Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Comcast says this never happened. (Score 1) 406

by MobyDisk (#47926241) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

Fair enough. Some interesting material I came-up with while searching on this topic:
1) In 2013, Comcast proposed a system where Comcast does the monitoring:
2) Comcast actually stood up for it's users against a copyright troll.

Comment: Confusion over TRIM (Score 3, Interesting) 55

by MobyDisk (#47921505) Attached to: Micron Releases 16nm-Process SSDs With Dynamic Flash Programming

To deal with the added write amplification, Tanguy said Micron increased the TRIM command set, meaning blocks of data no longer required can be erased and freed up more often

Did they mean "implemented" rather than "increased?" Or did they mean that they added something new to the TRIM command?

Comment: Re:International Copyright (Score 1) 163

by MobyDisk (#47921147) Attached to: Quickflix Wants Netflix To Drop Australian VPN Users

If the return on investment doesn't exceed the cost of setting up the licensing and distribution rights, it won't happen.

That part seems logical. But I am amazed that "licensing and distribution" would be so expensive that it would exceed the value of millions of people viewing their content. That sounds like the companies are becoming inefficient. Their own internal paperwork is so complex and expensive that they can't deploy their own product. Ouch, that's really wacky.

Even then, it has to exceed costs by a high enough amount, otherwise the entities involved will focus their efforts on something else that's more lucrative

I get that. I work for a company that decided to can a perfectly functioning and completed product because the regulatory requirements for a particular region cost $10 million. Now, they know it would make more than $10 million, but they only had $10 million to spend in that fiscal year. So they spent it on a product that would make more. To all the people on that project, it seems like a really weird decision. But you only have so much working capital.

I echo your sentiment about the "global economy." By default, a licensing agreement should apply universally to all geographies. If I build something on the internet, it is available to everyone by default. I must go out of my way and spend extra money to make it not work for some people based on their location. In this case, the content providers stunted their own sales to the point of creating a black market. (The people using VPN to access Netflix are essentially a black market. Or gray market if you prefer since they aren't doing anything illegal.)

Comment: Re:International Copyright (Score 2) 163

by MobyDisk (#47921021) Attached to: Quickflix Wants Netflix To Drop Australian VPN Users

I wasn't looking for a distilled answer. I really wanted to know what specifically is the problem. If the licenses are locked-up by exclusive agreements with existing broadcasters, then I can understand the problem. Netflix might only be able to solve that by buying out the broadcasters. I wonder if the broadcasters could let the content providers break the contract, in exchange for some agreement. Or if they can sub-license the rights back to Netflix, and profit as a middleman.

Q: Why does this code not work?
Distilled answer: Bad programming.
Answer I wanted: Line 27 doesn't allocate enough memory.

Q: Why can't I stream The Simpsons?
Distilled answer: Licensing and greed.
Answer I wanted: Viacom has an exclusive licensing agreement that expires on March 21, 2018

Comment: Re:International Copyright (Score 1) 163

by MobyDisk (#47918797) Attached to: Quickflix Wants Netflix To Drop Australian VPN Users

I get that Netflix won't launch in Australia without licenses. So why don't they have licenses? Why can't they get them?

The only substantive answer I've heard so far is that the companies sold decades-long *exclusive* licenses to someone else. That might tie into your statement "And whatever agreements it did sign so far likely don't become active until Launch Date X." So the implication is that they *can* get licenses, but they won't kick-in until someone else's exclusive license expires? And why was this different in Australia?

Comment: Re:International Copyright (Score 1) 163

by MobyDisk (#47918131) Attached to: Quickflix Wants Netflix To Drop Australian VPN Users

This is what I always here, same with Anime. But I don't understand why this is hard. Why would the rights be harder to secure in Australia versus anywhere else in the world? Why would a content provider care about geography? Isn't money made from streaming to someone in Australia the same as money made from streaming to someone in the US? When Walmart wants to sell Proctor and Gamble shampoo in the US, Proctor and Gamble profits. Why would P&G not want Walmart to sell shampoo in Australia? Or the Mars or the Moon? Is streaming somehow different?

Comment: Re:Drivers as processes? (Score 1) 90

by MobyDisk (#47917693) Attached to: New Release of MINIX 3 For x86 and ARM Is NetBSD Compatible

Certainly that would be a big benefit. But that isn't what the article says happens. The article says it is "transparent" and applications won't even notice. I'm unclear how that is possible and I am looking for input on that. Some other replies are talking about that though, and it sounds interesting...

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten