Nuke Russia? Exaggerate much? No one is saying to nuke Russia in response.
What they suggesting is to counter-hack Russia, something that I would be especially surprised (and disappointed) to hear had not already been happening for the last decade.
You bought into the propaganda. For heavens sake, think! What is the name of ISIS' putative leader? al-Baghdadi: "The Man from Baghdad".
ISIS is just another variation of the same crap that's been happening through the entire region for decades. Yesterday it was al-Qaeda, today it's ISIS, tomorrow it will be something different related to Salafysm.
It's like they've never thought about the endgame: "Ok, we've killed all the infidels. When will Allah bless my cellphone so it starts working again?"
To the "true believer," Allah IS the endgame. Any action can be justified or shot down by whether you think Allah wants it. It doesn't matter how suicidal or self-destructive the action.
That Obama does not have a coherent strategy in Syria is well known — he is, obviously, out of his community-organizing depth on the world scene. Occam's Razor requires us to explain America's failures by his ineptitude.
The situation in Syria isn't that hard to explain. Obama and the US was quite happy and capable of blowing Assad's forces to smithereens until the Russians got involved, started providing bombing support and cover for them, and made it very clear that they were militarily defending Assad from the rebels and.. well, anyone. Putin knew, of course, that the US wanted to take Assad out, but that Assad was clearly not worth starting a war with Russia over. Russia greatly favors having an ally Assad there -- whether he slaughters his citizens or not is something they don't care about, as the lives of the people are a dictator's to spend or preserve at his discretion.
The US has no real allies in Syria, though just... some rebels? I rarely agree with Trump on anything, but he was right about a few things: who are these rebels, exactly? Do we really know who they are and what they want to fight for? We have a long history of failed military proxy campaigns in the region, where we support X against Y, and then X turns out to be far worse and a bigger disaster than Y ever was. Our "regime change" ways usually blow up in our face, whether it's supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran, or most any action taken in the Arab Spring nonsense.
Hey, I love my Samsung Galaxy S5, but fuck are they ever screwing up with the Note 7's batteries. Of course they deserve the mockery that they're getting.
I was on an airplane yesterday and during the safety instructions they were very emphatic that if we had a Note 7, it had to stay completely powered off the entire time until we disembarked.
Well it is a HUGE family as well. But yeah, they had a lot of problems. Ted Kennedy was almost killed in a plane crash in the 60s. He barely recovered from a broken back, punctured lung, broken ribs, and internal bleeding. If he'd succumbed to his injuries, John, Bobby, and Ted would have all dies in a five-year span. This page has a cute list of unnatural Kennedy deaths.
I always liked Jurassic Park just because two of the leads were scientists who were more or less portrayed as normal people, even if they were sometimes laying in the dirt with a small brush to wipe an exposed bone clean.
Our society values golfers, basketball players, footballers, etc. It does not value scientists, not even those with an exceptional contribution
In the short term, yes. In the long term, unlikely. We remember Michael Jordan because we watched him in his greatest moments. The scientist making a breakthrough today (not that that's the way science usually works...) is toiling in obscurity because we don't yet know how his or her achievement will change our lives.
On the other hand, far more people know that, say, Robert Oppenheimer was working on the atomic bomb in 1943 than know that, say, Stan Musial won the National League batting title in 1943.
I do my VoIP with my Blackberry, I don't care about online gaming, but I want my downloads and uploads really fast. Do you want to impose your priorities over mine?
Prioritizing gaming packets is not going to affect your download and upload speeds, because it doesn't affect how much traffic will be going over the pipe overall. Game packets being delivered faster only changes the latency on the end client, but the overall bandwidth used is the same. Game traffic tends to require very very little bandwidth, but it does require low latency. Downloads and uploads do NOT require super-low latency, but they usually require a lot of bandwidth.
That's why traffic shaping as its been done for decades tends to work, and it should be treated as a separate issue from, say, the Comcasts of the world intentionally degrading Bittorrent or slowing the connections to their competitors.
Exactly. Are there any ISPs that *don't* massively oversell?
Probably not, because most people don't require an enormous pipe, and we have a stigma against pay-per-gigabyte or whatever for the people who use it. The guy on Bittorrent 24/7 is having his connection subsidized by grandma next door who checks in on her family on Facebook.
Every ISP is doing some kind of traffic shaping.
Just because everybody is doing it doesn't make it less wrong.
"Traffic shaping" has been used since the dawn of the Internet and should not be confused with protocol throttling.
How about the government keeps its dirty hands out of private infrastructure and lets customers vote with their feet?
Because that private infrastructure requires government participation. That's what happens when you have a shared resource that needs to be protected -- in this case, private property and public roads. You don't let any little company or startup dig up the streets on their whim to lay cables.
What SHOULD be the case is that ISPs don't own the lines at all, that the lines are publicly managed and the ISPs can all use them. Then ISPs would have to compete on price and features, and consumers would actually be able to get the sort of consumer choice that would let them make the best decision for themselves. We don't live in that world, though, we live in a world where monopolies or duopolies are granted because of the shared land use considerations, and consumers usually have the choice between a steaming turd and a shit sandwich.
Their plan is become original series only. And then they can entirely drop the catalog of movies and shows.
So then, instead of being my go-to source for a library of content, they become just another AMC or HBO or Showtime or Starz. Just another TV channel, which is the last thing any of us wanted.
It is if enough people A. threaten to get an apartment on the other side of that road and/or B. demand telecommuting from their employers.
I remember growing up we had some overused freeways nearby. Every once in awhile, someone would float the idea of adding a lane to reduce traffic congestion, but they would be defeated by the majority "slow growth/anti-development" folks who argued that if the freeways were better, more development would happen and more people would move in.
But in the real world, what we saw there was exactly backwards. Development happens first, because developers know that freeways don't really impact whether people buy a house or not. It DOES affect their behavior after they move in, in that they lobby to fix congestion. So developers are quite happy to build up in areas where the road system won't support them, because they know the problem will be fixed by the people who move in post-development.
There's one big doubt for me, and that's Guccifer 2.0. Putin having his intelligence service claim to be a guy from Romania who is carrying the mantle of a guy best known for guessing password reset questions... it's not exactly something that inspires awe.
On the other hand I think that's exactly the sort of title that a middle manager government bureaucrat would consider to be a "cool cyber name" rather than one an actual elite lone hacker would choose.
RNC establishment exists, but is confused and conflicted
There was a lot more visible establishment Republican opposition to Trump than DNC opposition to Bernie, and I'm pretty sure a hack of the RNC would have revealed a lot of dirt as well. But it didn't happen, so we can only speculate.
It's a tradition. For almost 25 years we were looking for a new enemy, but why bother when the old one works so well? Never change a running system.
Putin has been pretty vocal that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the worst political disaster the world experience in the 20th century, and he has been trying to rebuild Russia back into Superpower dominance.
The result is, what, it was $20/person last year for an IMAX show of Interstellar. $20 for a MOVIE? And another what, $10? $15? $20? for popcorn and sodas?
Gee, I just don' know why fewer people is going to da theatres....
We're talking IMAX here. If you're going to IMAX, it's probably because you want to wowed by a gorgeous image and incredible sound (otherwise, you'd be watching the non-IMAX version), two things you aren't going to get at home unless you shell out for a home theater. But how much is that big screen TV and those fancy speakers going to cost? And how many $20 theater tickets are you going to avoid until that decision breaks even?
Totally lame and arbitrary and definitely contributes to reduced investment, thus reduced innovation.
It also strengthened the hand of independent movie studios, because the big studios couldn't keep them out of major theaters. This is a good thing. It strengthened the hand of independent theaters, since.. well, all theaters were independent of the studios now. This is a good thing. The Hays Production Code took a major hit. This is a very good thing. The "studios" also no longer own actors who can make movies for any studio. The is also a very good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Nuke Russia? Exaggerate much? No one is saying to nuke Russia in response.
What they suggesting is to counter-hack Russia, something that I would be especially surprised (and disappointed) to hear had not already been happening for the last decade.
You're right, I probably should have been more specific. Instead of protocol throttling, it's more like... "protocol combined with source" throttling.
You bought into the propaganda. For heavens sake, think! What is the name of ISIS' putative leader? al-Baghdadi: "The Man from Baghdad".
ISIS is just another variation of the same crap that's been happening through the entire region for decades. Yesterday it was al-Qaeda, today it's ISIS, tomorrow it will be something different related to Salafysm.
It's like they've never thought about the endgame: "Ok, we've killed all the infidels. When will Allah bless my cellphone so it starts working again?"
To the "true believer," Allah IS the endgame. Any action can be justified or shot down by whether you think Allah wants it. It doesn't matter how suicidal or self-destructive the action.
That Obama does not have a coherent strategy in Syria is well known — he is, obviously, out of his community-organizing depth on the world scene. Occam's Razor requires us to explain America's failures by his ineptitude.
The situation in Syria isn't that hard to explain. Obama and the US was quite happy and capable of blowing Assad's forces to smithereens until the Russians got involved, started providing bombing support and cover for them, and made it very clear that they were militarily defending Assad from the rebels and.. well, anyone. Putin knew, of course, that the US wanted to take Assad out, but that Assad was clearly not worth starting a war with Russia over. Russia greatly favors having an ally Assad there -- whether he slaughters his citizens or not is something they don't care about, as the lives of the people are a dictator's to spend or preserve at his discretion.
The US has no real allies in Syria, though just... some rebels? I rarely agree with Trump on anything, but he was right about a few things: who are these rebels, exactly? Do we really know who they are and what they want to fight for? We have a long history of failed military proxy campaigns in the region, where we support X against Y, and then X turns out to be far worse and a bigger disaster than Y ever was. Our "regime change" ways usually blow up in our face, whether it's supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran, or most any action taken in the Arab Spring nonsense.
Hey, I love my Samsung Galaxy S5, but fuck are they ever screwing up with the Note 7's batteries. Of course they deserve the mockery that they're getting.
I was on an airplane yesterday and during the safety instructions they were very emphatic that if we had a Note 7, it had to stay completely powered off the entire time until we disembarked.
Well it is a HUGE family as well. But yeah, they had a lot of problems. Ted Kennedy was almost killed in a plane crash in the 60s. He barely recovered from a broken back, punctured lung, broken ribs, and internal bleeding. If he'd succumbed to his injuries, John, Bobby, and Ted would have all dies in a five-year span. This page has a cute list of unnatural Kennedy deaths.
I always liked Antonion Banderas's explosives-filled guitar case on wheels from Desperado.
Base 12 has some definite advantages over base 10.
Why Base 12 instead of Base 16? I mean, if we're changing the base numbering system, why not at least make it a power of two?
I always liked Jurassic Park just because two of the leads were scientists who were more or less portrayed as normal people, even if they were sometimes laying in the dirt with a small brush to wipe an exposed bone clean.
Our society values golfers, basketball players, footballers, etc. It does not value scientists, not even those with an exceptional contribution
In the short term, yes. In the long term, unlikely. We remember Michael Jordan because we watched him in his greatest moments. The scientist making a breakthrough today (not that that's the way science usually works...) is toiling in obscurity because we don't yet know how his or her achievement will change our lives.
On the other hand, far more people know that, say, Robert Oppenheimer was working on the atomic bomb in 1943 than know that, say, Stan Musial won the National League batting title in 1943.
I've worked mostly with Ph.D's (note spelling) my entire career
Your grammar is incorrect. By inserting an apostrophe you are denoting possession, not plurality.
They were MY Ph.D's
Perhaps so, but the possessive makes no sense in that original context!
I do my VoIP with my Blackberry, I don't care about online gaming, but I want my downloads and uploads really fast. Do you want to impose your priorities over mine?
Prioritizing gaming packets is not going to affect your download and upload speeds, because it doesn't affect how much traffic will be going over the pipe overall. Game packets being delivered faster only changes the latency on the end client, but the overall bandwidth used is the same. Game traffic tends to require very very little bandwidth, but it does require low latency. Downloads and uploads do NOT require super-low latency, but they usually require a lot of bandwidth.
That's why traffic shaping as its been done for decades tends to work, and it should be treated as a separate issue from, say, the Comcasts of the world intentionally degrading Bittorrent or slowing the connections to their competitors.
Exactly. Are there any ISPs that *don't* massively oversell?
Probably not, because most people don't require an enormous pipe, and we have a stigma against pay-per-gigabyte or whatever for the people who use it. The guy on Bittorrent 24/7 is having his connection subsidized by grandma next door who checks in on her family on Facebook.
Every ISP is doing some kind of traffic shaping.
Just because everybody is doing it doesn't make it less wrong.
"Traffic shaping" has been used since the dawn of the Internet and should not be confused with protocol throttling.
How about the government keeps its dirty hands out of private infrastructure and lets customers vote with their feet?
Because that private infrastructure requires government participation. That's what happens when you have a shared resource that needs to be protected -- in this case, private property and public roads. You don't let any little company or startup dig up the streets on their whim to lay cables.
What SHOULD be the case is that ISPs don't own the lines at all, that the lines are publicly managed and the ISPs can all use them. Then ISPs would have to compete on price and features, and consumers would actually be able to get the sort of consumer choice that would let them make the best decision for themselves. We don't live in that world, though, we live in a world where monopolies or duopolies are granted because of the shared land use considerations, and consumers usually have the choice between a steaming turd and a shit sandwich.
Their plan is become original series only. And then they can entirely drop the catalog of movies and shows.
So then, instead of being my go-to source for a library of content, they become just another AMC or HBO or Showtime or Starz. Just another TV channel, which is the last thing any of us wanted.
I'm not sure about Deadpool, but Zootopia absolutely deserves its spot, yet.
It is if enough people A. threaten to get an apartment on the other side of that road and/or B. demand telecommuting from their employers.
I remember growing up we had some overused freeways nearby. Every once in awhile, someone would float the idea of adding a lane to reduce traffic congestion, but they would be defeated by the majority "slow growth/anti-development" folks who argued that if the freeways were better, more development would happen and more people would move in.
But in the real world, what we saw there was exactly backwards. Development happens first, because developers know that freeways don't really impact whether people buy a house or not. It DOES affect their behavior after they move in, in that they lobby to fix congestion. So developers are quite happy to build up in areas where the road system won't support them, because they know the problem will be fixed by the people who move in post-development.
Again, like he said, it's the same "channel bundle garbage." But with pay-per-view movie streaming built in!
There's one big doubt for me, and that's Guccifer 2.0. Putin having his intelligence service claim to be a guy from Romania who is carrying the mantle of a guy best known for guessing password reset questions... it's not exactly something that inspires awe.
On the other hand I think that's exactly the sort of title that a middle manager government bureaucrat would consider to be a "cool cyber name" rather than one an actual elite lone hacker would choose.
Even if you use a weapon for a cause that is just or good, each new introduction ups the ante
The ante will ALWAYS be upped. The question is whether you can get ahead.
RNC establishment exists, but is confused and conflicted
There was a lot more visible establishment Republican opposition to Trump than DNC opposition to Bernie, and I'm pretty sure a hack of the RNC would have revealed a lot of dirt as well. But it didn't happen, so we can only speculate.
It's a tradition. For almost 25 years we were looking for a new enemy, but why bother when the old one works so well? Never change a running system.
Putin has been pretty vocal that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the worst political disaster the world experience in the 20th century, and he has been trying to rebuild Russia back into Superpower dominance.
The result is, what, it was $20/person last year for an IMAX show of Interstellar. $20 for a MOVIE? And another what, $10? $15? $20? for popcorn and sodas?
Gee, I just don' know why fewer people is going to da theatres....
We're talking IMAX here. If you're going to IMAX, it's probably because you want to wowed by a gorgeous image and incredible sound (otherwise, you'd be watching the non-IMAX version), two things you aren't going to get at home unless you shell out for a home theater. But how much is that big screen TV and those fancy speakers going to cost? And how many $20 theater tickets are you going to avoid until that decision breaks even?
Totally lame and arbitrary and definitely contributes to reduced investment, thus reduced innovation.
It also strengthened the hand of independent movie studios, because the big studios couldn't keep them out of major theaters. This is a good thing.
It strengthened the hand of independent theaters, since.. well, all theaters were independent of the studios now. This is a good thing.
The Hays Production Code took a major hit. This is a very good thing.
The "studios" also no longer own actors who can make movies for any studio. The is also a very good thing.
I'm not really seeing the downside here.