One thing that seemed to stick out as I was watching that video was that the researcher seemed to stutter a fair amount. Without knowing him, it's hard to say if he has always been like that or if it might be a byproduct of all of his experiments on himself.
Unfortunately the parent is implying 6 digits of precision in the measurement.
It would probably be more correct to say 2.4x10^5 Volkswagen Beetles in length. I would bet that even between models of Beetle, the length difference would only be a few inches.
Maybe I don't understand what you are asking, because this all seems pretty clear to me.
Basically Discovery Channel, in return for access to all of the materials, will give NASA one or more copies of the final work.
NASA could do all of the restoration themselves but it would be very costly and I doubt, in this time of BushCo budget cuts, that NASA has the spare change to pay for the restoration.
This agreement allows both parties to benefit - a nice result.
Obviously nobody went back in time. DC used their extensive A/V resources to restore the NASA footage.
Along a different line, the DVD series "Trinity and Beyond - The Atomic Bomb Movie" is a similar endeavor. Lots of old and degraded footage cleaned up and brought back to life for transfer to digital.
Not so much of the "benefits everyone" aspect, but still very cool to see the old films cleaned up and preserved.
Well, maybe Microsoft will have the defib pads in version 2?
BSOD indeed! Just imagine how insistent Microsoft could get about validating the software?
"User authorization failure. Your software license has expired or is an illegal copy. Please purchase a legitimate license immediately or your heart will be shut down."
How will Microsoft compete? It is very common knowledge that Windows runs slower on any given system than Linux does. The low-end PCs are not beefy by any means. Linux will just feel snappier and also shouldn't need as much RAM for similar tasks.
In the low end, it seems like all MS will be doing is highlighting their shortcomings.
I am no expert in man-machine interfaces, but I think I would make the Destruct switch a different kind of switch and color than the rest of the switches. It should be red and the others orange or yellow or something.
I would just want to minimize as much as possible the chance that the destruct switch was accidentally activated if things got really hairy and fast moving and the range officer had to be prepared to blow the thing up.
I know they toggles have the red guards on them so the officer would have to flip it up before actuating, and from the article it appears to be a two-step process (arm then destruct), but four identical switches next to each other for such a critical function just seems a bit risky to me. I think I might even make it a two-person job where the 2nd could destruct only after the first armed.
But then I realize that by delaying the destruction, many more lives could be put in danger if the assembly was headed over populated areas. Still, four identical switches and buttons right next to each other, with such dissimilar functions seems a bit risky to me.
Actually there is. Your ISP more than likely pays by the byte. By letting your neighbor use your connection, you are adding cost to your ISP and also possibly depriving them of the revenue that might come if your neighbor had no alternative but to pay for his/her own connection.
The coffee shop and library will have contracts with their ISP that allow them to share their connection. They don't just sign up for a standard user connection. They will have a commercial account of some kind that they will pay extra for simply because the ISP realizes that people may use that connection exclusively instead of getting their own. Plus they will also expect higher utilization of the connection over longer periods of time than for a home connection.
I really don't understand at all how people like you can be so dense about this.
What it really comes down to is if you are doing something you agreed not to do. If so, then you are in the wrong. Period.
I don't think that anyone can argue morality on this issue other than people abiding by the TOS that they agreed to. I don't think there is anything inherently moral or immoral about an internet connection.
What is a question of morality is deciding to take a service that you are paying some company for, and which you almost guaranteed agreed to not share/sell/give away, and doing that anyway.
People talk about ISPs like they are some evil entity. In cases like Comcast or AT&T, maybe they are right. But there are a lot of ISPs that are just local businesses run by people you possibly know. They basically bundle up the service, assume the financial risk, maybe mortgage their homes, and then sell that service to customers. It isn't practical for everyone to go out and get their own T1 connection, and most people don't need that kind of bandwidth anyway. What your ISP is doing is doing the work and providing a service that they charge you for.
Is it really right to take that service, and since it is so easy to do, allow other people to use that service - whether or not they would actually get their own connection or not? If your ISP is fine with that, and apparently Speakeasy is (another post), then there is no problem. But if it is against your TOS, then anyone who violates that TOS that they agreed to is stealing from the ISP. I don't see how it could be interpreted any other way.
And the point about a family in one dwelling vs. sharing with a neighbor comes down to the exact same thing. If you agreed not to do it, then doing it is wrong. If your ISP gives you permission, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
It all comes down to whether someone agreed not to share a connection or not. It doesn't matter with whom, or whether they charge for it or not. Well, that might matter in terms of financial damages, but it all comes down to what people agreed to do.
That's it. Anything else is nothing but justification to themselves for doing something wrong if they agreed not to do it.
If your contract really does not address selling your bandwidth to other people (doubtful), then go right ahead. Just don't be surprised or complain if you get disconnected.
There are ways of probing networks and analyzing traffic and maybe your ISP will do that to see how many users are on particular node. Maybe not. But your ISP has to pay for bandwidth and power and your extra usage costs them more money.
So call your ISP and ask them if they are OK with you giving away their bandwidth. If they aren't, then tell them to just sue you. If you have a legal leg to stand on, you could make a lot of money and maybe even set some nifty precedents for everybody else and what a hero you would be then, huh?
A mesh network is no good for long-haul communications. Just about all traffic would have to make its way through all nodes. Latencies would be huge and the amount of electricity wasted would also be huge. Nodes would get choked with traffic - it would be a continual DDoS situation. You need a way to bypass all the nodes in between if you wanted to shoot a packet all the way across the USA or the globe.
Mesh networks are great in limited areas and where data rates don't come close to the available bandwidth of the network.
If you are so convinced it is all OK for you to take service from your ISP and provide it for free to your neighbors, why not call your ISP and tell them what you are doing.
I am amazed that there are so many like you that think it is OK to steal service and justify it by saying you are doing good for your neighbors.
One person in another thread was making basically the same empty points you are but had his signature say something along the lines of wondering why his internet connection cost so much. It was classic.
Heck, maybe it was even you.
And the fact that you are intentionally violating your TOS does matter - whether it can be detected or not. If you agreed not to sublet service and are now doing it, then you are in violation of the TOS, aren't you?
And there is an ethical argument. You just choose to ignore and discount it because you don't like that you are on the obviously wrong side of it.
So give up the fake virtue and just admit that you are a thief and that you are wrong. Call a spade a spade. You don't even have the backbone to do that?
Why not ask your ISP if it is legal to "sublet" your connection and thereby deprive them of a revenue stream? Even if the people you provide service to would not buy it otherwise, is it OK to add the burden of extra bandwidth to your ISP when your ISP has to pay for that bandwidth on their own backbone connection? Who cares how many people use it or about your altruistic beliefs that you should be able to do it?
Call your ISP and ask them. If they say it's ok, then you are done. If they can provide legal reason why you cannot give free service using their equipment (even if it is further upstream), then that is your answer, isn't it?
And why should the ability to discover or enforce matter when talking about right and wrong?
With such a flexible interpretation of right and wrong, maybe you should consider a career in politics...
I used to watch this show as a kid and it was wonderful. Mr. Wizard has passed away but his family still sells DVDs that are a collection of his shows.
They are all black and white and shot in one continuous show with no commercial breaks (it was live TV back then) but he explains all sorts of chemistry, physics, and everyday things in ways that kids can understand. The show is based on demonstrations that kids help out with as Mr. Wizard explains the concepts and reasons.
On DVD, it's really easy to watch a show with a young person and pause it at appropriate places to discuss what Mr. Wizard is doing. It works great and my girlfriend's daughter even says the shows are way better than what they show at her school for their science class.
Getting a basic understanding of how things work is key to being able to learn the more complicated things. Plus, these kinds of things give kids confidence to excel.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing that seemed to stick out as I was watching that video was that the researcher seemed to stutter a fair amount. Without knowing him, it's hard to say if he has always been like that or if it might be a byproduct of all of his experiments on himself.
I must be less affected by their magnets, then. It's only when I bury my head in them that I get speechless.
;-)
There still is an effect, though. When I see them, I generally respond inappropriately.
You must be referring to an empty credit card!
I don't think grounding makes a difference.
Dude, overinflated vinyl doesn't count. ;-)
Unfortunately the parent is implying 6 digits of precision in the measurement.
It would probably be more correct to say 2.4x10^5 Volkswagen Beetles in length. I would bet that even between models of Beetle, the length difference would only be a few inches.
John, your famous temper is showing again... ;-)
Maybe I don't understand what you are asking, because this all seems pretty clear to me.
Basically Discovery Channel, in return for access to all of the materials, will give NASA one or more copies of the final work.
NASA could do all of the restoration themselves but it would be very costly and I doubt, in this time of BushCo budget cuts, that NASA has the spare change to pay for the restoration.
This agreement allows both parties to benefit - a nice result.
Obviously nobody went back in time. DC used their extensive A/V resources to restore the NASA footage.
Along a different line, the DVD series "Trinity and Beyond - The Atomic Bomb Movie" is a similar endeavor. Lots of old and degraded footage cleaned up and brought back to life for transfer to digital.
Not so much of the "benefits everyone" aspect, but still very cool to see the old films cleaned up and preserved.
Uh, network bandwidth?
Well, maybe Microsoft will have the defib pads in version 2?
BSOD indeed! Just imagine how insistent Microsoft could get about validating the software?
"User authorization failure. Your software license has expired or is an illegal copy. Please purchase a legitimate license immediately or your heart will be shut down."
How will Microsoft compete? It is very common knowledge that Windows runs slower on any given system than Linux does. The low-end PCs are not beefy by any means. Linux will just feel snappier and also shouldn't need as much RAM for similar tasks.
In the low end, it seems like all MS will be doing is highlighting their shortcomings.
I am no expert in man-machine interfaces, but I think I would make the Destruct switch a different kind of switch and color than the rest of the switches. It should be red and the others orange or yellow or something.
I would just want to minimize as much as possible the chance that the destruct switch was accidentally activated if things got really hairy and fast moving and the range officer had to be prepared to blow the thing up.
I know they toggles have the red guards on them so the officer would have to flip it up before actuating, and from the article it appears to be a two-step process (arm then destruct), but four identical switches next to each other for such a critical function just seems a bit risky to me. I think I might even make it a two-person job where the 2nd could destruct only after the first armed.
But then I realize that by delaying the destruction, many more lives could be put in danger if the assembly was headed over populated areas. Still, four identical switches and buttons right next to each other, with such dissimilar functions seems a bit risky to me.
I was hoping the article would say what kind of OS this crime server was running. It doesn't.
;-)
But they do speculate that the people/person running it were/is amateurs.
Hmmmmm. I wonder what OS they were running... Hmmmm...
Uh, wow.
You. Yeah you with the moronic and myopic view of the world. Go away. You don't belong here.
Actually there is. Your ISP more than likely pays by the byte. By letting your neighbor use your connection, you are adding cost to your ISP and also possibly depriving them of the revenue that might come if your neighbor had no alternative but to pay for his/her own connection.
The coffee shop and library will have contracts with their ISP that allow them to share their connection. They don't just sign up for a standard user connection. They will have a commercial account of some kind that they will pay extra for simply because the ISP realizes that people may use that connection exclusively instead of getting their own. Plus they will also expect higher utilization of the connection over longer periods of time than for a home connection.
I really don't understand at all how people like you can be so dense about this.
What it really comes down to is if you are doing something you agreed not to do. If so, then you are in the wrong. Period.
I don't think that anyone can argue morality on this issue other than people abiding by the TOS that they agreed to. I don't think there is anything inherently moral or immoral about an internet connection.
What is a question of morality is deciding to take a service that you are paying some company for, and which you almost guaranteed agreed to not share/sell/give away, and doing that anyway.
People talk about ISPs like they are some evil entity. In cases like Comcast or AT&T, maybe they are right. But there are a lot of ISPs that are just local businesses run by people you possibly know. They basically bundle up the service, assume the financial risk, maybe mortgage their homes, and then sell that service to customers. It isn't practical for everyone to go out and get their own T1 connection, and most people don't need that kind of bandwidth anyway. What your ISP is doing is doing the work and providing a service that they charge you for.
Is it really right to take that service, and since it is so easy to do, allow other people to use that service - whether or not they would actually get their own connection or not? If your ISP is fine with that, and apparently Speakeasy is (another post), then there is no problem. But if it is against your TOS, then anyone who violates that TOS that they agreed to is stealing from the ISP. I don't see how it could be interpreted any other way.
And the point about a family in one dwelling vs. sharing with a neighbor comes down to the exact same thing. If you agreed not to do it, then doing it is wrong. If your ISP gives you permission, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
It all comes down to whether someone agreed not to share a connection or not. It doesn't matter with whom, or whether they charge for it or not. Well, that might matter in terms of financial damages, but it all comes down to what people agreed to do.
That's it. Anything else is nothing but justification to themselves for doing something wrong if they agreed not to do it.
Check out the Lantronix XPort.
If your contract really does not address selling your bandwidth to other people (doubtful), then go right ahead. Just don't be surprised or complain if you get disconnected.
There are ways of probing networks and analyzing traffic and maybe your ISP will do that to see how many users are on particular node. Maybe not. But your ISP has to pay for bandwidth and power and your extra usage costs them more money.
So call your ISP and ask them if they are OK with you giving away their bandwidth. If they aren't, then tell them to just sue you. If you have a legal leg to stand on, you could make a lot of money and maybe even set some nifty precedents for everybody else and what a hero you would be then, huh?
A mesh network is no good for long-haul communications. Just about all traffic would have to make its way through all nodes. Latencies would be huge and the amount of electricity wasted would also be huge. Nodes would get choked with traffic - it would be a continual DDoS situation. You need a way to bypass all the nodes in between if you wanted to shoot a packet all the way across the USA or the globe.
Mesh networks are great in limited areas and where data rates don't come close to the available bandwidth of the network.
If you are so convinced it is all OK for you to take service from your ISP and provide it for free to your neighbors, why not call your ISP and tell them what you are doing.
I am amazed that there are so many like you that think it is OK to steal service and justify it by saying you are doing good for your neighbors.
One person in another thread was making basically the same empty points you are but had his signature say something along the lines of wondering why his internet connection cost so much. It was classic.
Heck, maybe it was even you.
And the fact that you are intentionally violating your TOS does matter - whether it can be detected or not. If you agreed not to sublet service and are now doing it, then you are in violation of the TOS, aren't you?
And there is an ethical argument. You just choose to ignore and discount it because you don't like that you are on the obviously wrong side of it.
So give up the fake virtue and just admit that you are a thief and that you are wrong. Call a spade a spade. You don't even have the backbone to do that?
You should think about these questions:
Why not ask your ISP if it is legal to "sublet" your connection and thereby deprive them of a revenue stream? Even if the people you provide service to would not buy it otherwise, is it OK to add the burden of extra bandwidth to your ISP when your ISP has to pay for that bandwidth on their own backbone connection? Who cares how many people use it or about your altruistic beliefs that you should be able to do it?
Call your ISP and ask them. If they say it's ok, then you are done. If they can provide legal reason why you cannot give free service using their equipment (even if it is further upstream), then that is your answer, isn't it?
And why should the ability to discover or enforce matter when talking about right and wrong?
With such a flexible interpretation of right and wrong, maybe you should consider a career in politics...
Why is that different from music piracy?
If you steal music you are depriving someone of royalties or commission. If you steal bandwidth, you are depriving someone of compensation too.
I just do not see the difference - both are taking something for your own use and not paying for it.
I used to watch this show as a kid and it was wonderful. Mr. Wizard has passed away but his family still sells DVDs that are a collection of his shows.
They are all black and white and shot in one continuous show with no commercial breaks (it was live TV back then) but he explains all sorts of chemistry, physics, and everyday things in ways that kids can understand. The show is based on demonstrations that kids help out with as Mr. Wizard explains the concepts and reasons.
On DVD, it's really easy to watch a show with a young person and pause it at appropriate places to discuss what Mr. Wizard is doing. It works great and my girlfriend's daughter even says the shows are way better than what they show at her school for their science class.
Getting a basic understanding of how things work is key to being able to learn the more complicated things. Plus, these kinds of things give kids confidence to excel.
Mr. Wizard DVDs are available at: http://www.mrwizardstudios.com/
Am I in violation of your ethical standards with regard to theft from ISPs?
I think you can answer that question yourself.
Better yet, why not call your ISP up and provide them with the same details you listed here and let them tell you if you are in violation?
Wouldn't that be the ethical thing to do? Or are you afraid that you really are in violation and they might charge you more or terminate your service?
If you aren't afraid to do it, why not speak from a position of authority? Call them up and get back to us on their answer.