Comment Re:Right to be remembered (Score 1) 64
Can we force search engines to remember us? Some of us don't want to be forgotten.
Yes! Do something notable. Most notable people are still findable on the internets, even hundreds of years later.
Can we force search engines to remember us? Some of us don't want to be forgotten.
Yes! Do something notable. Most notable people are still findable on the internets, even hundreds of years later.
I share your hope but not your optimism.
Your optimism is misplaced.
He implied he did not have optimism. Not sure how one misplaces what one does not have.
The book is genuinely DRM free.
So is there a conclusive way on the Amazon website to tell before making a purchase that a file is not DRM protected? From what I've read of the mobi documentation there is a new DRM scheme that requires client-side account verification which does not use device ids encoded in the file by the server, which would imply "unlimited" devices permitted but the book would still be tied to an account. Does Amazon notate the distinction somehow?
I don't think we ever weren't good. I was just learning because what I learned in signals and systems did not jive with what you claimed. It turns out you and I were using latency differently.
We still have these things called public libraries, and subscriptions for residents are usually free.
Not where I live. For some reason, in my city they do not have a library and they don't participate with surrounding cities to provide access to theirs. I can go read a book there, but if I want to check something out I'll have to pay the yearly fee. Really sucks.
If you live in a democracy, you might want to lobby your city to change this stance. It'll make for a more desirable and livable city.
DRM is a publisher choice. It is a checkbox in the Amazon "publish my book" interface. All of my books sold through amazon are DRM free. If you want to know how to tell (since it is non-obvious)... under "product details" there is an item called "Simultaneous Device Usage" if that says "unlimited" it is DRM free.
If a book says unlimited, is the file actually DRM free, or is the DRM just permissive. Can a publisher, or Amazon, later change that number from unlimited to something more restrictive and push out the update to terms to devices just like they can push out deletion commands to devices?
My wife goes through 8-12 novels a month, and often the more recent ones are either not available from the local library or are checked out/reserved, so we're spending $40 or more on new or used books that generally get given away when she's done with them.
I solved a similar problem by time-shifting my reading a little. When I want to read a book, I reserve it at the library. When my place in line comes up, I read it. With a sufficiently flexible schedule I read everything I want to read, just not immediately. That's okay though because my reading list is long enough that I'm not without things to read.
Physically the speed of the signals going over the wire are the same, being electrical signals going over the same wires, but the 100 bytes go faster (and have lower latency) on the ADSL link because they get on and off the wire faster.
That's why I said it has little effect. I'm convinced that latency has a large effect on throughput but I am unconvinced that throughput has a large effect on latency. I get 16ms latency on my ADSL connection, which is 1.5Mb/s. I don't know anyone with 20+ Mb/s cable connections that has much lower latency than my connection. On the other hand, if you go to something like a 2400 baud modem then latencies are up noticeably.
So, am I misunderstanding? Gigabit fibre should have significantly better latency than a lowly 1.5Mb/s ADSL link? I am not sure it does (haven't tested one).
I did not realize you were specifically talking about the NHL, your original statement was more generic. One would think that telecasts would be cheaper as they can accommodate more people than a rink.
It will take a LONG time to transfer that 100 bytes over the modem link then receive a similar reply just because the physical layer takes so long. Higher bandwidth will lower latency
Latency is the measure of how long a signal takes to reach the other end, no? High latency will reduce your throughput, but throughput has little (not none) effect on your latency. Is my thinking incorrect?
Generally higher bandwidth means lower latency
Could you explain how that is, please?
When I pay the IRS I get something for my money. If I were to choose to pay Comcast I would get a rebroadcast of what I already receive over the air. I don't mind paying for something, I would mind paying for nothing.
Would going to a hockey rink and watching people play solve your problem or is your problem more specific than "I also like to watch hockey?"
Back when I last had Comcast (around 2005 or 2006) the quality of PBS over the cable was so much worse than OTA. It was full of compression artefacts, dropped frames, audio distortion. I called them several times and they always told me their digital picture was perfect. It got even worse when they increased their compression ratio to up their cable modem bandwidth (I never used their internet service, I used DSL because Comcast didn't want to sell me service with a static IP and unfiltered ports) so it was a net loss for me and was the last straw. I cut the cord a week after they rolled out their faster internet service I wasn't using which made my television unwatchable.
Hulu doesn't cost money other than watching the ads which were on southparkstudios.com as well. All the episodes right now are on regular Hulu. You don't need Hulu Plus.
Not yet you don't. Come September 24th you will. Hulu Plus does cost money. Watching most South Park episodes will cost money *in addition* to commercials. That's a net loss for the viewer.
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones