates. Also, businesses could then install the patches they deem necessary, while avoiding or reverting from patches which cause problems on their networks. This method would prevent the 1-month window (or longer in the case of Service Packs) that hackers have for exploiting a known vulnerability.
Maybe Gentoo is radically different, but if I recall correctly, "nice" only sets processing priority, as opposed to overall burden. You could have 20 processes running, or 1, and regardless of their 'nice' setting, either could take up to a maximum of 100% processing power available. Computers are built to take this sort of abuse, that's why we have fans and heat-sinks. Just don't overclock if you're that worried. 'nice' only determines which process will have first dibs on that processing power. Basically, you will have the CPU running at 100% until the remaining processes require a total less than 100%. It is only useful for processes you wish to complete ASAP, or for something you can put on the back burner until there isn't anything more important to crunch. This truly is a non-article.
It amazes me that any news group or individual is willing to place the equivalent of 'blind faith' in these purported studies. How were the test subjects selected? Was there a control group? Do young men in general believe that it is OK to smoke marajuana and drink alcohol? Was the study designed to prove this particular outcome, or did it stumble upon this while 100 guys were playing GTA? Anyone who knows anything about statistics can see that information in such studies is warped or misrepresented in an attempt to prove/disprove some widely contended POV (i.e. video games made me do it). The only reason this study is "controversial": there is no scientific blueprint listed for this study. Take any new statistics with a grain of salt... everyone has an agenda.
It could be considered false advertising, or a breach of the service agreement. As I understand it, the problem is that new customers are given preferential treatment over long-standing customers. Newer customers are also given preference over high-volume customers. It isn't that these 'dependable' customers are refused service, it is that their level of service becomes deprecated because of (an assumed) continuation of service. In law, nothing is AssUMeD, therefore an explicit statement of the terms of service detailed above would remedy any claims of false advertising or contractual breach. Chances are, nobody reads the terms-of-service anyway...
Last time I checked, patenting was only for "new and innovative" methodologies and products. What I read in the article is neither. It is common sense to give people the products they want in the order they want them, and to give repeat customers a flat-rate on rentals. I suppose Netflix should look elsewhere for their innovations. They could try pantenting their screw over your customers business methodology...
We can safely assume that most of these companies adhere to the minimum computer security system standards. The minimum standards are about as good as not having any security whatsoever. What companies can get away with in terms of liability in identity theft is analogous to getting a girl pregnant, then not being ordered to pay child support because you wore a condom (albeit an expired one). Verily, all this act would do is let a customer know they are the victim of identity theft, with no effective method of recourse. Sure, pull all your business/assets from the company, but some guy already has your information. What is needed is a higher standard of computer security within companies which hold sensitive user information, rather than the FTC auditing a company after the customers are screwed-over. Just some more bureaucratic red tape and more tax dollars spent on the appearance of security... err, I mean, keeping the people safe.
The music industry needs to realize that what they are seeing is an economic 'dead-weight loss'. Most people that pirate music and other copyrighted content are not the same people who would buy said content if it couldn't be pirated. Since the first tape recorders, people have been "pirating" content. The only difference between then and now is that record labels and other content producers want a bigger piece of the pie. By attempting to reach a very diverse population, they manage to fail in targeting most audiences, and instead churn-out media with very little intellectual/entertainment value. I think that companies just need to bite the bullet and accept that there are some people who aren't going to pay for their content. I'll go out and buy a great movie if I see one, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $40 just to show my friends how horrible the new King Kong was. By maliciously prosecuting those who simply download the media made available to them, content producers feel that they are setting an example for those who would steal their rightful revinues. In fact, there is always going to be a certain percentage of the population that will not buy their CD/DVD regardless of the price. Suck it up, take the money you've got, and be happy you've got more than Kevin Federline's record label.