It was one in the need for speed series. It assumed that any SCSI drives were "emulated" and refused to work, even though my only disc drive was a SCSI cd burner. I borrowed an IDE drive from an old machine I had sitting there and voila!
The error was something like, "The disc in drive E: is invalid" or similar.
Not happy with the speed of that old IDE drive though, I did some searching and a few minutes after that I had a crack in hand that let me play it using my SCSI drive and retail disc...DRM defeated.
I've often thought of just running my own private DNS server. It's not like a single person using it for personal use would be that resource intensive, would it?
I imagine that the DNS server blocks would be at the ISP level, not to root level, correct?
If not, I suppose a guy could just tell it what authoritative source to use as it's root.
Any time I notice a URL has a query string with just numbers I always try incrementing them.
Did that with my ebill for my mobile phone provider and started seeing other people's bills. I alerted them immediately, and the system went down for a couple hours and when it came back up it was fixed.
A few days later I got an email from the chief privacy officer of the company (I think that was his title) with a "personal" thank you for pointing it out.
Except, how many people actually have a PC hooked up in their living room, where they'd actually sit down to watch a movie.
Those unskippable menus infuriate me even more when my 4-year-old wants to watch a movie.
It's less annoying, however, than the "you wouldn't steal a care" commercials at the beginning of movies in the theater. I just paid 12 bucks to see this movie in theater, and you're telling me how stealing a movie is bad? Seriously, fuck off.
I live in Saskatchewan, and while I'm concerned about the implementation of UBB, I'm currently unaffected. My ISP (Sasktel - A crown corporation) has NO plans to implement any sort of usable based billing. I pay about $35 a month for my 5mbps DSL connection, with unlimited usage.
The only other competitor in my area (Saskatoon) for broadband is Shaw, and with their fastest plan (100mbps) you get a cap of 250gigs, with a $1/GB charge over that. At my current usage levels, I'd be paying an extra $250 a month.
I have no problem with fair, real-world usage based billing where it's billed like my electricity. A base fee to maintain the line coming in (Let's say $10 a month) then a per GB charge for whatever I use. If bandwidth costs somewhere around a few pennies per GB, then I'd be happy to pay $0.10 per GB for my usage.
Everyone wins. Those who barely use their connection would save money and no longer subsidize those who saturate the pipe.
What they want to implement, however, is not real usage based billing. It's just a bonus on top of an already highly profitable business. Reading the details of the CRTC's decision, the incumbents would have been able to charge indie ISP's a few DOLLARS per GB, basically eliminating any ability for them to remain competitive in the market.
Adding it all up, Mike is correct: It's nothing more than a power-play to block competition. Both competition from indie ISP's charing their lines AND competition from online video services like Netflix competing with their traditional cable tv offerings.
I'm sticking with my unlimited (albeit a tad slow) DSL service, thank you very much. Though in reality, 5mbps is fast enough for my needs.
It's actually an optional fee you can choose to pay if yuo want to make sure your VoIP traffic gets QoS.
It's BS though, since QoS doesn't solve anything. It only assures your packets get QoS ON Shaw's network...once it leaves their network, it's anybodies game.
The ads are for the "non monetized" versions on the sites. For example, partypoker.net is completely free...but partypoker.com is where you can actually bet real money.
The sites, other than name, look identical.
(Least they used to, I can't check them from work, so I can't be 100% certain)
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by m3t4lw01f.
I had bad luck with an EA game years ago...
It was one in the need for speed series. It assumed that any SCSI drives were "emulated" and refused to work, even though my only disc drive was a SCSI cd burner. I borrowed an IDE drive from an old machine I had sitting there and voila!
The error was something like, "The disc in drive E: is invalid" or similar.
Not happy with the speed of that old IDE drive though, I did some searching and a few minutes after that I had a crack in hand that let me play it using my SCSI drive and retail disc...DRM defeated.
Re: Re: Re: Technical question
Except that he clearly BOUGHT the weed...No theft involved.
Re: Re: Why not just run your own DNS server?
Good point. However, wouldn't OpenDNS be subject to these new rules?
Being in Canada, I'm not sure yet how affected I'd be by this legislation, but I have a feeling we'll feel the full impact of it here.
Why not just run your own DNS server?
I've often thought of just running my own private DNS server. It's not like a single person using it for personal use would be that resource intensive, would it?
I imagine that the DNS server blocks would be at the ISP level, not to root level, correct?
If not, I suppose a guy could just tell it what authoritative source to use as it's root.
I've done that
Any time I notice a URL has a query string with just numbers I always try incrementing them.
Did that with my ebill for my mobile phone provider and started seeing other people's bills. I alerted them immediately, and the system went down for a couple hours and when it came back up it was fixed.
A few days later I got an email from the chief privacy officer of the company (I think that was his title) with a "personal" thank you for pointing it out.
Re: Re: Re: To Protect and To Serve
...and then re-elected him. *shudder*
Re: Re:
Except, how many people actually have a PC hooked up in their living room, where they'd actually sit down to watch a movie.
Those unskippable menus infuriate me even more when my 4-year-old wants to watch a movie.
It's less annoying, however, than the "you wouldn't steal a care" commercials at the beginning of movies in the theater. I just paid 12 bucks to see this movie in theater, and you're telling me how stealing a movie is bad? Seriously, fuck off.
Saskatchewan is the place to be, I guess
I live in Saskatchewan, and while I'm concerned about the implementation of UBB, I'm currently unaffected. My ISP (Sasktel - A crown corporation) has NO plans to implement any sort of usable based billing. I pay about $35 a month for my 5mbps DSL connection, with unlimited usage.
The only other competitor in my area (Saskatoon) for broadband is Shaw, and with their fastest plan (100mbps) you get a cap of 250gigs, with a $1/GB charge over that. At my current usage levels, I'd be paying an extra $250 a month.
I have no problem with fair, real-world usage based billing where it's billed like my electricity. A base fee to maintain the line coming in (Let's say $10 a month) then a per GB charge for whatever I use. If bandwidth costs somewhere around a few pennies per GB, then I'd be happy to pay $0.10 per GB for my usage.
Everyone wins. Those who barely use their connection would save money and no longer subsidize those who saturate the pipe.
What they want to implement, however, is not real usage based billing. It's just a bonus on top of an already highly profitable business. Reading the details of the CRTC's decision, the incumbents would have been able to charge indie ISP's a few DOLLARS per GB, basically eliminating any ability for them to remain competitive in the market.
Adding it all up, Mike is correct: It's nothing more than a power-play to block competition. Both competition from indie ISP's charing their lines AND competition from online video services like Netflix competing with their traditional cable tv offerings.
I'm sticking with my unlimited (albeit a tad slow) DSL service, thank you very much. Though in reality, 5mbps is fast enough for my needs.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "It's good for the newspaper" comment at the end sealed the deal on the sarcasm.
Re: Shaw vs. VoIP
It's actually an optional fee you can choose to pay if yuo want to make sure your VoIP traffic gets QoS.
It's BS though, since QoS doesn't solve anything. It only assures your packets get QoS ON Shaw's network...once it leaves their network, it's anybodies game.
Re: tv ad
The ads are for the "non monetized" versions on the sites. For example, partypoker.net is completely free...but partypoker.com is where you can actually bet real money.
The sites, other than name, look identical.
(Least they used to, I can't check them from work, so I can't be 100% certain)