Port 25 deals with email, an official internet standard with a buttload of RFC's that define how it should operate. In fact, one of an ISP's jobs is to stop protocol violations, which is exactly what spam would be, since email is a "well defined standard".
Bittorrent, however, is a custom protocol that an ISP has no business meddling in.
Actually most contention cases result in priority decreases, where whoever plays the nicest gets kudos from the kernel in the form of being left alone.
"punishing processes which try to use more CPU than is available" -- Ingo Molnar, designer of the O(1) scheduler.
A business seeking to "protect its own interests" *can* be faulted if it does so maliciously. Restraint of trade, trigger happy litigation, espionage, and sabotage are all ways a company can "play dirty". It's one of the reasons we have laws against monopolization, stealing trade secrets, initiating a frivolous lawsuit, and any number of other "fouls" in the modern sport of business.
Is it ok for someone to take what they want if they do so by holding a gun to your head or a knife to your throat? No it is not. Business is vicious, and filled with greedy bastards who would just as soon beat you up and take your lunch money as they would be to hold up someone's grandmother. Heck, it's probably the same survival/machismo/oneupmanship/rivalry mentality that makes people.
But business is NOT supposed to be dishonest, sleazy, or dirty. Companies can and do get in big trouble every day for not playing by the rules.
Cases in point: SCO, Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, ESA, BSA, Enron
To be more specific, if a patent is bad, a company can be bad for trying to enforce it in some cases, particularly if the company itself is responsible for the bad patent being upheld. Bribe a judge? Bribe the PTO to overlook obviousness? Bully your competition/victims into settling? Those are all nasty, and they are all illegal.
Which is why organizations like the EFF are going on patent busting crusades.
Yes, business is hell. But even in the most vicious of drag out slugfests, a referee still keeps things under control and ideally makes sure that everyone plays fair.
You wouldn't just get nailed for extortion. If someone actually did break into the house, you could be charged as an accessory in the B&E *in addition to* the extortion.
Hmm...perhaps these DTD's should be fetched using HTTP?
What protocol do they use to fetch the actual DTD anyway? FTP? Rsync?
Re:You need to clarify your question
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 1
Why fine the shareholders?
The whole point of having a corporation is to INSULATE the shareholders from the shenanigans of the bigwigs and other trivia of corporate life.
Now, if I had personally hired someone who sold a bad car that blew up, I *might* be more culpable.
But a piddly old shareholder? What the hell do I know about financing? Or mechanics? Or auto shop? Or any number of other concepts that I'd rather hire a professional to worry about?
That's why I'm just an *investor*. Investors are not neccessarily enterpreneurs.
As a mere shareholder, I do not have the power to make day to day decisions at a corporation. That's the job of the board of directors, the CEO, and the line and staff of the whole company, which I'm not part of unless I also happen to be an employee.
What about Enron? Heck, in that case, shareholders wound up as victims, not offenders.
It would be a better one if you were being forced not to sell toys in china because you won't use their suppliers.
The problem is google being forced out of a very lucrative market by an overbearing government on grounds of conscience. It bothers me that there are companies out there who have no qualms about snuggling up with chinese politicians.
And unlike lead-tainted toys, having a censored search in china is better than having none at all. At least china isn't making google lace it with chinese propaganda. Omission of a good is not introduction of a bad. Lead hurts if it's added, whereas a filtered search is better than the status quo.
Not if the reason you're filtering content is because a big bad government agent has a gun to your head and is COERCING you to do so.
China has a gun to Google's head by forcing it to play by chinese rules if it doesn't want to get blocked.
Why bash google? They are being held hostage, and they actually can't do much better than they already are. Not successfully anyway, because too much freedom would bring down chinese block-hammers raining down like cats and dogs.
That's all good and dandy until someone abuses it.
Holding sunset-clause restricted laws hostage by filibuster is a damn good way to get your agenda pushed. They don't cave to your demands, a very important law lapses.
Give the president retroactive veto powers with a grace period to allow for override. And line item veto.
The american legal system favors lawyers period. It's inherently an adversarial system where either side can start the fight and the winner is whoever bankrolls their attorneys the longest. Since you almost always automatically lose any lawsuit you fail to maintain or defend, it's nothing more than a war of attrition, a modern version of "chicken". With most lawsuits these days, someone has to give up before the case is over. Only a scant few actually make it to a verdict.
Only when lawyers stop making a shitload of money on legal fees and reimbursement of attorney's fees becomes mandatory (like it is in many countries in Europe) will our caseloads drop.
I am so sick of litigious companies with deep pockets I could puke! Thank god SCO finally ran out of money. I just hope the lawyers don't screw Novell in the ass.
Slashdot Mirror
Just correcting a typo.
I agree with this as well.
Port 25 deals with email, an official internet standard with a buttload of RFC's that define how it should operate. In fact, one of an ISP's jobs is to stop protocol violations, which is exactly what spam would be, since email is a "well defined standard".
Bittorrent, however, is a custom protocol that an ISP has no business meddling in.
And I'm just hoping that my favorite shows like Numb3rs and NCIS weren't affected.
I really don't care what happens as long as my shows keep coming and nobody gets hurt.
Thanks to scuttlemonkey for posting my submission.
weasel words like "up to" rob any quoted figures of meaning.
Actually most contention cases result in priority decreases, where whoever plays the nicest gets kudos from the kernel in the form of being left alone.
"punishing processes which try to use more CPU than is available" -- Ingo Molnar, designer of the O(1) scheduler.
You get SIGKILLed if you hog all the memory.
True traffic shaping shouldn't care about what IP ports are being used or the content of the traffic itself.
The fact that both encryption and port switching actually work is itself evidence of content-based preferential treatment.
I call bullshit!
I voted for it before I voted against it.
Wait a sec, ex post facto means "thou shalt not retroactively incriminate anyone"
But you can let someone off the hook constitutionally.
It's sorta like a legislative pardon.
What you CAN'T do is make it illegal to have a gun today, and then prosecute someone for having a gun yesterday.
"Hang on; I've just realised where I'm posting."
Haha
What kind of belly lint are you smoking?
A business seeking to "protect its own interests" *can* be faulted if it does so maliciously. Restraint of trade, trigger happy litigation, espionage, and sabotage are all ways a company can "play dirty". It's one of the reasons we have laws against monopolization, stealing trade secrets, initiating a frivolous lawsuit, and any number of other "fouls" in the modern sport of business.
Is it ok for someone to take what they want if they do so by holding a gun to your head or a knife to your throat? No it is not. Business is vicious, and filled with greedy bastards who would just as soon beat you up and take your lunch money as they would be to hold up someone's grandmother. Heck, it's probably the same survival/machismo/oneupmanship/rivalry mentality that makes people.
But business is NOT supposed to be dishonest, sleazy, or dirty. Companies can and do get in big trouble every day for not playing by the rules.
Cases in point: SCO, Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, ESA, BSA, Enron
To be more specific, if a patent is bad, a company can be bad for trying to enforce it in some cases, particularly if the company itself is responsible for the bad patent being upheld. Bribe a judge? Bribe the PTO to overlook obviousness? Bully your competition/victims into settling? Those are all nasty, and they are all illegal.
Which is why organizations like the EFF are going on patent busting crusades.
Yes, business is hell. But even in the most vicious of drag out slugfests, a referee still keeps things under control and ideally makes sure that everyone plays fair.
You wouldn't just get nailed for extortion. If someone actually did break into the house, you could be charged as an accessory in the B&E *in addition to* the extortion.
Hmm...perhaps these DTD's should be fetched using HTTP?
What protocol do they use to fetch the actual DTD anyway? FTP? Rsync?
Why fine the shareholders?
The whole point of having a corporation is to INSULATE the shareholders from the shenanigans of the bigwigs and other trivia of corporate life.
Now, if I had personally hired someone who sold a bad car that blew up, I *might* be more culpable.
But a piddly old shareholder? What the hell do I know about financing? Or mechanics? Or auto shop? Or any number of other concepts that I'd rather hire a professional to worry about?
That's why I'm just an *investor*. Investors are not neccessarily enterpreneurs.
As a mere shareholder, I do not have the power to make day to day decisions at a corporation. That's the job of the board of directors, the CEO, and the line and staff of the whole company, which I'm not part of unless I also happen to be an employee.
What about Enron? Heck, in that case, shareholders wound up as victims, not offenders.
Er, not a good analogy.
It would be a better one if you were being forced not to sell toys in china because you won't use their suppliers.
The problem is google being forced out of a very lucrative market by an overbearing government on grounds of conscience. It bothers me that there are companies out there who have no qualms about snuggling up with chinese politicians.
And unlike lead-tainted toys, having a censored search in china is better than having none at all. At least china isn't making google lace it with chinese propaganda. Omission of a good is not introduction of a bad. Lead hurts if it's added, whereas a filtered search is better than the status quo.
You can't fire the president. He can only be removed from office by election, resignation, or impeachment.
And it's better leaving it in the hands of a federal judge *on the payroll of the federal government*?
Not if the reason you're filtering content is because a big bad government agent has a gun to your head and is COERCING you to do so.
China has a gun to Google's head by forcing it to play by chinese rules if it doesn't want to get blocked.
Why bash google? They are being held hostage, and they actually can't do much better than they already are. Not successfully anyway, because too much freedom would bring down chinese block-hammers raining down like cats and dogs.
Who carelessly wasted a point modding this down as offtopic? I think it most definitely counts as informative.
That's all good and dandy until someone abuses it.
Holding sunset-clause restricted laws hostage by filibuster is a damn good way to get your agenda pushed. They don't cave to your demands, a very important law lapses.
Give the president retroactive veto powers with a grace period to allow for override. And line item veto.
Actually, there sorta is.
It's called "organization local scope"
Hast thou ne'er heard of ye olde prior arte?
Thou wouldst be wise to not fighte in battles ye canst not win.
You know, that's just the problem.
The american legal system favors lawyers period. It's inherently an adversarial system where either side can start the fight and the winner is whoever bankrolls their attorneys the longest. Since you almost always automatically lose any lawsuit you fail to maintain or defend, it's nothing more than a war of attrition, a modern version of "chicken". With most lawsuits these days, someone has to give up before the case is over. Only a scant few actually make it to a verdict.
Only when lawyers stop making a shitload of money on legal fees and reimbursement of attorney's fees becomes mandatory (like it is in many countries in Europe) will our caseloads drop.
I am so sick of litigious companies with deep pockets I could puke! Thank god SCO finally ran out of money. I just hope the lawyers don't screw Novell in the ass.
Ctrl-W?
Er...
This made my day :)
I think the cure for polio wound up bankrupting the pharmaceutical industry on that note.
Rumor has it that after curing it and getting bit in the pocketbook, everyone made a secret pact to never cure another disease.
The FDA, FTC, Big Pharma, and Fast Food are all in on it.