The author then goes on to speculate that some IT workers might subconsciously be giving themselves more challenges by choosing to deal with difficult problems, rather than performing simple (but boring) preventative maintenance and proactive network management.
For whatever it's worth I second that. For simple tasks I tend to make it more complicated (in a way) by creating scripts or automated procedures. Solving the boring problem in that way gives me two benefits, the fun of the challenge and hopefully no more such problems due to the script or automated procedures created. (Un)Fortunately I have enough "artistic freedom" to do things that way, though I have a feeling others might have more strict "policies". Still all IT employees work in one direction, to be able to solve every problem by pushing one button, and eventually (and hopefully) doing that from home.
Your response is pretty funny considering how DistroWatch numbers are meaningless. There are more people using Fedora than Ubuntu, and more people keep leaving Ubuntu for Fedora every day.
Your response is pretty funny considering the fact that you expect anybody to take you seriously when you pull something out of your ass like that without providing any substantial data to your claim.
Even programmers and consumers can have similar opinions. In practice disputed solutions in OSS get forked which you can as a consumer take part of. Ok if you as a consumer want a button moved a few pixels left then no, you'll most probably never find a fork or version that did this. However if you're a consumer that dislike a giant banner popping up in your face when you launch a program then I'd bet you that there's already a programmer who thought about and changed that. If you really want that button moved you can pay a programmer to do it, alternatively learn how to do it yourself. Much like everything in life.
WTF. Way to give Mozilla a free pass because it's OSS. You know, I use both open source and closed source software but I guess I am the only one who judges both by the same standard. What an asshole I am huh.
I don't see why you should since they are completely different methods of development with different expectations and outcomes, so why should I treat them the same? Just because they both fall under the category "software"? Have you ever heard of "apples and oranges"? The biggest reason I use OSS is to be able to change anything I dislike, hence the power is in my hands and not the supplier. If you dislike a certain feature in OSS applications you can always fork it, even if you don't distribute it. However if I dislike something in proprietary software I have to deal with it or switch to something else, rendering me completely powerless. Also with OSS I have the ability of knowing exactly what type of data is sent. With proprietary software I can only hope. So if you judge OSS and proprietary software by the same standard, I have to ask you: why?
It should be noted that I'm not saying that OSS suppliers can do whatever they want just because it's OSS, I'm just saying that I can't see why it's obvious that they should be treated alike, such as parent tries to imply.
Does Google advertise Internet Explorer on Youtube?
Either you're horribly offtopic or you're trying to imply that MS has a right to secretly manipulate search results in their favor (and not in the users favor such as e.g. prioritizing results from the country of which the user resides, google.es provides more spanish results and google.se provides more swedish results). If the latter then your question is irrelevant since this is not about advertisement at all. So either way you fail horribly.
I think mainly people hate the flashing banners (usually made in flash) jumping around the screen. The way google advertises is to me rather harmless. I have no problems with advertisement, it finances many of my favourite services, but when you're forced to dig your way through the ads in order to get to the content someone failed horribly. As far as I know adblock doesn't filter google ads.
No, he was right and you, as well as the idiots who modded you up, were wrong.
Net Neutrality is about the neutrality of a node on the network, it has all the same rights as every other node.
What you said was AGAINST Net Neutrality!
Isolating nodes on a network and limiting access is against it.
Let me guess, you work for one of the ISPs that are trying to confuse people in to hating Network Neutrality?
I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood me. My point was that by indulging in said activities you break net neutrality. I didn't say that the example was net neutrality, and as I said it's about net neutrality. Meaning it can be both about maintaining it and breaking it, as long as it's about net neutrality. I felt it was easier to explain the concept of net neutrality using an example that breaks it.
And no, I don't work for any ISP. And no I don't hate net neutrality, rather the contrary.
There you go. Also I highly doubt this is a borderline case. There's been other ISPs that indulge in this kind of activities (there was one in the US recently who had the same treatment if I'm not mistaken), and that exist solely due to these activities. I don't think it's about an innocent ISP who just happens to get caught in the line of fire. If you're business is based on illegal activities, especially activities that harm everybody (such as botnets and spam), then it's no longer about net neutrality. A lot of posts seem to refer to TPB/TeliaSonera as an example, but you can't treat all crimes equally. The botnets and spams are far worse crimes as they affect everybody, while copyright issues solely affect the copyright holders. If I'm not mistaken (as I'm not American) copyright issues are civil cases while spam and botnet issues are criminal cases.
Limited discrimination and tiering
This approach allows higher fees for QoS as long as there is no exclusivity in service contracts. According to Tim Berners-Lee: "If I pay to connect to the Net with a given quality of service, and you pay to connect to the net with the same or higher quality of service, then you and I can communicate across the net, with that quality of service."[1] "[We] each pay to connect to the Net, but no one can pay for exclusive access to me."
Net neutrality is about isolating "independent" parts of the internet accessable only to those who sign up with a specific ISP, not about cutting off illegal activities entirely. E.g. you sign up with Comcast and you're allowed visit bbc.com, and if you don't you'll have to live without it.
While I'm not certain about Latvia (although my guess is that it obviously is) sending spam mail is illegal in most countries around the world, not to mention creating botnets. I think you've misunderstood the concept of net neutrality. Net neutrality is about preventing ISP cartels so that e.g. consumers aren't forced into signing up with an ISP simply because this ISP is the only one "licensed" to access certain hosts, such as e.g. a web TV service from a specific broadcasting network.
Perhaps the malice these researchers feel towards Latvia is similar in some way to the anger the RIAA feels towards filesharers?
Latvia? You're taking things out of context. This is not about Latvia in general, this is about a Latvian ISP responsible for a shitload of spam and botnets. You're free to replace Latvia for any country you wish and it wouldn't make a difference. Also I think it's fair to say that RIAA only serve their interests, whilst spam and botnets concern anybody who uses internet.
Translation: "We have too much traffic on our websites so plans are in place to drop that volume of visitors dramatically."
Good, because I'm sick and tired of only having "mass appealing" news to read. Bullshit stories that only attract visitors, looking for something "astonishing", in order to gain ad exposure. News today is free for one reason, because it's fucking worthless. If someone is able to provide a proper news service, yet to be seen since the internet era, with proper journalists I would be happy to pay for the service. But to pay for bullshit headlines and ridiculous stories, no thank you.
Long answer: Since the picture taken isn't very appealing for the general population such a headline might be confusing and in the end disappointing for the common reader. In order to reach out to the masses one needs to compromise so that anyone, besides astronomers or those interested in astronomy, can find it interesting. While ESO published the artists picture as well it seems that other news publishers have chosen to focus on it rather than providing it as an insightful interpretation to what the star might look like. Since the picture is undoubtly beautiful it will most likely spread faster and wider than the story would alone, giving the story a chance to hitch a ride on this fame. Naturally this means more advertisement exposure for the news sites that published the story resulting in additional revenue.
Exactly what I was thinking. Then again I'm not surprised to see idiots buy into the good vs evil fairytale. People are so self centered that they genuinely think they're some sort of paladins.
... Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at security firm F-Secure was told not to talk in detail about the Conficker gang...
Ok, what could possibly be the reason for this? I can only think of one, which is simply an effort to keep the malware alive (even though it's "dead") in order to scare users into buying their software for protection they don't need, and until someone provides another probable motive I'll discourage anybody to use F-Secure.
No he should. We're reasoning like RIAA, she's a fucking anti-american communist pirate mooch and it would be only fair to give her the death sentence.
Or we could just applaud that this isn't true -- yet.
"PIN code": Personal Identification Number Code: It's a code that I use to access my personal identification number?
"ATM dispenser": Automatic Teller Machine Dispenser: It's a machine that dispenses automatic teller machines?
Wow, talk about a severe case of fallancy of the single cause. Anyway, no a PIN code is a Personal Identification Number Code, which is a code consisiting of numbers that allows one to identify oneself. An ATM dispenser is an automated teller machine which dispenses cash. I realise it's not perfect english, but it's not as flawed as you try to make it sound.
PIN code and ATM dispenser are perfect examples. Your argument regarding PIN number being too close to PIN code is irrelevant as the point was to avoid being redundant.
Slashdot Mirror
The author then goes on to speculate that some IT workers might subconsciously be giving themselves more challenges by choosing to deal with difficult problems, rather than performing simple (but boring) preventative maintenance and proactive network management.
For whatever it's worth I second that. For simple tasks I tend to make it more complicated (in a way) by creating scripts or automated procedures. Solving the boring problem in that way gives me two benefits, the fun of the challenge and hopefully no more such problems due to the script or automated procedures created. (Un)Fortunately I have enough "artistic freedom" to do things that way, though I have a feeling others might have more strict "policies". Still all IT employees work in one direction, to be able to solve every problem by pushing one button, and eventually (and hopefully) doing that from home.
Your response is pretty funny considering how DistroWatch numbers are meaningless. There are more people using Fedora than Ubuntu, and more people keep leaving Ubuntu for Fedora every day.
Your response is pretty funny considering the fact that you expect anybody to take you seriously when you pull something out of your ass like that without providing any substantial data to your claim.
Even programmers and consumers can have similar opinions. In practice disputed solutions in OSS get forked which you can as a consumer take part of. Ok if you as a consumer want a button moved a few pixels left then no, you'll most probably never find a fork or version that did this. However if you're a consumer that dislike a giant banner popping up in your face when you launch a program then I'd bet you that there's already a programmer who thought about and changed that. If you really want that button moved you can pay a programmer to do it, alternatively learn how to do it yourself. Much like everything in life.
WTF. Way to give Mozilla a free pass because it's OSS. You know, I use both open source and closed source software but I guess I am the only one who judges both by the same standard. What an asshole I am huh.
I don't see why you should since they are completely different methods of development with different expectations and outcomes, so why should I treat them the same? Just because they both fall under the category "software"? Have you ever heard of "apples and oranges"? The biggest reason I use OSS is to be able to change anything I dislike, hence the power is in my hands and not the supplier. If you dislike a certain feature in OSS applications you can always fork it, even if you don't distribute it. However if I dislike something in proprietary software I have to deal with it or switch to something else, rendering me completely powerless. Also with OSS I have the ability of knowing exactly what type of data is sent. With proprietary software I can only hope. So if you judge OSS and proprietary software by the same standard, I have to ask you: why?
It should be noted that I'm not saying that OSS suppliers can do whatever they want just because it's OSS, I'm just saying that I can't see why it's obvious that they should be treated alike, such as parent tries to imply.
Does Google advertise Internet Explorer on Youtube?
Either you're horribly offtopic or you're trying to imply that MS has a right to secretly manipulate search results in their favor (and not in the users favor such as e.g. prioritizing results from the country of which the user resides, google.es provides more spanish results and google.se provides more swedish results). If the latter then your question is irrelevant since this is not about advertisement at all. So either way you fail horribly.
"Net neutrality is about isolating "independent" parts of the internet accessable only to those who sign up with a specific ISP"
Correct
"Net neutrality is isolating "independent" parts of the internet accessable only to those who sign up with a specific ISP"
Incorrect
Honestly, we both mean the same thing so why not just leave it at that and leave semantics out of it?
No but haha nonetheless.
You're absolutely right. You know all these years of adblock usage has made me completely unaware of how much it actually filters.
Adblock off
Adblock on
I think mainly people hate the flashing banners (usually made in flash) jumping around the screen. The way google advertises is to me rather harmless. I have no problems with advertisement, it finances many of my favourite services, but when you're forced to dig your way through the ads in order to get to the content someone failed horribly. As far as I know adblock doesn't filter google ads.
No, he was right and you, as well as the idiots who modded you up, were wrong.
Net Neutrality is about the neutrality of a node on the network, it has all the same rights as every other node. What you said was AGAINST Net Neutrality! Isolating nodes on a network and limiting access is against it.
Let me guess, you work for one of the ISPs that are trying to confuse people in to hating Network Neutrality?
I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood me. My point was that by indulging in said activities you break net neutrality. I didn't say that the example was net neutrality, and as I said it's about net neutrality. Meaning it can be both about maintaining it and breaking it, as long as it's about net neutrality. I felt it was easier to explain the concept of net neutrality using an example that breaks it.
And no, I don't work for any ISP. And no I don't hate net neutrality, rather the contrary.
There you go. Also I highly doubt this is a borderline case. There's been other ISPs that indulge in this kind of activities (there was one in the US recently who had the same treatment if I'm not mistaken), and that exist solely due to these activities. I don't think it's about an innocent ISP who just happens to get caught in the line of fire. If you're business is based on illegal activities, especially activities that harm everybody (such as botnets and spam), then it's no longer about net neutrality. A lot of posts seem to refer to TPB/TeliaSonera as an example, but you can't treat all crimes equally. The botnets and spams are far worse crimes as they affect everybody, while copyright issues solely affect the copyright holders. If I'm not mistaken (as I'm not American) copyright issues are civil cases while spam and botnet issues are criminal cases.
Limited discrimination and tiering
This approach allows higher fees for QoS as long as there is no exclusivity in service contracts. According to Tim Berners-Lee: "If I pay to connect to the Net with a given quality of service, and you pay to connect to the net with the same or higher quality of service, then you and I can communicate across the net, with that quality of service."[1] "[We] each pay to connect to the Net, but no one can pay for exclusive access to me."
Source
Net neutrality is about isolating "independent" parts of the internet accessable only to those who sign up with a specific ISP, not about cutting off illegal activities entirely. E.g. you sign up with Comcast and you're allowed visit bbc.com, and if you don't you'll have to live without it.
While I'm not certain about Latvia (although my guess is that it obviously is) sending spam mail is illegal in most countries around the world, not to mention creating botnets. I think you've misunderstood the concept of net neutrality. Net neutrality is about preventing ISP cartels so that e.g. consumers aren't forced into signing up with an ISP simply because this ISP is the only one "licensed" to access certain hosts, such as e.g. a web TV service from a specific broadcasting network.
Perhaps the malice these researchers feel towards Latvia is similar in some way to the anger the RIAA feels towards filesharers?
Latvia? You're taking things out of context. This is not about Latvia in general, this is about a Latvian ISP responsible for a shitload of spam and botnets. You're free to replace Latvia for any country you wish and it wouldn't make a difference. Also I think it's fair to say that RIAA only serve their interests, whilst spam and botnets concern anybody who uses internet.
Translation: "We have too much traffic on our websites so plans are in place to drop that volume of visitors dramatically."
Good, because I'm sick and tired of only having "mass appealing" news to read. Bullshit stories that only attract visitors, looking for something "astonishing", in order to gain ad exposure. News today is free for one reason, because it's fucking worthless. If someone is able to provide a proper news service, yet to be seen since the internet era, with proper journalists I would be happy to pay for the service. But to pay for bullshit headlines and ridiculous stories, no thank you.
They're only allowed to shoot people on command.
-Soldier! Get down and give me 20 twits!
Short answer: People are idiots.
Long answer: Since the picture taken isn't very appealing for the general population such a headline might be confusing and in the end disappointing for the common reader. In order to reach out to the masses one needs to compromise so that anyone, besides astronomers or those interested in astronomy, can find it interesting. While ESO published the artists picture as well it seems that other news publishers have chosen to focus on it rather than providing it as an insightful interpretation to what the star might look like. Since the picture is undoubtly beautiful it will most likely spread faster and wider than the story would alone, giving the story a chance to hitch a ride on this fame. Naturally this means more advertisement exposure for the news sites that published the story resulting in additional revenue.
Exactly what I was thinking. Then again I'm not surprised to see idiots buy into the good vs evil fairytale. People are so self centered that they genuinely think they're some sort of paladins.
... Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at security firm F-Secure was told not to talk in detail about the Conficker gang...
Ok, what could possibly be the reason for this? I can only think of one, which is simply an effort to keep the malware alive (even though it's "dead") in order to scare users into buying their software for protection they don't need, and until someone provides another probable motive I'll discourage anybody to use F-Secure.
Gorilla mage casts HIV.
You take 23 damage!
You're poisoned!
And that's how babies are made.
No he should. We're reasoning like RIAA, she's a fucking anti-american communist pirate mooch and it would be only fair to give her the death sentence.
Or we could just applaud that this isn't true -- yet.
PIN code and ATM dispenser are perfect examples.
Your proposed alternatives make no sense:
"PIN code": Personal Identification Number Code: It's a code that I use to access my personal identification number?
"ATM dispenser": Automatic Teller Machine Dispenser: It's a machine that dispenses automatic teller machines?
Wow, talk about a severe case of fallancy of the single cause. Anyway, no a PIN code is a Personal Identification Number Code, which is a code consisiting of numbers that allows one to identify oneself. An ATM dispenser is an automated teller machine which dispenses cash. I realise it's not perfect english, but it's not as flawed as you try to make it sound.
Kinda ruins the game, already knowing the ending and major plot-devices, doesn't it?
"No, but I've seen the movie" becomes "No but I've played the game" when "Read a book" becomes "Watch a movie". Strange times we live in.
But what's the alternative?
PIN code and ATM dispenser are perfect examples. Your argument regarding PIN number being too close to PIN code is irrelevant as the point was to avoid being redundant.