There have been documents on Wikileaks indicating that Enemy Combatants have been indicated and incarcerated entirely on hearsay and possession of propaganda. This is particularly frightening since even US Citizens can be given this label, and the fact that there has been a suspension of habeas corpus.
Of course, Bush won't explain it this way, he prefers New Speak.
Yes, but no. Its a hypervisor *like* Xen, which supports Xen guest kernels, but the hypervisor is completely rewritten from the ground up. This will allow a migration path to, or from, Xen for those interested. Its surprisingly open of Microsoft, because it really gives their customers a good option to migrate away from their platform. On the other hand, it might not be entirely bad news for Xen users, because if Citrix really mucks stuff up, you've always got the choice to move to a Microsoft solution. A Microsoft solution might not be ideal, but its better than being left stranded without any solution if, for some reason, Citrix drops the ball.
Overall, though, I'm not that sure these developments are good for Linux -- because Citrix is very much in the Microsoft camp. Xen users have found themselves now reliant on Citrix and/or Microsoft. This is concerning, and I for one am following it closely.
It is possible to come up with a system where you get a 'good key' and a 'bad key'. You can give the 'bad key' to prove to someone that you voted to their satisfaction, and use the 'good key' to prove to yourself that your vote was counted. Only you can possibly know which key is the legitimate one.
This is one of those typical gimmicks you see often in spy movies, in fact they used this in the Bourne Ultimatum.
You know, now that we're talking about this, I'd almost ask if we should be worried about this...
However, I personally have had a real-life situation where my (now ex-) employer/required/ that every employee email their congressman, with a CC to the company president, asking to stop a state law that could impact our company's profits. It was not explicitly stated that there would be consequences, but they followed up with everyone that did not complete this "task" by the deadline. I was not very happy with this, nor were my coworkers. A number of my coworkers needed the money badly enough to do whatever was asked of them, despite any moral objections. I don't remember what I did, in case you were wondering.
What if your vote was signed with a private key? Nobody could trace the vote back to you, as long as it didn't specify your email address or name. You could lookup all votes signed your key, and confirm that your vote was accounted for.
One problem with this would be that the voter who cast the ballot could still be forced/coerced into proving that they voted in one way, or another. However, the government couldn't create a massive database of who voted how. The other problem would be in having voters create electronic keys in a secure manner.
A more simplified solution might just be to give the voter a confirmation code on the polling machine. Voters could write down this code, and check it on a website. This would give the voter a way to check their vote. Although it couldn't stop fraud, it would be enough for voters to stand up and say, "Hey, something is wrong - I *know* I voted the other way!". If coerced, they could simply say that they lost/forgot their key, or didn't vote at all.
There isn't a market in the USA for nuclear reactors, the last one was built in the 1970's, our labor is too expensive, and from what I understand, our steel industry is suffering. Being from Pennsylvania, I personally know people who were laid-off from steel mills. No, I'm really not surprised that we're not masters of manufacturing.
As others have said, the USA is a place of ideas. Intellectual property and services are our business. It is just a shame that it won't last forever. We are now in a global market place where services and IP can be created and hosted anywhere in the world, for anyone in the world. I fear that the countries with less restrictive laws will become data havens and will overtake the USA in these markets. When that happens, we won't have manufacturing, IP, or services... I guess there is always litigation, time to buy stock in SCO!
It isn't a question if this "kind of thing really does happen", there are millions of counterfeit products out there. The question is where you're looking. You don't get a lot of counterfeits in the USA, though there are some imported. A lot of economy building/rebuilding countries are a haven for counterfeit goods.
In Poland, I've read that according to polls, 50% of people admited to (still) buying counterfeit goods. I think this has a lot to do with the post-communist situation, where upon the lifting of the iron curtain, the counterfeit products arrived more quickly and at affordable prices. By the time the legitimate products were available, they were too expensive, and their brand names were already affected by the surge of counterfeit products. For instance, if you and your friends all had shirts that said "Nikee", would you buy a more expensive shirt that said "Nike"? Who the hell is "Nike", anyway?
Needless to say, they have a thriving black market.
Right, the state "armies" are considered militias. They're state-sponsored and regulated by (though distinct from) the National Guard, under command of the state governor. This doesn't mean they're not an army, just not the federal US Army, many militias call themselves by the word "Army".
I didn't say that the states could enter into treaties, I said that some have to deal with foreign relations. Foreign relations and treaties are separate, you can have foreign relations without treaties. There isn't a whole lot of talk about it, but I did find the following essay interesting: State Governments and Foreign Policy.
EU= 12 (more than that but bear with me) states, 12 languages, 12 histories (not really, but most people consider the history of THEIR countries before the one of Europe), 12 currencies, 12 head of states which went on war with each others. And no they were not called civil war. EU got started as an economic entity, USA as a political one.
Regarding currencies, didn't you know that the EU has its own currency? Sure, not every nation is using it... yet. War? When during the existence of the EU was there war between member states? Thats right, there wasn't... I suspect that if a country did want to exit the EU, it might not do so without some conflict, even if it is "allowed". The fact is that the economics of the EU have created enough lock-in to make it pretty unfavorable for anyone to leave. Do you think that once Bulgaria takes EU money to build new roads, that they can just walk away?
I'm not saying that the US and the EU are identical in construction, but there are enough similarities that one does have to question the English definition of "country" if we are to consider the US as being one, but the EU as not. Of course, this is a matter that has been considered and discussed by people much more qualified than slashdot trolls like myself. The EU is obviously not considered a country at this time, though I'm personally wondering: for how long?
I think better word than country for the EU, for now, is "federation". However, the Soviet Union was technically a federation as well, admittedly with a stronger centralized government, and you could argue that it was a country by layman's terms. By that measure, its probably better to compare the EU to the USSR, even if for political reasons it might be a less popular comparison.
Is the only difference between the EU and a federation like the USSR a matter of the strength of the centralized government? If so, how long will it be, before "EU federalists" succeed in obtaining that power?
I'm sure the member states are asking this themselves, though with divisive opinions. Currently, some states such as Poland have proven to be less inclined towards a strong central government, while some others seem happy with it.. for now, its wait and see.
The EU can enforce compliance and override member's laws. According to Wikipedia...
EU law has direct effect within the legal systems of its Member States, and overrides national law in many areas, especially in terms of economic and social policy.
As for the discussion on "if it is a country", Wikipedia continues,
The EU is not a federal government, nor is it an intergovernmental organization. It constitutes a new legal order in international law for the mutual social and economic benefit of the Member States. It is sometimes classified as supranational law.
Right... so its not the same as the US, but its not that far off? Something that does surprise me, though, is that the EU is already 56 years old!
Of course individual states in the US can break away, it is called secession, and it has happened. The last time it happened, a civil war was declared, but it happened. However, secession is often followed by war, such as when Texas broke away from Mexico and became a US state, prompting Mexican invasion in 1846 and the start of the Mexican American War.
Oh.. and just so that there isn't any confusion, just last month, The State of Montana threatened to secede from the United States over gun rights.
The United States is a collection of independent "states" with their own independent constitutions, law making bodies, courts, etc... they are then united with other "states" under a unifying constitution which provides for its own organized law-making body, courts, etc...
Now... compare this to EU "countries" which have their own independent constitutions, law making bodies, courts etc... and then are united with other "countries" under a unifying constitution which provides for its own organized law-making body, courts, etc...
Playing my own devil's advocate... Even individuals states in the USA can have their own armies, called "State Defense Forces". Although only half (25) of the states have such an army, they do exist, and all state legislatures have authorized the creation and maintenance of such forces. A final argument might be that unlike EU countries, individual states in the USA do not partake in foreign affairs and do not have foreign delegates. This might be true to an extent, but border-states, such as California and Texas, certainly must deal with some level of foreign affairs.
Hmm... yeah, the EU and the USA are really different. If the USA is a country, than the EU is a country. If Germany is a country, than Pennsylvania is too. I think this is a matter of pride and perception than it is about terminology, or even reality. Finally, a distinction should be drawn against the EU and "Europe", such as there is a distinction between the USA and "North America". One is a country, the other is a continent.
So, yes, there is some music for free here, but it isn't the whole album, and this isn't exactly the same as Radiohead's release.
According to the included PDF, and as implied by other sources, the entire album is licensed according to the Creative Commons license. They are only providing official downloads of Volume I, but it will be legal to download unofficial downloads of Volumes II-IV.
Having downloaded the official Volume I, I can say that it is very impressive packaging for an electronic download. They made good use of OSX resource forks to give each track its own individual icon, included an electronic booklet (PDF), wallpapers, marketing materials, etc. Compared to the other electronic downloads I've done... from RadioHead, Phish, Audio Lunchbox, allofmp3, iTunes, and Amazon, this is by far the most professional looking packaging so far. I'm curious how "luxurious" the physical packaging is..
After a few listens, assuming it doesn't suck, I'll probably toss $5 Reznor's way to get FLAC files. I never did pay Radiohead, I just didn't like their new album.
You're not allowed to go to Cuba, but many do regardless. You're also not allowed to spend money while there, iirc.
Something I found funny last year... Poland, as a former communist nation has enjoyed tourism to Cuba for decades. It is a popular vacation spot. Hunting for an exotic vacation, we visited several travel agencies, and kept getting pushed deal to go to Cuba.. it was quite shocking for them to hear that as US Citizens we weren't allowed to go there. Remember, we're quite still allowed to go to all kinds of other states, including but not limited to Russia, Belarus, Iran, and China.
Ditto for the US military in Iraq - they could have blasted Iraq to hell in a few weeks, and just gone home.
That was, I believe, plan A. We blasted them hard and fast, then took Bagdad. Bush came on TV and declared that the war was over. However, insurgency followed, as should have been expected. The any more "blasting them to hell" than we already did would've been genocide.
It is exactly your attitude that lead us to the Iraq war. No military able to match ours? What about guerrilla fighters? The guerrillas in Iraq seem to be giving us a good run for the money (just look at the deficit). I'm sorry, but nukes are useless if they're unused. I'm not saying we should use nukes, no, but the US has to stop thinking they can win ground battles based on the size of their nuclear arsenal.
It is as silly as the British thinking they can win ground battles based on the size of the Royal Navy.
The interface is a bit simple perhaps, but functional. I know accountants that hate the interfaces of Quickbooks and Quicken because the interface is mostly fluff. Experienced accountants don't need to use wizards... I believe my wife prefers Gnucash's "down and dirty" interface because it doesn't try to play dumb, it dumps her into the general ledger and lets her do her work. On the other hand, she has said that Gnucash doesn't offer everything one might expect from Quickbooks, but compared to Quicken? Its no contest.
The thing is that Gnucash doesn't have an interface for mom-and-pop. It doesn't have big buttons when you first run it, that say, "Pay a Bill" or whatever Quicken does. Instead, its an accounting package. Yes, that requires a little bit of training if you're not already an accountant. Of course, the Gnucash manual has a guide for Quicken users to help them migrate and get acquainted with double-entry accounting.
While accounting packages in Linux are slacking, Quicken can be easily replaced by Gnucash as it is much more feature-rich where it counts. Gnucash can import from Quicken. Gnucash is a true double-entry accounting system, which Quicken is not, so there will be a learning curve if you're not an accountant, but it isn't that hard to grasp.
There are other programs too, some easier for home users, and others for businesses... but Gnucash is an easy recommendation for home users and small, single-bookkeeper businesses.
You don't fly internationally much, huh? Not many Intl. flights out of Philadelphia, not for a decent price.. or maybe you spend more on your flight, to save the $8?
Personally, I've paid $10/day for wireless plenty of times. I actually spent about $20 in Berlin for internet, when I was stuck there waiting for a layover. I wouldn't consider myself desperate when paying, but I do use it for business, not pleasure.
The problem I see is that some protocols, such as SMTP, provide little in the way of authentication while consuming very little bandwidth per connection, while having access to increasingly large pipes for decreasingly small amounts of money. My point is, with SMTP messages being so small, I'm not sure it is responsible to give big pipes for SMTP traffic for a low cost. Remember, SMTP comes from a different age than online videos, and there is a big difference between a single user requesting a video online, and a server operator sending emails to thousands of users with the equivalent bandwidth.
Do you really expect to push 700,000 SMTP messages per hour on a $6/mo account? Even on a $20/mo account? While you might not see the difference between 100mbps of outbound SMTP traffic versus inbound HTTP traffic, there is the major difference. The HTTP requests are requested, while the SMTP traffic is well... not. While some HTTP content could be illegal or unwanted in some fashion, it is all requested. If a user types in whitehouse.com instead of.gov, they get what they requested, even if they didn't receive what was expected. I think the difference lies in what is responsible.
Though you might not like to hear it, I should also note it is much more affordable to offer 100mbps of HTTP traffic than it is to offer 100mbp of (outbound) SMTP traffic. I base this on the expenses associated with dealing with SPAM. In comparison to HTTP, which is "mostly harmless", the vile nature of SMTP consumes more technical resources, which drives cost.
I'm not saying that reactive methods don't work at all, but there is a definite lag between the time that the first message is sent and when the first complaint is received. Say you're mailing a message that is 512kb, if the lag until notification is 30 minutes you've sent 360,000 messages. If that lag is 8 hours, as I find is more typical, it could be almost 6 million messages! These are all to recipients that may, or may not, want it! Now, if you're a trusted customer that has a legitimate need for sending such bulk mail, there shouldn't be any problem in reducing or modifying such limits. However, good security usually starts with a default-deny policy.
With VPS accounts being offered at low prices (eg. $6/mo), it is very easy for someone to mis-configure their SMTP server, or authorize a stolen credit card with the intention of spamming. From an unmanaged VPS, emails are not monitored, managed, or otherwise handled the host other than as a carrier. When you're rejecting 75% of orders due to failed payment information, you get concerned that some of those that do succeed in using your order form might just not be who they say they are. Web hosting is a very hostile environment, and it is often difficult to provide a reliable, robust environment without active measures. Are you saying that every web host must configure accounts, and wait 8+ hours before finding out if they've now in the spam business?
Everyone talks about identity theft, but much of it originates from phishing sites and spam. I'm afraid that before long, any web host that doesn't do any sort of active anti-phishing / anti-spam will be blacklisted. It is already approaching that point. Large ISPs are already insisting upon SPF. Unfortunately, when you're not directly managing the DNS and SMTP servers, you can't enforce SPF on all of your netblocks. My question is, when someone on your network does manage to send those 6 million emails in 8 hours, will you get deblacklisted while having hosts on your network that aren't using SPF? For now, the solution is to claim carrier status, and hope that is believable when you're still not big enough to warrant direct IP allocations, or multi-homing.
Realistically, if small hosting providers expect to be allowed a market, they must be carry out responsible and appropriate measures to ensure that their services are not abused. If such measures are entirely reactionary, it might not be enough.
You have an interesting question. Although the situations you describe can have a negative impact on customers, some provider throttles make more sense. For instance, SMTP throttling. Some providers are throttling SMTP traffic to limit spam. For some, this is a much better option than the alternatives of blocking it altogether, transparently filtering it, or taking the risk of being unable to remove a spammer before they succeed in sending millions of messages.
Personally, as the operator of a hosting provider, and as a consumer, I see both sides of the argument. As a customer, I enjoy the opportunity to use VoD, VoIP, etc... but as a provider, I understand the occasional need to apply certain limitations in order to protect the customer and the network.
Slashdot Mirror
There have been documents on Wikileaks indicating that Enemy Combatants have been indicated and incarcerated entirely on hearsay and possession of propaganda. This is particularly frightening since even US Citizens can be given this label, and the fact that there has been a suspension of habeas corpus.
Of course, Bush won't explain it this way, he prefers New Speak.
Yes, but no. Its a hypervisor *like* Xen, which supports Xen guest kernels, but the hypervisor is completely rewritten from the ground up. This will allow a migration path to, or from, Xen for those interested. Its surprisingly open of Microsoft, because it really gives their customers a good option to migrate away from their platform. On the other hand, it might not be entirely bad news for Xen users, because if Citrix really mucks stuff up, you've always got the choice to move to a Microsoft solution. A Microsoft solution might not be ideal, but its better than being left stranded without any solution if, for some reason, Citrix drops the ball.
Overall, though, I'm not that sure these developments are good for Linux -- because Citrix is very much in the Microsoft camp. Xen users have found themselves now reliant on Citrix and/or Microsoft. This is concerning, and I for one am following it closely.
It is possible to come up with a system where you get a 'good key' and a 'bad key'. You can give the 'bad key' to prove to someone that you voted to their satisfaction, and use the 'good key' to prove to yourself that your vote was counted. Only you can possibly know which key is the legitimate one.
This is one of those typical gimmicks you see often in spy movies, in fact they used this in the Bourne Ultimatum.
You know, now that we're talking about this, I'd almost ask if we should be worried about this...
/required/ that every employee email their congressman, with a CC to the company president, asking to stop a state law that could impact our company's profits. It was not explicitly stated that there would be consequences, but they followed up with everyone that did not complete this "task" by the deadline. I was not very happy with this, nor were my coworkers. A number of my coworkers needed the money badly enough to do whatever was asked of them, despite any moral objections. I don't remember what I did, in case you were wondering.
However, I personally have had a real-life situation where my (now ex-) employer
So yeah, you're right, this would be bad.
What if your vote was signed with a private key? Nobody could trace the vote back to you, as long as it didn't specify your email address or name. You could lookup all votes signed your key, and confirm that your vote was accounted for.
One problem with this would be that the voter who cast the ballot could still be forced/coerced into proving that they voted in one way, or another. However, the government couldn't create a massive database of who voted how. The other problem would be in having voters create electronic keys in a secure manner.
A more simplified solution might just be to give the voter a confirmation code on the polling machine. Voters could write down this code, and check it on a website. This would give the voter a way to check their vote. Although it couldn't stop fraud, it would be enough for voters to stand up and say, "Hey, something is wrong - I *know* I voted the other way!". If coerced, they could simply say that they lost/forgot their key, or didn't vote at all.
They are auctioning off the frequencies used by 18 UTF channels, leaving 38. Most HDTV programming is delivered by UTF.
There isn't a market in the USA for nuclear reactors, the last one was built in the 1970's, our labor is too expensive, and from what I understand, our steel industry is suffering. Being from Pennsylvania, I personally know people who were laid-off from steel mills. No, I'm really not surprised that we're not masters of manufacturing.
As others have said, the USA is a place of ideas. Intellectual property and services are our business. It is just a shame that it won't last forever. We are now in a global market place where services and IP can be created and hosted anywhere in the world, for anyone in the world. I fear that the countries with less restrictive laws will become data havens and will overtake the USA in these markets. When that happens, we won't have manufacturing, IP, or services... I guess there is always litigation, time to buy stock in SCO!
Zepplin is on iTunes, as of last year.
It isn't a question if this "kind of thing really does happen", there are millions of counterfeit products out there. The question is where you're looking. You don't get a lot of counterfeits in the USA, though there are some imported. A lot of economy building/rebuilding countries are a haven for counterfeit goods.
In Poland, I've read that according to polls, 50% of people admited to (still) buying counterfeit goods. I think this has a lot to do with the post-communist situation, where upon the lifting of the iron curtain, the counterfeit products arrived more quickly and at affordable prices. By the time the legitimate products were available, they were too expensive, and their brand names were already affected by the surge of counterfeit products. For instance, if you and your friends all had shirts that said "Nikee", would you buy a more expensive shirt that said "Nike"? Who the hell is "Nike", anyway?
Needless to say, they have a thriving black market.
Right, the state "armies" are considered militias. They're state-sponsored and regulated by (though distinct from) the National Guard, under command of the state governor. This doesn't mean they're not an army, just not the federal US Army, many militias call themselves by the word "Army".
I didn't say that the states could enter into treaties, I said that some have to deal with foreign relations. Foreign relations and treaties are separate, you can have foreign relations without treaties. There isn't a whole lot of talk about it, but I did find the following essay interesting: State Governments and Foreign Policy.
Regarding currencies, didn't you know that the EU has its own currency? Sure, not every nation is using it... yet. War? When during the existence of the EU was there war between member states? Thats right, there wasn't... I suspect that if a country did want to exit the EU, it might not do so without some conflict, even if it is "allowed". The fact is that the economics of the EU have created enough lock-in to make it pretty unfavorable for anyone to leave. Do you think that once Bulgaria takes EU money to build new roads, that they can just walk away?
I'm not saying that the US and the EU are identical in construction, but there are enough similarities that one does have to question the English definition of "country" if we are to consider the US as being one, but the EU as not. Of course, this is a matter that has been considered and discussed by people much more qualified than slashdot trolls like myself. The EU is obviously not considered a country at this time, though I'm personally wondering: for how long?
I think better word than country for the EU, for now, is "federation". However, the Soviet Union was technically a federation as well, admittedly with a stronger centralized government, and you could argue that it was a country by layman's terms. By that measure, its probably better to compare the EU to the USSR, even if for political reasons it might be a less popular comparison.
Is the only difference between the EU and a federation like the USSR a matter of the strength of the centralized government? If so, how long will it be, before "EU federalists" succeed in obtaining that power?
I'm sure the member states are asking this themselves, though with divisive opinions. Currently, some states such as Poland have proven to be less inclined towards a strong central government, while some others seem happy with it.. for now, its wait and see.
As for the discussion on "if it is a country", Wikipedia continues,
Right... so its not the same as the US, but its not that far off? Something that does surprise me, though, is that the EU is already 56 years old!
Of course individual states in the US can break away, it is called secession, and it has happened. The last time it happened, a civil war was declared, but it happened. However, secession is often followed by war, such as when Texas broke away from Mexico and became a US state, prompting Mexican invasion in 1846 and the start of the Mexican American War.
Oh.. and just so that there isn't any confusion, just last month, The State of Montana threatened to secede from the United States over gun rights.
The United States is a collection of independent "states" with their own independent constitutions, law making bodies, courts, etc... they are then united with other "states" under a unifying constitution which provides for its own organized law-making body, courts, etc...
Now... compare this to EU "countries" which have their own independent constitutions, law making bodies, courts etc... and then are united with other "countries" under a unifying constitution which provides for its own organized law-making body, courts, etc...
Playing my own devil's advocate... Even individuals states in the USA can have their own armies, called "State Defense Forces". Although only half (25) of the states have such an army, they do exist, and all state legislatures have authorized the creation and maintenance of such forces. A final argument might be that unlike EU countries, individual states in the USA do not partake in foreign affairs and do not have foreign delegates. This might be true to an extent, but border-states, such as California and Texas, certainly must deal with some level of foreign affairs.
Hmm... yeah, the EU and the USA are really different. If the USA is a country, than the EU is a country. If Germany is a country, than Pennsylvania is too. I think this is a matter of pride and perception than it is about terminology, or even reality. Finally, a distinction should be drawn against the EU and "Europe", such as there is a distinction between the USA and "North America". One is a country, the other is a continent.
According to the included PDF, and as implied by other sources, the entire album is licensed according to the Creative Commons license. They are only providing official downloads of Volume I, but it will be legal to download unofficial downloads of Volumes II-IV.
Having downloaded the official Volume I, I can say that it is very impressive packaging for an electronic download. They made good use of OSX resource forks to give each track its own individual icon, included an electronic booklet (PDF), wallpapers, marketing materials, etc. Compared to the other electronic downloads I've done... from RadioHead, Phish, Audio Lunchbox, allofmp3, iTunes, and Amazon, this is by far the most professional looking packaging so far. I'm curious how "luxurious" the physical packaging is..
After a few listens, assuming it doesn't suck, I'll probably toss $5 Reznor's way to get FLAC files. I never did pay Radiohead, I just didn't like their new album.
I was aware of this, but was referring to the general case; however, you're right that special permission may be granted.
You're not allowed to go to Cuba, but many do regardless. You're also not allowed to spend money while there, iirc.
Something I found funny last year... Poland, as a former communist nation has enjoyed tourism to Cuba for decades. It is a popular vacation spot. Hunting for an exotic vacation, we visited several travel agencies, and kept getting pushed deal to go to Cuba.. it was quite shocking for them to hear that as US Citizens we weren't allowed to go there. Remember, we're quite still allowed to go to all kinds of other states, including but not limited to Russia, Belarus, Iran, and China.
That was, I believe, plan A. We blasted them hard and fast, then took Bagdad. Bush came on TV and declared that the war was over. However, insurgency followed, as should have been expected. The any more "blasting them to hell" than we already did would've been genocide.
Think of it more like getting served a summons.
It is exactly your attitude that lead us to the Iraq war. No military able to match ours? What about guerrilla fighters? The guerrillas in Iraq seem to be giving us a good run for the money (just look at the deficit). I'm sorry, but nukes are useless if they're unused. I'm not saying we should use nukes, no, but the US has to stop thinking they can win ground battles based on the size of their nuclear arsenal.
It is as silly as the British thinking they can win ground battles based on the size of the Royal Navy.
The interface is a bit simple perhaps, but functional. I know accountants that hate the interfaces of Quickbooks and Quicken because the interface is mostly fluff. Experienced accountants don't need to use wizards... I believe my wife prefers Gnucash's "down and dirty" interface because it doesn't try to play dumb, it dumps her into the general ledger and lets her do her work. On the other hand, she has said that Gnucash doesn't offer everything one might expect from Quickbooks, but compared to Quicken? Its no contest.
The thing is that Gnucash doesn't have an interface for mom-and-pop. It doesn't have big buttons when you first run it, that say, "Pay a Bill" or whatever Quicken does. Instead, its an accounting package. Yes, that requires a little bit of training if you're not already an accountant. Of course, the Gnucash manual has a guide for Quicken users to help them migrate and get acquainted with double-entry accounting.
While accounting packages in Linux are slacking, Quicken can be easily replaced by Gnucash as it is much more feature-rich where it counts. Gnucash can import from Quicken. Gnucash is a true double-entry accounting system, which Quicken is not, so there will be a learning curve if you're not an accountant, but it isn't that hard to grasp.
There are other programs too, some easier for home users, and others for businesses... but Gnucash is an easy recommendation for home users and small, single-bookkeeper businesses.
You don't fly internationally much, huh? Not many Intl. flights out of Philadelphia, not for a decent price.. or maybe you spend more on your flight, to save the $8?
Personally, I've paid $10/day for wireless plenty of times. I actually spent about $20 in Berlin for internet, when I was stuck there waiting for a layover. I wouldn't consider myself desperate when paying, but I do use it for business, not pleasure.
The problem I see is that some protocols, such as SMTP, provide little in the way of authentication while consuming very little bandwidth per connection, while having access to increasingly large pipes for decreasingly small amounts of money. My point is, with SMTP messages being so small, I'm not sure it is responsible to give big pipes for SMTP traffic for a low cost. Remember, SMTP comes from a different age than online videos, and there is a big difference between a single user requesting a video online, and a server operator sending emails to thousands of users with the equivalent bandwidth.
.gov, they get what they requested, even if they didn't receive what was expected. I think the difference lies in what is responsible.
Do you really expect to push 700,000 SMTP messages per hour on a $6/mo account? Even on a $20/mo account? While you might not see the difference between 100mbps of outbound SMTP traffic versus inbound HTTP traffic, there is the major difference. The HTTP requests are requested, while the SMTP traffic is well... not. While some HTTP content could be illegal or unwanted in some fashion, it is all requested. If a user types in whitehouse.com instead of
Though you might not like to hear it, I should also note it is much more affordable to offer 100mbps of HTTP traffic than it is to offer 100mbp of (outbound) SMTP traffic. I base this on the expenses associated with dealing with SPAM. In comparison to HTTP, which is "mostly harmless", the vile nature of SMTP consumes more technical resources, which drives cost.
I'm not saying that reactive methods don't work at all, but there is a definite lag between the time that the first message is sent and when the first complaint is received. Say you're mailing a message that is 512kb, if the lag until notification is 30 minutes you've sent 360,000 messages. If that lag is 8 hours, as I find is more typical, it could be almost 6 million messages! These are all to recipients that may, or may not, want it! Now, if you're a trusted customer that has a legitimate need for sending such bulk mail, there shouldn't be any problem in reducing or modifying such limits. However, good security usually starts with a default-deny policy.
With VPS accounts being offered at low prices (eg. $6/mo), it is very easy for someone to mis-configure their SMTP server, or authorize a stolen credit card with the intention of spamming. From an unmanaged VPS, emails are not monitored, managed, or otherwise handled the host other than as a carrier. When you're rejecting 75% of orders due to failed payment information, you get concerned that some of those that do succeed in using your order form might just not be who they say they are. Web hosting is a very hostile environment, and it is often difficult to provide a reliable, robust environment without active measures. Are you saying that every web host must configure accounts, and wait 8+ hours before finding out if they've now in the spam business?
Everyone talks about identity theft, but much of it originates from phishing sites and spam. I'm afraid that before long, any web host that doesn't do any sort of active anti-phishing / anti-spam will be blacklisted. It is already approaching that point. Large ISPs are already insisting upon SPF. Unfortunately, when you're not directly managing the DNS and SMTP servers, you can't enforce SPF on all of your netblocks. My question is, when someone on your network does manage to send those 6 million emails in 8 hours, will you get deblacklisted while having hosts on your network that aren't using SPF? For now, the solution is to claim carrier status, and hope that is believable when you're still not big enough to warrant direct IP allocations, or multi-homing.
Realistically, if small hosting providers expect to be allowed a market, they must be carry out responsible and appropriate measures to ensure that their services are not abused. If such measures are entirely reactionary, it might not be enough.
I'l
You have an interesting question. Although the situations you describe can have a negative impact on customers, some provider throttles make more sense. For instance, SMTP throttling. Some providers are throttling SMTP traffic to limit spam. For some, this is a much better option than the alternatives of blocking it altogether, transparently filtering it, or taking the risk of being unable to remove a spammer before they succeed in sending millions of messages.
Personally, as the operator of a hosting provider, and as a consumer, I see both sides of the argument. As a customer, I enjoy the opportunity to use VoD, VoIP, etc... but as a provider, I understand the occasional need to apply certain limitations in order to protect the customer and the network.