GuyverDH writes: DC Comics has refused to allow the Superman logo to be used on a memorial for a 5 year old child, Jeffrey Baldwin, that was starved to death by his grandparents. Jeffrey Baldwin was a huge fan of anything Superman, and when the story came out about the circumstances of his murder, the community wanted to do something for him. They raised funds to create a memorial statue with the Kryptonian S on the chest. The latest incarnation of the Superman saga, Man of Steel, tells us that it's not an S, but a symbol for "Hope". What better use for the symbol of hope, than on a memorial to a murdered child, in hopes that nothing like this happens again. DC Comics doesn't feel that way, perhaps they don't feel at all. They implied that it would put a stain or stigma on their trademark to allow it to be used for his memorial because of the conditions surrounding his death. If Superman were real, he would have stood up for Jeffrey, maybe even prevented his death. At the very least he certainly would have been the first one there to carve his symbol on the memorial himself with his heat vision.
GuyverDH writes: Verizon announces they are forcing grandfathered unlimited data plan owners to upgrade to tiered (read overpriced) usage plans. Translation: Verizon is forcing mass exodus of it's customers.
GuyverDH writes: Claiming some over simplistic by-law as an escape clause, the White House declares that they cannot take any action. My read into this? It would harm our bonus checks. (strictly my opinion of course, does it match yours?)
GuyverDH writes: Do we really need ever more bandwidth or should we better use what have?
After doing research into why transmissions of data over gigabit networks seem to only net marginal increases in throughput over 100Mbit networks, I was surprised to find a gentleman by the name of Phil Dykstra had already covered a lot of what I was looking for over 8 years ago...
Now, I don't proclaim to be a networking engineering guru, but just reading through those two articles would seem to imply that many corporations (and individuals) are paying for bandwidth that they aren't getting due to the fact that intermediate devices are set to use lower MTUs than they should be, introducing bottlenecks.
When sending packets between two networks, even if both ends made use of jumbo frames (9000 bytes), they would eventually switch down to 1500byte packets (or smaller if using encapsulation for encryption / vpn / other purposes).
I'm continuing to read up on the topics and so far it's proving to be an enlightening journey as it seems to me that we would be at least as well off, if we were to push the network carriers to replace devices restricting MTUs to 1500, with devices that at least allow jumbo frames, if not higher.
Reducing the number of packets that are required to send the same amount of data, would reduce the overall traffic and collisions, which in turn would allow even more throughput over the same connections.
GuyverDH writes: I've been sitting here scratching my head, trying to come up with a reason beyond greed as to why the RIAA is against download services, whether they be pay services or non pay services.
As I tried to sift through information, it suddenly came to me. I think I know the reason they do not like download services. It (the non DRM'd download services) is not defective by design. Let me re-state this. The original download services did not have DRM. They didn't care about piracy, they cared about defective by design. DRM free downloads can be copied off to backup media, and re-used on just about any platform. Essentially the user would NEVER have to buy another copy of that music again. This, in my opinion, is the real reason the RIAA is against this.
Let's look at the history of the music industry.
One of the first commercially available music formats was the vynil album. It had the built in defect that the media was easily damaged. Small scratches were enough to make the media unusable.
Next we had tape — reel to reel, 8-track, cassette, DAT. All of these had the inherit defect that they were easily damaged. The tape was easily mangled or erased, either by dirty heads (as the tape dumped magnetic residue onto the heads), or because of different speed reels or other components that the tape was routed through.
Next we had optical media — Compact Disc, Music DVDs. These were probably the most defective media ever created or adopted by the RIAA. Why? Because something as simple as a fingerprint is enough to cause the media to fail (at least until it's cleaned). The act of cleaning the disc, if not done properly, is enough to permanently damage it.
Finally, the digital file format, DRM free. P2P file sharing services were the anti-defective by design. Not only were the files DRM free, but they were in formats that just about anyone could read. There is also the fact that simple replication to additional media (backup tapes, discs, other hard drives, flash media, etc...) gave the end-user the ability to re-create any failed media without re-purchasing the music.
Every one of these media formats were designed with a built in defect. They were designed to fail during normal use. They were designed to fail in a way that we'd blame the media not the industry that used the media. They were designed to fail to increase their revenue streams through re-purchasing music due to media failure.
Guess what? We fell for it.
This, I believe, is the reason the RIAA is against DRM free digital music distribution. It's not about pirating. It's about lost revenue due to the fact that people aren't having to re-purchase music over and over and over and over again due to (surprise) failed defective by design media.
Give it some thought. Maybe I've gone over the deep end, but I truly think this may be the root cause.