It's just as easy to do on a DSLAM as it is on an IP switch. All you have to do is tag the DHCP discover/request with an ifIndex-based Option 82 value, and delegate your addresses based on this.
Again, I'm well aware that some charity is worse than no charity at all. I'm commenting on charity as a concept, not the specific implementations that you detail in your post.
"Oh, nonsense. By using the term "certainty", you imply that there's no way any other outcome could come to pass. By providing one realistic example, I've already shot that down. (And it is somewhat realistic; you don't think that, given all things equal right now, PC makers wouldn't elect to use a free operating system? There's your capitalism!)"
Nonsense? You may have provided what you feel is a realistic example, but you fail to realise that very few, if any major industries at all have embraced free alternatives to commercial offerings where the alternatives exist, and computer software is no different. There's a reason for why these things happen consistently, and that's what makes your scenario unrealistic.
"It's also easy to believe that if things had played out slightly differently, we could be in a situation where two or more OS's would share the OS pie. You really think it would be 100% impossible for either of those situations to come to pass? I'd also point out that software is inherently different from most other industries."
Two and more operating systems already share the OS pie. It may not be a big portion, but it's a growing portion. I don't see where you're going with this, though, because this one person would still be filthy rich even with just 50% of the market share, and free operating systems would still be competing toe to toe with other commercial offerings for the remaining 50%, making other people filthy rich as well.
"There are lots of industries (most, really) where one company doesn't have a monopoly position that lets it rake in tons of money as MS has. Yes, other major industries have multiple large companies started or led by people who make obscene amounts of money, but there's a reason Gates was near the top of the net worth list for so long."
Would that be the same reason explaining why Carlos Slim, the Walton family, Lakshmi Mittal and Michael Dell, to name but a few, are found high up on those lists as well? Some exceeding Bill Gates' position?
I'm well aware that montary aid often lands in the wrong hands. What I'm replying to is that HanzoSpam seems to write off the entire concept of sending aid to Africa because of this.
The "it" defines itself. Backtrack a bit, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
You didn't really give a believable example of how the OS market could end up, even if you'd like to believe that it could happen like that. Why? Well, capitalism has a way of making sure that some people -do- get filthy rich. The automotive industry has a handful of giants, and a handful of people are getting filthy rich off of this. Same goes for the computer hardware industry, same goes for the travel industry, same goes for the telco industry, same goes for the oil industry, same goes for the financial industry, and I could keep going, and going, and going.
Still, you seem to think that somehow, magically, the computer operating system industry could circumvent this ubiquitous trend without detailing why or how. In fact, all you supplied with your argument was a utopian vision, way out of line with how reality is in every single major industry.
I'm not really in a position where I need to grasp at anything to find examples supporting my argument. They're all around us. Examples supporting yours, however, are not.
There's one critical certainty, and one critical uncertainty to keep in mind here. The critical certainty is that if Gates hadn't done it, someone else would've done it instead. The critical uncertainty is whether or not the other guy would've done the same with regards to charity. Think about -that- one for a while.
IIRC, there was plenty of demand on the planes that had them, but not enough overall demand from airlines for the Connexion by Boeing system it ran on. It was an excellent system, and I saw many people with their laptops out browsing webpages on the Connexion flights I found myself on.
Interesting argument. If a protocol was developed, one which would guarantee that no segment of the file longer than what is allowed for fair use is transmitted, technically you can't face any distribution claims. While you could get past the letter of the law that way, I don't think you could get past the spirit.
It may as well be the athlete uploading the video. It's not artistic expression if you're displaying a product, which is what gameplay videos are. For your argument to work, everything that "you're doing yourself" would qualify as artistic expression. That wouldn't really work.
He's got his voice down? Not by a long shot. It sounded completely forced, way too deep, and way too aggressive. I'm playing through the game at the moment, so the memory is pretty fresh, and he's nowhere near the voice of Max Payne.
Other than that, the dialogue in the trailer sounded bad. Too dramatic, and sympathetic as well. What made Max Payne great was the idea that you're a good guy, but the good guys think you're a bad guy. No sympathy, no drama, just cold, hard killing, witty commentary, and a can full of badassery. Doesn't look like they'll be sticking to that.
I've yet to encounter a technical support function at an ISP that couldn't at least at second level match an active IP address to the customer using it.
That's because you're in Sweden, and the infrastructure there, especially urban infrastructure, is typically much less vulnerable than here in the southeastern US, for example. We frequently have last mile outages due to storms, flooding and lightning, and when a tree hits a phone mast, you lose your DSL, no matter how many different providers you have.
It all depends on the local conditions, so suggesting separate last-mine access technologies as a way to optimise your redundancy is not such a bad idea.
Absolutely. It will always be a personal choice. Personally, I'd rather be "playing god" and let people live full lives without passing on known genetic diseases, than playing medical examiner for people who die from a disease that's known and could've been prevented.
A Round Robin balancing could put ten fat people in one elevator, and ten midgets in another, should they arrive in the correct order. That gives you one elevator crashing, and the other working fine. That's not balancing.
Slashdot Mirror
.. **AA? American Airlines! It's a vast conspiracy!
It's not an "extra thing". It's a different thing that's no more time consuming, and no more difficult to do.
It's just as easy to do on a DSLAM as it is on an IP switch. All you have to do is tag the DHCP discover/request with an ifIndex-based Option 82 value, and delegate your addresses based on this.
Again, I'm well aware that some charity is worse than no charity at all. I'm commenting on charity as a concept, not the specific implementations that you detail in your post.
"Oh, nonsense. By using the term "certainty", you imply that there's no way any other outcome could come to pass. By providing one realistic example, I've already shot that down. (And it is somewhat realistic; you don't think that, given all things equal right now, PC makers wouldn't elect to use a free operating system? There's your capitalism!)"
Nonsense? You may have provided what you feel is a realistic example, but you fail to realise that very few, if any major industries at all have embraced free alternatives to commercial offerings where the alternatives exist, and computer software is no different. There's a reason for why these things happen consistently, and that's what makes your scenario unrealistic.
"It's also easy to believe that if things had played out slightly differently, we could be in a situation where two or more OS's would share the OS pie. You really think it would be 100% impossible for either of those situations to come to pass? I'd also point out that software is inherently different from most other industries."
Two and more operating systems already share the OS pie. It may not be a big portion, but it's a growing portion. I don't see where you're going with this, though, because this one person would still be filthy rich even with just 50% of the market share, and free operating systems would still be competing toe to toe with other commercial offerings for the remaining 50%, making other people filthy rich as well.
"There are lots of industries (most, really) where one company doesn't have a monopoly position that lets it rake in tons of money as MS has. Yes, other major industries have multiple large companies started or led by people who make obscene amounts of money, but there's a reason Gates was near the top of the net worth list for so long."
Would that be the same reason explaining why Carlos Slim, the Walton family, Lakshmi Mittal and Michael Dell, to name but a few, are found high up on those lists as well? Some exceeding Bill Gates' position?
I'm well aware that montary aid often lands in the wrong hands. What I'm replying to is that HanzoSpam seems to write off the entire concept of sending aid to Africa because of this.
The "it" defines itself. Backtrack a bit, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
You didn't really give a believable example of how the OS market could end up, even if you'd like to believe that it could happen like that. Why? Well, capitalism has a way of making sure that some people -do- get filthy rich. The automotive industry has a handful of giants, and a handful of people are getting filthy rich off of this. Same goes for the computer hardware industry, same goes for the travel industry, same goes for the telco industry, same goes for the oil industry, same goes for the financial industry, and I could keep going, and going, and going.
Still, you seem to think that somehow, magically, the computer operating system industry could circumvent this ubiquitous trend without detailing why or how. In fact, all you supplied with your argument was a utopian vision, way out of line with how reality is in every single major industry.
I'm not really in a position where I need to grasp at anything to find examples supporting my argument. They're all around us. Examples supporting yours, however, are not.
Yes, it -is- certain. Capitalism ensures this. Computing is a market like any other.
So, any humanitarian endeavour that doesn't yield immediate and complete success is pointless? I like your attitude.
There's one critical certainty, and one critical uncertainty to keep in mind here. The critical certainty is that if Gates hadn't done it, someone else would've done it instead. The critical uncertainty is whether or not the other guy would've done the same with regards to charity. Think about -that- one for a while.
IIRC, there was plenty of demand on the planes that had them, but not enough overall demand from airlines for the Connexion by Boeing system it ran on. It was an excellent system, and I saw many people with their laptops out browsing webpages on the Connexion flights I found myself on.
Interesting argument. If a protocol was developed, one which would guarantee that no segment of the file longer than what is allowed for fair use is transmitted, technically you can't face any distribution claims. While you could get past the letter of the law that way, I don't think you could get past the spirit.
It may as well be the athlete uploading the video. It's not artistic expression if you're displaying a product, which is what gameplay videos are. For your argument to work, everything that "you're doing yourself" would qualify as artistic expression. That wouldn't really work.
Video capture of gameplay for the sake of the gameplay is about as creative as live capture of a sports event for the sake of the sports event.
Actually, it's the difference between people who make their jobs their lives, and people who don't. :) Enjoy your Sunday!
Hey, you're off the job, you're not taking calls. Enjoy your weekend.
He's got his voice down? Not by a long shot. It sounded completely forced, way too deep, and way too aggressive. I'm playing through the game at the moment, so the memory is pretty fresh, and he's nowhere near the voice of Max Payne.
Other than that, the dialogue in the trailer sounded bad. Too dramatic, and sympathetic as well. What made Max Payne great was the idea that you're a good guy, but the good guys think you're a bad guy. No sympathy, no drama, just cold, hard killing, witty commentary, and a can full of badassery. Doesn't look like they'll be sticking to that.
Amusingly, I googled "3145 mpg" to get your source, and google kindly informed me of the following:
3 145 miles per gallon = 1 337.07696 kilometers per liter
I've yet to encounter a technical support function at an ISP that couldn't at least at second level match an active IP address to the customer using it.
Hence my saying that Sweden has a much less vulnerable telecommuncations infrastructure.
That's because you're in Sweden, and the infrastructure there, especially urban infrastructure, is typically much less vulnerable than here in the southeastern US, for example. We frequently have last mile outages due to storms, flooding and lightning, and when a tree hits a phone mast, you lose your DSL, no matter how many different providers you have.
It all depends on the local conditions, so suggesting separate last-mine access technologies as a way to optimise your redundancy is not such a bad idea.
Absolutely. It will always be a personal choice. Personally, I'd rather be "playing god" and let people live full lives without passing on known genetic diseases, than playing medical examiner for people who die from a disease that's known and could've been prevented.
I think this is the first Simpsons reference I've seen at -1 on Slashdot.
They aren't simple load balancing concepts. They're simple load -distribution- concepts.
A Round Robin balancing could put ten fat people in one elevator, and ten midgets in another, should they arrive in the correct order. That gives you one elevator crashing, and the other working fine. That's not balancing.
If your example is anything to go by, a shitload is a measure of volume, while the fucktonne is a measure of weight.
I propose, for the sake of simplicity, and in accordance with the metric system, that a cubic shitload holds one fucktonne of water.