You are absolutely right. Makes perfect sense. The trouble is that the scientist is basically saying the exact same thing you are, with just as much evidence. It's a non-story, until he actually FINDS evidence one way or another.
All it is now is a press release. Announcing the INTENT to do something scientific.
Yeah, there seems to be nothing of substance there.
I'm mean, I'm SURE we had sex with neandertals; it's nearly absurd to suggest we didn't. However, there's absolutely no point to the article until some DNA or other evidence is found.
For one thing, games don't consume very much bandwidth compared to streaming or downloading media. For another, High lag gaming sucks, it would essentially stop once network latencies went much above the norm. Youtube might see an increase, but an increase large enough to threaten the internet would surely take out even the mighty Youtube servers.
Right... I think it's a self-correcting phenomenon. If the internet was overwhelmed, performance would suffer, usage of non-essential services (like entertainment) would subsequently decline. It's a bit like fuel shortages and gas prices. Imagine that.
The problem with your idea (even though it seems reasonable) is the simple fact that some coders are bastards (see the utorrent decision to use UDP to avoid shaping): they'll simply alter their applications to mark their packets as high priority and then you are back to square one.
Bastards? No, it's a sensible response to ridiculous treatment FROM bastards. You want them to cooperate in their destruction?
Yeah, this is a short term panic. They can try to scare us with other diseases after H1N1 passes (there have been others in the last few years), but I think fatigue will set in. People will stop caring. Bird flu didn't kill us all, Swine flu won't kill us all... after a while, government warnings about 'potential pandemics' will stop scaring people.
It's happening with global warming, too. Whether you think it's an eminent catastrophe, bunk, or somewhere in between, it's clear that the overall level of public concern has been dropping off over the last year or two. I think it's due to fatigue, and a few too many overblown/exaggerated claims. Many of the potential laws and regulations that the government was counting on pushing through to 'protect us against global climate change' are no longer a sure thing.
The fall of the USSR has left a threat gap that our government hasn't been able to fill, yet. We need a giant psychic squid attack in New York.
Wow - what a craptastic mind you must have - just because your symptoms were on the mild side you characterize the illness with mocking derision. After all it doesn't matter that in some cases it has killed relatively healthy children in as little as two days.
The flu ALWAYS kids kids, every year. Hundreds and thousands.
And I think your attitude is just as worthy of mocking derision as is overblown hysteria over swine flu.
His phrasing was correct. It was a proposed bill that would give the president the described power. Your nitpicking takes you further from clear understanding, not closer.
Old, obscure, and foreign movies are the only reasons I would subscribe to Netflix. None of my local rental stores have "The Thin Man." Can you believe that? They have all the SAW movies...
It's not being an MS apologist, you paranoid git. It's being cognizant of the meaning of words. Limited exclusitivity is common, particularly in the gaming field, and typically referred to as, yes, "exclusive". If you had asked MS if "They could guarantee that NetFlix could never, ever, offer a movie on any other console ever", of course they would say there was no such agreement. Fallout 3 was touted as an MS exclusive; it's now made its way onto the PS3. There's been similar Sony exclusives that are now on the 360. They were exclusives, now they're not.
I don't own a 360; but I don't twist words to try to find excuses to hate. The summary is guilty of that. Geez. Unreasonable hate directed at MS just makes the REASONABLE hate directed at MS seem less valid. I'd tone it down.
He's sharing his bandwidth with Canonical. Each downloader uses just as much bandwidth, but without torrents, the original source (Canonical) would need to provide 100% of the data. With torrents, that is distributed among all participants. I think it's very fair to use the term 'sharing bandwidth'.
Cyberterror could do some nasty things, such as stealing financial information; but as far as disrupting vital systems, we're pretty safe... because computers and software are so damn unreliable that nobody EXPECTS them to work all the time. Every business and organization should KNOW, from experience, that their computer system could go belly up at any time, and have backup methods and redundancies ready to go.
I'd wager that lots of cyber-terrorist attacks would just seem like a normal Monday. If a computer glitch could kill a million people... well, that's probably going to happy terrorist or not.
I'll explain why you're wrong, although you don't really want to know.
The Nuremberg Defense is an attempt to justify a soldier's war crimes, by shifting blame to the superiors who gave the order to commit atrocities. It is generally recognized as a faulty defense.
The reason 99% of American soldiers can plead innocent of war crimes, WITHOUT being an example of the Nuremberg defense, is because they HAVEN'T COMMITTED WARCRIMES. The very small minority that have (and there have been some) are not allowed to use such as a defense.
In other words, using the Nuremberg Defense is only possible if you truly have committed war crimes. Fighting honorably in service towards goals that Dickhead doesn't happen to agree with does not rise to the level of atrocity.
There is no way for you to prove that what you consider to be "good and right" is an absolute, moral truth that holds in all cases, for everyone, everywhere, and throughout all time. You simply choose what you consider best and "right" at this moment and are claiming that it is, always will be, and always has been the only right and correct way to do things. Absent an omnipotent higher power telling us (directly and convincingly) what absolute moral truth is, at best all you can say is what you consider to be right and ethical for your culture at this particular time. Even then you're going to find people who disagree. Your position is no more ethically righteous than anyone other. It may work better in practice--and that is even debatable--but it doesn't come from some higher moral authority allowing you to make claims about what is "good and right."
I make no claims to a "higher moral authority", at least anything higher than an attempt at logic and reason. Certainly there's no dictate from a god. Now, I DO choose what I consider "right"... as a human, there's no other way to act. I'm faced with choices, and either need to decide what's right, or be reduced to random behavior (or inactivity).
And one of the precepts that I consider "right" is that I should allow others to make that choice for themselves as much as possible, since I may be mistaken. Hence... my believe in free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of trade.
Despite what evidence? You mean the conglomerate of dictators that declare to use a system that is entirely based on democracy? For the love of Christ go out and do some research. Go to Wikipedia and look up communism. Communism is closer to democracy than America is
Yes, I'm saying that, rather than looking at Marx's utopian writings, look at the results of every single implementation of it that has been tried in reality. I agree, they've been nothing like Marx desired. Now ask yourself, why is that? It's not by chance. It's not a coincidence that progress correlates so closely to both freedom and capitalism.
In a proper free market, money gives you no more freedom. Just more stuff. (This is slashdot, so we should be clear on the different meanings of freedom. I'm talking libre.)
Looking back, I realize that you weren't claiming that Marxism wouldn't be better, but rather challenging the assertion that it is more realistic. Maybe I've just added fuel to that argument.
Well, I DON'T think it would be better, but my point was that it wasn't realistic. That you're saying there's never been an implementation of it in reality (and I doubt there ever will be), kind of backs that up.
Aren't you required to vigorously defend your trademark or else stand to lose it?
That doesn't mean you're obligated to make over-reaching claims about your trademark. The obviously correct position would be to send C&D letters to people using 'sparc' without permission. Perhaps even to a company that sold "spark servers". That's all that's needed. Their trademark on "SPARC" would not be weakened at all by the continued existence of "SparkFun".
Slashdot Mirror
I had always heard it was the Irish. Seriously.
You are absolutely right. Makes perfect sense. The trouble is that the scientist is basically saying the exact same thing you are, with just as much evidence. It's a non-story, until he actually FINDS evidence one way or another. All it is now is a press release. Announcing the INTENT to do something scientific.
Rosie O'Donnell.
Yeah, there seems to be nothing of substance there.
I'm mean, I'm SURE we had sex with neandertals; it's nearly absurd to suggest we didn't. However, there's absolutely no point to the article until some DNA or other evidence is found.
For one thing, games don't consume very much bandwidth compared to streaming or downloading media. For another, High lag gaming sucks, it would essentially stop once network latencies went much above the norm. Youtube might see an increase, but an increase large enough to threaten the internet would surely take out even the mighty Youtube servers.
Right... I think it's a self-correcting phenomenon. If the internet was overwhelmed, performance would suffer, usage of non-essential services (like entertainment) would subsequently decline. It's a bit like fuel shortages and gas prices. Imagine that.
The problem with your idea (even though it seems reasonable) is the simple fact that some coders are bastards (see the utorrent decision to use UDP to avoid shaping): they'll simply alter their applications to mark their packets as high priority and then you are back to square one.
Bastards? No, it's a sensible response to ridiculous treatment FROM bastards. You want them to cooperate in their destruction?
Yeah, this is a short term panic. They can try to scare us with other diseases after H1N1 passes (there have been others in the last few years), but I think fatigue will set in. People will stop caring. Bird flu didn't kill us all, Swine flu won't kill us all... after a while, government warnings about 'potential pandemics' will stop scaring people.
It's happening with global warming, too. Whether you think it's an eminent catastrophe, bunk, or somewhere in between, it's clear that the overall level of public concern has been dropping off over the last year or two. I think it's due to fatigue, and a few too many overblown/exaggerated claims. Many of the potential laws and regulations that the government was counting on pushing through to 'protect us against global climate change' are no longer a sure thing.
The fall of the USSR has left a threat gap that our government hasn't been able to fill, yet. We need a giant psychic squid attack in New York.
I think you could argue that the SSA has done more and longer-term damage to America than DHS has.
Wow - what a craptastic mind you must have - just because your symptoms were on the mild side you characterize the illness with mocking derision. After all it doesn't matter that in some cases it has killed relatively healthy children in as little as two days.
The flu ALWAYS kids kids, every year. Hundreds and thousands.
And I think your attitude is just as worthy of mocking derision as is overblown hysteria over swine flu.
I think you're wrong, and so are the court cases that claimed that.
His phrasing was correct. It was a proposed bill that would give the president the described power. Your nitpicking takes you further from clear understanding, not closer.
Old, obscure, and foreign movies are the only reasons I would subscribe to Netflix. None of my local rental stores have "The Thin Man." Can you believe that? They have all the SAW movies...
It's not being an MS apologist, you paranoid git. It's being cognizant of the meaning of words. Limited exclusitivity is common, particularly in the gaming field, and typically referred to as, yes, "exclusive". If you had asked MS if "They could guarantee that NetFlix could never, ever, offer a movie on any other console ever", of course they would say there was no such agreement. Fallout 3 was touted as an MS exclusive; it's now made its way onto the PS3. There's been similar Sony exclusives that are now on the 360. They were exclusives, now they're not.
I don't own a 360; but I don't twist words to try to find excuses to hate. The summary is guilty of that. Geez. Unreasonable hate directed at MS just makes the REASONABLE hate directed at MS seem less valid. I'd tone it down.
He's sharing his bandwidth with Canonical. Each downloader uses just as much bandwidth, but without torrents, the original source (Canonical) would need to provide 100% of the data. With torrents, that is distributed among all participants. I think it's very fair to use the term 'sharing bandwidth'.
Cyberterror could do some nasty things, such as stealing financial information; but as far as disrupting vital systems, we're pretty safe... because computers and software are so damn unreliable that nobody EXPECTS them to work all the time. Every business and organization should KNOW, from experience, that their computer system could go belly up at any time, and have backup methods and redundancies ready to go.
I'd wager that lots of cyber-terrorist attacks would just seem like a normal Monday. If a computer glitch could kill a million people... well, that's probably going to happy terrorist or not.
And furthermore, the "TL;DNR" meme is yet another example of willful ignorance in snarky packaging.
Agreed. It's aggressive idiocy, like the rephrased quoting with "FIXED IT FOR YOU" meme.
"Political Freedom" is not the same thing as "Safe from Violence". Different axis of measurement.
Ideally, you would have both. If not, possessing the first is worth sacrificing the second.
You didn't read the comment. He said "STEAL".
Not "Allow to develop and market".
I'll explain why you're wrong, although you don't really want to know.
The Nuremberg Defense is an attempt to justify a soldier's war crimes, by shifting blame to the superiors who gave the order to commit atrocities. It is generally recognized as a faulty defense.
The reason 99% of American soldiers can plead innocent of war crimes, WITHOUT being an example of the Nuremberg defense, is because they HAVEN'T COMMITTED WARCRIMES. The very small minority that have (and there have been some) are not allowed to use such as a defense.
In other words, using the Nuremberg Defense is only possible if you truly have committed war crimes. Fighting honorably in service towards goals that Dickhead doesn't happen to agree with does not rise to the level of atrocity.
Our "Side"? Free Constitutional Rebublic.
Their "Side"? Despotic Religious Theocracy.
Yes, that's a blatant generalization. But as blatant generalizations go, it's more accurate than yours.
There is no way for you to prove that what you consider to be "good and right" is an absolute, moral truth that holds in all cases, for everyone, everywhere, and throughout all time. You simply choose what you consider best and "right" at this moment and are claiming that it is, always will be, and always has been the only right and correct way to do things. Absent an omnipotent higher power telling us (directly and convincingly) what absolute moral truth is, at best all you can say is what you consider to be right and ethical for your culture at this particular time. Even then you're going to find people who disagree. Your position is no more ethically righteous than anyone other. It may work better in practice--and that is even debatable--but it doesn't come from some higher moral authority allowing you to make claims about what is "good and right."
I make no claims to a "higher moral authority", at least anything higher than an attempt at logic and reason. Certainly there's no dictate from a god. Now, I DO choose what I consider "right"... as a human, there's no other way to act. I'm faced with choices, and either need to decide what's right, or be reduced to random behavior (or inactivity).
And one of the precepts that I consider "right" is that I should allow others to make that choice for themselves as much as possible, since I may be mistaken. Hence... my believe in free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of trade.
Despite what evidence? You mean the conglomerate of dictators that declare to use a system that is entirely based on democracy? For the love of Christ go out and do some research. Go to Wikipedia and look up communism. Communism is closer to democracy than America is
Yes, I'm saying that, rather than looking at Marx's utopian writings, look at the results of every single implementation of it that has been tried in reality. I agree, they've been nothing like Marx desired. Now ask yourself, why is that? It's not by chance. It's not a coincidence that progress correlates so closely to both freedom and capitalism.
In a proper free market, money gives you no more freedom. Just more stuff. (This is slashdot, so we should be clear on the different meanings of freedom. I'm talking libre.)
Looking back, I realize that you weren't claiming that Marxism wouldn't be better, but rather challenging the assertion that it is more realistic. Maybe I've just added fuel to that argument.
Well, I DON'T think it would be better, but my point was that it wasn't realistic. That you're saying there's never been an implementation of it in reality (and I doubt there ever will be), kind of backs that up.
Aren't you required to vigorously defend your trademark or else stand to lose it?
That doesn't mean you're obligated to make over-reaching claims about your trademark. The obviously correct position would be to send C&D letters to people using 'sparc' without permission. Perhaps even to a company that sold "spark servers". That's all that's needed. Their trademark on "SPARC" would not be weakened at all by the continued existence of "SparkFun".