I found that the realm transfers and also the cross-realm battlegrounds (and later the LFG tool), did a more subtle damage on our realm - it killed the sense of community.
It quickly went from a world where people knew each other to a world of strangers.
It might be worth taking a look at the Helios Project, (Website: http://www.heliosinitiative.org/ , Blog of bloke running it: http://linuxlock.blogspot.com/ ), as this is exactly what they do, collect together donated PCs and stuff, and provide refurbished PCs with Linux on to people on a charitable basis (predominantly disadvantaged kids I believe). (And they do some training etc as well I think).
Anyway, a lot of the postings on their have been quite interesting over the years, and I think they currently use either Ubuntu or Linux Mint.
While I'm not a fan of the idea, "Mess up that pull? That will be $5 to cover my repair costs please." seems a bit of a kneejerk response.
In one of the FAQs on the subject they discuss "Hardcore mode", which has perma-death, and is blocked from the cash auction house, explicitly because on character death you lose all items, and that could lead to loss of items paid for with cash:
If my character dies in Hardcore mode, will I lose the items that I purchased in the "Hardcore-only" gold-based auction house for that character?
Yes. Again, Hardcore-mode characters will only have access to a "Hardcore-only" gold-based auction house, not the currency-based auction house, and will not be able to trade with non-Hardcore characters. Hardcore is an optional mode designed for players who enjoy playing with the risk of permanently losing their character if the character dies, and that includes the items they acquired with that character.
So I think it's reasonable to assume that items are similarly not going to be degraded or devalued in a way that requires futher monetary outlay to restore in the game.
Also, I find it very strange indeed that Google can make these claims, highly dangerous claims to make about anyone considering what they can do to your reputation or indeed your life, and then refuse to give you a single reason why they did it. Not even a hint of a reason, just a brick wall.
From reading the article, I got the impression that Google did not "make these claims, highly dangerous claims to make about anyone considering what they can do to your reputation or indeed your life", in fact they went out of their way to avoid making that claim, in that their legal folks wouldn't let them the user why his account had been shut down, and it was only after a lot of digging on the user's part that a Google chap was allowed to tell him what had happened and why.
According to my reading of the text of the legislation (IANAL, or a copper or familiar with legal stuff in any way...), probably not different at all.
It merely refers to "protected information" and "key", with no reference as to the manner of the protection or the form of the key, I assume that it applies equally to an encrypted file and a crypto key or to a physical document or object in a secure container and the key or method for opening for the container.
Addons hosted on addons.mozilla.org are now automatically checked for compatibility with new versions (by checking API calls used by the addon) and are bumped to show as compatible. If not, an email gets sent to the addon developer alerting them to the fact their addon is broken, and what exactly is broken about it.
This will start happening for the release of 6.
"...are now automatically checked..."
"This will start happening for the release of 6."
Er... well which is it?
... they already can.
(Legally compel you to reveal crypto keys or render the relevant information intelligible that is. Well, you could refuse, but that's an offence obviously. Section 49 of Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIPA)).
The first bit sounds more like a design issue than a problem with network speed, if you're really saturating your uplinks in this way, and heavily utilising the network infrastructure, I suspect you might want something a bit more robust than the setup you have described.
"A 24-port 10/100 with 2 port 10Gb will be a killer product when it emerges, is standardised, and cheap enough. Hell, I could use it NOW."
To be honest, the price difference between a 24x10/100 + 2x10Gb and a 24x10/100/1000 + 2x10Gb would probably be so insignificant that people just wouldn't bother with either making it or buying it. The improvements in the step up from 10/100Mb to 1Gb are far more than just speed - proper standardised negotiation for a start, which is notoriously piss-poor on 10/100Mb. And those products already do exist, bit expensive, like $1.5-2.5k or something probably
"10Gb should be available today"
Er... it is? Heck, 40Gb is available today. Expensive admitedly, but most definitely available.
An interesting comment on this....
Here in the UK, petrol (aka 'gas') is priced in pounds per litre (£/l), but car mileage is in miles per gallon. Enjoy working out your petrol cost per mile there.
Compare with more metric countries in Europe, where the car mileage is in litres per kilometre (l/km), so we just multiply the two together:
fuel cost in £/l x mileage in l/km = fuel cost in £/km
Far more simple, and something that your average consumer would find quite useful!
I believe the requirement of generating an EUI-64 address from the MAC address of the network interface isn't an absolute 'must', but a 'should', i.e. you can generate the last 64 bits of the IPv6 address in a different way if you wish (I think the RFC mentions doing this for privacy reasons?), the major requirement being that it is unique within the
I think Windows Vista used EUI-64 to generate the last 64 bits of an IPv6 address, but Windows 7 generates it randomly?