Yes, thank you for the usual retort, however nothing that you said is at odds with my post. You can preach about circumstances, but this does not change matters of fact.
This "NAT is no/slightly better than no security at all" bullshit is getting really tedious. NAT has the side-effect of eliminating the most simple and obvious attack vector on the Internet without any additional effort. NAT has without any shred of doubt done more for the security of the Internet than any other network service, firewalls included.
Seemingly because they aren't based in reality. I can't tell you where he gets his numbers from, I can only tell you that his numbers do not at all correspond with the cost involved in currently deployed networks of a similar design. Suggesting a per-installation cost of more than $AUD 5 million (or, as he now suggests, $AUD 500,000,) is downright absurd for very obvious reasons. These technologies are commercially viable, commercially deployed and commercially profitable right now, and they have been for a couple of years.
Cost of installation of course depends on the circumstances in the area of deployment, but it is able to compete favourably on cost with more traditional ETTH solutions based on local switching. Australia's high urban population of more than 90% makes this kind of deployment even more viable and cost effective than it is in many of the countries currently operating PON networks.
The parent also makes various tenuous assumptions such as having fiber dug into the ground in the last mile, and a set per-meter cost seemingly regardless of circumstances, that seems more based on medium-haul rural/suburban single-project contract work, than based on the realities of a massively scaled project with dedicated work crews and all of the economic benefits that this kind of scale brings.
No, that would be five million per household. Your calculations are way, way off, and what you're saying is so utterly disconnected from national-scale PON deployments existing today that it isn't even funny.
"This network is not going to get built, no matter who gets elected. A national fiber network for australia with connections to even 10% of houses... I seriously doubt it could be done with hundred times that budget."
So you suggest that it would be unlikely to deploy GPON to about 800,000 households for $AUD 4.3 trillion, or approximately $AUD 5 million per household? You knowm just the opinion of one network engineer who has actually been involved in nationwide GPON deployments, the current assessment of about $AUD 5,500 per household is a very sensible budget for this kind of deployment.
That's a completely ridiculous thing to say, and that's precisely part of the problem. Yes, you're supposed to understand and memorise the purpose and handling of standard notation, and you're supposed to reject nonstandard notation outright. Mathematics isn't a guessing game, it isn't an exercise in mind-reading, and ambiguity should be avoided at all costs. What you're arguing for is comprehensively at odds with the very basic tenants of the subject.
It doesn't have much to do with inference. The kids faced with this problem are also faced with new mathematical notation on a regular basis, which they are required to wrap their heads around and memorise. When teachers begin to use standard and nonstandard notation interchangeably to express simple problems and concepts, things legitimately do get confusing.
The problem isn't a struggle with understanding the equal sign. The problem is with asinine teachers who disregard standards because they're convinced that their way is the better way.
Precisely the point that I'm trying to make. You may not have asked for the price before making use of the service, but that doesn't absolve you of anything.
In your attempt to stretch a dictionary definition well beyond how it applies to the use of the word in this situation, you left out the last bit of my post.
The definition of the term as used simply does not apply.
Those are contractual agreements between publisher and middleman covered under contract law. The circumvention of the measures deployed is covered by anti-circumvention legislation. To refer to that as legislation is like referring to homicide laws as regulating murder. The definition of the term as used simply does not apply.
That's an absurdly broad take on the definition of regulation, and obviously a far departure from the type of regulation referred to in the post to which you replied.
By the same token, the only thing keeping me from taking the dinner off of your table and eating it myself is government regulation, It's inane to argue along these paths.
Potentially then if Blizzard's argument is held up in court, if someone is stupid enough to click through a EULA on a piece of malware, then the malware vendor could sue for the removal from sale of any anti-malware software by precisely the same argument Blizzard is using.
Wait, so what you're saying is that, should this case be decided in Blizzard's favour, stupidity could possibly land you in trouble? I can't even begin to imagine the implications!
"This means that even though games see that 80% of their copies are pirated, only 10% of their potential customers are pirates, which means they are losing at most 10% of their sales."
Unless, of course, fifty percent of the demographic that they're going for is amongst those 10%. It's a bit dishonest to draw this kind of conclusion.
Simple, natural/evolution/. Stylus gives way to finger touch, keyboard gives way to touch screen. It's not revolution, it's not rocket science, it's simple, obvious logic.
What kind of vague assertion is that? "Form factor" and "design concept"? The "form factor" is an obvious, logical concept that was carried over from.. PDAs and tablets! Apple didn't invent the concept of a touch input device. As for design concept, that's such a non-argument that I don't even know where to start.
That's a preposterous assertion. Four years ago, just as six years ago, and ten years ago, the emphasis was on pushing more features and more technologies into phones. The iPhone was not a revolutionary device, it was an evolutionary one. No one would have called it a pointless consumer electronics device, and no one would have pointed to a market which failed in large part to a lack of features which are integral to the smart phone. Nor is it at all pertinent to suggest that people would point to a dead market to dismiss the applicability of similar features to a living market, when the issue at hand is that the tablet market itself/is/ the PDA market in your analogy, and not merely a thriving market absorbing the redeeming features of failed products.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm sure that if you disable NAT on your router, a stateful firewall magically appears. NAT has nothing to do with dropping inbound traffic.
Yes, thank you for the usual retort, however nothing that you said is at odds with my post. You can preach about circumstances, but this does not change matters of fact.
This "NAT is no/slightly better than no security at all" bullshit is getting really tedious. NAT has the side-effect of eliminating the most simple and obvious attack vector on the Internet without any additional effort. NAT has without any shred of doubt done more for the security of the Internet than any other network service, firewalls included.
Seemingly because they aren't based in reality. I can't tell you where he gets his numbers from, I can only tell you that his numbers do not at all correspond with the cost involved in currently deployed networks of a similar design. Suggesting a per-installation cost of more than $AUD 5 million (or, as he now suggests, $AUD 500,000,) is downright absurd for very obvious reasons. These technologies are commercially viable, commercially deployed and commercially profitable right now, and they have been for a couple of years.
Cost of installation of course depends on the circumstances in the area of deployment, but it is able to compete favourably on cost with more traditional ETTH solutions based on local switching. Australia's high urban population of more than 90% makes this kind of deployment even more viable and cost effective than it is in many of the countries currently operating PON networks.
The parent also makes various tenuous assumptions such as having fiber dug into the ground in the last mile, and a set per-meter cost seemingly regardless of circumstances, that seems more based on medium-haul rural/suburban single-project contract work, than based on the realities of a massively scaled project with dedicated work crews and all of the economic benefits that this kind of scale brings.
No, that would be five million per household. Your calculations are way, way off, and what you're saying is so utterly disconnected from national-scale PON deployments existing today that it isn't even funny.
"This network is not going to get built, no matter who gets elected. A national fiber network for australia with connections to even 10% of houses ... I seriously doubt it could be done with hundred times that budget."
So you suggest that it would be unlikely to deploy GPON to about 800,000 households for $AUD 4.3 trillion, or approximately $AUD 5 million per household? You knowm just the opinion of one network engineer who has actually been involved in nationwide GPON deployments, the current assessment of about $AUD 5,500 per household is a very sensible budget for this kind of deployment.
s/tenants/tenets/. That was one of the more impressive ones.
That's a completely ridiculous thing to say, and that's precisely part of the problem. Yes, you're supposed to understand and memorise the purpose and handling of standard notation, and you're supposed to reject nonstandard notation outright. Mathematics isn't a guessing game, it isn't an exercise in mind-reading, and ambiguity should be avoided at all costs. What you're arguing for is comprehensively at odds with the very basic tenants of the subject.
It doesn't have much to do with inference. The kids faced with this problem are also faced with new mathematical notation on a regular basis, which they are required to wrap their heads around and memorise. When teachers begin to use standard and nonstandard notation interchangeably to express simple problems and concepts, things legitimately do get confusing.
The problem isn't a struggle with understanding the equal sign. The problem is with asinine teachers who disregard standards because they're convinced that their way is the better way.
Precisely the point that I'm trying to make. You may not have asked for the price before making use of the service, but that doesn't absolve you of anything.
Yes, but what does that have to do with anything?
You should try out that theory in practice. Go to a restaurant and order a drink, then refuse to pay because you never agreed on a price.
You have to admire their consistency. I don't recall hearing of them ever doing anything to benefit the users.
In your attempt to stretch a dictionary definition well beyond how it applies to the use of the word in this situation, you left out the last bit of my post.
The definition of the term as used simply does not apply.
s/To refer to that as legislation/To refer to that as regulation/
Those are contractual agreements between publisher and middleman covered under contract law. The circumvention of the measures deployed is covered by anti-circumvention legislation. To refer to that as legislation is like referring to homicide laws as regulating murder. The definition of the term as used simply does not apply.
That's an absurdly broad take on the definition of regulation, and obviously a far departure from the type of regulation referred to in the post to which you replied.
By the same token, the only thing keeping me from taking the dinner off of your table and eating it myself is government regulation, It's inane to argue along these paths.
That isn't exactly government regulation. That's the publisher's prerogative.
How do copyright provisions regulate which media a publisher is allowed to sell their products on?
Potentially then if Blizzard's argument is held up in court, if someone is stupid enough to click through a EULA on a piece of malware, then the malware vendor could sue for the removal from sale of any anti-malware software by precisely the same argument Blizzard is using.
Wait, so what you're saying is that, should this case be decided in Blizzard's favour, stupidity could possibly land you in trouble? I can't even begin to imagine the implications!
No. "Why" and "how" are both perfectly suitable adverbs for that sentence. "Why" asks for reason, "how" asks for method.
"This means that even though games see that 80% of their copies are pirated, only 10% of their potential customers are pirates, which means they are losing at most 10% of their sales."
Unless, of course, fifty percent of the demographic that they're going for is amongst those 10%. It's a bit dishonest to draw this kind of conclusion.
Simple, natural /evolution/. Stylus gives way to finger touch, keyboard gives way to touch screen. It's not revolution, it's not rocket science, it's simple, obvious logic.
What kind of vague assertion is that? "Form factor" and "design concept"? The "form factor" is an obvious, logical concept that was carried over from.. PDAs and tablets! Apple didn't invent the concept of a touch input device. As for design concept, that's such a non-argument that I don't even know where to start.
It's an evolution. It's not a revolution.
That's a preposterous assertion. Four years ago, just as six years ago, and ten years ago, the emphasis was on pushing more features and more technologies into phones. The iPhone was not a revolutionary device, it was an evolutionary one. No one would have called it a pointless consumer electronics device, and no one would have pointed to a market which failed in large part to a lack of features which are integral to the smart phone. Nor is it at all pertinent to suggest that people would point to a dead market to dismiss the applicability of similar features to a living market, when the issue at hand is that the tablet market itself /is/ the PDA market in your analogy, and not merely a thriving market absorbing the redeeming features of failed products.