As I understand it, some controllers do write caching and respond with "Yeah, I've written that." when all they've done is store it in their cache and tagged it for writing.
Well, the time that programmer has been employed by google represents 1% of the total time gaim has been in existence. And google hired him AFTER gaim became a wildly successful Open Source project. So, I don't think brining up the fact that google has hired one of the developers is relevant.
One thing that irritates me about the telecom industry is that the only ways they can seem to think of to make money are things that make things worse for the people who don't pay them the money. No, you rarely (or never) hear "Oh, we're going to roll out extra bandwidth to customers. It'll be a bit expensive at first, but once we recoup capital costs, the price will go down." It felt to me like they were dragged kicking and screaming into doing DSL.
As I said, I think charging for the quantity of data transferred is just fine. But treating traffic preferentially because someone paid you smacks too much of extortion to me. You wouldn't want anything to, you know, happen to those bytes you're sending before they get to their destination now, would you? See here, this bunch of cash will help us keep 'em nice 'n safe.
If I had a few million in seed capital, I'd start up some franchise based business that wired up neighborhoods with fiber on a block-by-block basis and bought T1s or whatever was needed for the traffic back to a major routing hub in a nearby city. Maybe it'd even use some kind of long-distance point-to-point wireless if the T1/T3/OCwhatever proved to be too expensive.
That kind of monopoly busting would do so much good for our country. I'd probably sell the lines to the neighborhoods and just charge to run data over them. Then they could easily switch if I ever became evil.
Just because you can imagine something it wouldn't be useful for doesn't mean it isn't useful. In a video streaming application, there are things that are more important than others. For example, in MPEG-2, it's very important to get the I-frames through, and not quite as important to miss B or P frames.
That's called 'charging per byte'. And I think it's a fine thing to do, and I hope this bill doesn't prohibit it. I also think that nobody in their right mind would buy a service that charged per byte. But hey, I don't think it's evil or wrong.
Actually, I suspect large scale mag-lev for public or private transportation will never really be that workable.
But, using mag-lev type technologies for shock absorption is really interesting and novel. It has a lot more potential because it doesn't require some huge infrastructure be built. The systems can be installed one vehicle at a time.
Now, if the Navy starts trying to use fine-grain control over EM fields to attempt to shield steel hulls from magnetic detection, I'm going to be in awe. That doesn't sound easy at all, and is a very novel idea.
History has shown that every single move Microsoft has made, especially in the legal arena, has been a cynical ploy to advance their cause by either lying, not telling the whole truth, or telling the truth at just the right moment.
That's why Microsoft is widely considered to have won the anti-trust trial in the US. They got a punishment that's so full of ways they could weasel out that against Microsoft it's utterly toothless. The only punishment that would've had any chance of working would've been structural changes and behavior mandates that had very clear, simple wording along clearly stated punishments for non-compliance. There would also have to be paragraphs of explanations detailing ways in which the clear simple words weren't to be creatively misinterpreted.
So, I can only see moves by Microsoft, especially in the legal arena, as cynical ploys. Anything they say about them isn't to be believed. The only thing to look at is what advantage they think they'll gain by doing it.
So, when will "The War on Terrorism®" end? Near as I can tell, the answer to that question is "Never.". That's a pretty gloomy schedule for getting back our freedom. In fact, it's positively Orwellian. Constant war as an excuse for limited freedom.
I don't think Christian's are persecuted in the modern US. I think it's actually quite the opposite. Witness the statement by our president. IMHO, that should've gotten him impeached right there. It shows a clear belief that the bill of rights made a mistake in not singling out atheists as not being allowed the same rights as other people, and therefore shows a lack of willingness to fully uphold them.
That actually sends a pretty clear signal to me that since I'm not much of a believer in any of the 'big entity in the sky' relgions, that I may very well face a loss of rights that I might otherwise be accorded. That's not OK.
I agree that the situation with schools is kind of stupid. I like school vouchers because I think that it provides a good way for Christians to make sure their children have a lot of mistaken beliefs about the world without bothering the rest of us. And I fully support the right of Christians (and anybody else) to bring their children up the way they see fit, and I can see how the current public school system makes that hard.
But, largely, it's non-christians who are persecuted in the modern US.
This about those who would treat copyright as a pure property right vs. those who don't. Almost everybody who wants copyright treated as a pure property right doesn't create anything. They are a publisher or corporation who aggregates the copyrights of all its employees, or some other entity concerned with the accumulation of coprights.
Accumulating an asset that has a built in time when it becomes utterly worthless is a very unpleasant proposition. It is much nicer and more convenient to treat the asset as some sort of durable good like a box of bolts or something. In fact, copyright has the potential for being the perfect asset since it doesn't decay at all!
But, the people who do create know that being able to create relies on a rich environment of ideas to draw from. Treating copyrights as a pure asset destroys that environment and creates an environment where the only things that get created are those the primary holders of copyrights are willing to allow to be created.
It really irritates me when I see the word 'consumer' when I hear talk about copyrights. There are no 'consumers', there are people. Everybody writes things and says stuff, and many people sing or dance or make up silly lyrics or any number of things.
This isn't about 'consumers', those incredibly dumb entities that eat products and shit cash. Casting it as that kind of a fight is inane.
The most worthwhile comment so far on the whole thread.
The previous studies have shown that people with high levels of education are less likely to develop the disease, which was interesting and a bit mystifying.
This study shows that perhaps that's not really what's going on. Perhaps something about education that makes you more resistant to the disease and more able to compensate for the slow decline it induces, but once you do start declining, it happens faster. The two studies together make a lot of sense and point to a mechanism. Either taken alone seems a bit strange.
I suspect they may be able to manage without having to have a relicensable InnoDB or BDB. As I understand it, they sell the interface code under a commercial license so that programs can link that in without having to be released under the GPL. So, I suspect their business model is mostly safe.
But yes, that is a worry. If something happens that is a more serious threat to their business model than future versions of the engine being proprietary, they may have to change business models, and that would be a huge upheaval.
Given what you say about the GPL extensions making things harder for people who would try to fork development into a closed source variant, I may have to look at PostgresSQL again.
I have a tendency to avoid databases in general though for other technical reasons. I don't like the fragmentation of namespace they represent. I think it creates undue administration hassles, and is otherwise painful to work with. If I got paid to do whatever I felt like, I might put some time into trying to bring filesystems to a point where they could compete with SQL databases for some of the things those databases are good at.
But, I have ocassion to recommend SQL databases to people who feel they absolutely must have them, so I'll reconsider PostgresSQL now.
My time and attention to the project represent a contribution. I avoid contributing to BSD licensed projects because of the high likelihood of my investment being co-opted and used to push a technology that makes things more closed.
That has the Muhammed with a bomb in his turban, a molitav cocktail in his hand and a machine gun slung over his back, with a crazed expression saying "That will teach them not to depict me and my followers as violent and intolerant.". In the backround there should be an embassy burning and lots of burning pieces of paper flying around with the words 'defaced website' on them.
For good measure, we could have a cartoon of Jesus using thumbscrews or having sex or something too. I'd host it. I think those cartoons would make an excellent worldwide protest against this sort of idiotic behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it, some controllers do write caching and respond with "Yeah, I've written that." when all they've done is store it in their cache and tagged it for writing.
Not much Linux can do about bad hardware.
Well, the time that programmer has been employed by google represents 1% of the total time gaim has been in existence. And google hired him AFTER gaim became a wildly successful Open Source project. So, I don't think brining up the fact that google has hired one of the developers is relevant.
One thing that irritates me about the telecom industry is that the only ways they can seem to think of to make money are things that make things worse for the people who don't pay them the money. No, you rarely (or never) hear "Oh, we're going to roll out extra bandwidth to customers. It'll be a bit expensive at first, but once we recoup capital costs, the price will go down." It felt to me like they were dragged kicking and screaming into doing DSL.
As I said, I think charging for the quantity of data transferred is just fine. But treating traffic preferentially because someone paid you smacks too much of extortion to me. You wouldn't want anything to, you know, happen to those bytes you're sending before they get to their destination now, would you? See here, this bunch of cash will help us keep 'em nice 'n safe.
If I had a few million in seed capital, I'd start up some franchise based business that wired up neighborhoods with fiber on a block-by-block basis and bought T1s or whatever was needed for the traffic back to a major routing hub in a nearby city. Maybe it'd even use some kind of long-distance point-to-point wireless if the T1/T3/OCwhatever proved to be too expensive.
That kind of monopoly busting would do so much good for our country. I'd probably sell the lines to the neighborhoods and just charge to run data over them. Then they could easily switch if I ever became evil.
Just because you can imagine something it wouldn't be useful for doesn't mean it isn't useful. In a video streaming application, there are things that are more important than others. For example, in MPEG-2, it's very important to get the I-frames through, and not quite as important to miss B or P frames.
The word 'consumer' is a dirty epithet used to marginalize everybody who doesn't have over 100000 to contribute to someone's campaign fund.
That's called 'charging per byte'. And I think it's a fine thing to do, and I hope this bill doesn't prohibit it. I also think that nobody in their right mind would buy a service that charged per byte. But hey, I don't think it's evil or wrong.
Well, why not treat QoS flags as being relative to the other packets the sender is sending instead of as being relative to everything?
*laugh*
I think they'll start swallowing bombs first. Can't wait to see what measures the TSA adopts to try to prevent that.
Interesting. Thanks!
Actually, I suspect large scale mag-lev for public or private transportation will never really be that workable.
But, using mag-lev type technologies for shock absorption is really interesting and novel. It has a lot more potential because it doesn't require some huge infrastructure be built. The systems can be installed one vehicle at a time.
Now, if the Navy starts trying to use fine-grain control over EM fields to attempt to shield steel hulls from magnetic detection, I'm going to be in awe. That doesn't sound easy at all, and is a very novel idea.
History has shown that every single move Microsoft has made, especially in the legal arena, has been a cynical ploy to advance their cause by either lying, not telling the whole truth, or telling the truth at just the right moment.
That's why Microsoft is widely considered to have won the anti-trust trial in the US. They got a punishment that's so full of ways they could weasel out that against Microsoft it's utterly toothless. The only punishment that would've had any chance of working would've been structural changes and behavior mandates that had very clear, simple wording along clearly stated punishments for non-compliance. There would also have to be paragraphs of explanations detailing ways in which the clear simple words weren't to be creatively misinterpreted.
So, I can only see moves by Microsoft, especially in the legal arena, as cynical ploys. Anything they say about them isn't to be believed. The only thing to look at is what advantage they think they'll gain by doing it.
So, when will "The War on Terrorism®" end? Near as I can tell, the answer to that question is "Never.". That's a pretty gloomy schedule for getting back our freedom. In fact, it's positively Orwellian. Constant war as an excuse for limited freedom.
I don't think Christian's are persecuted in the modern US. I think it's actually quite the opposite. Witness the statement by our president. IMHO, that should've gotten him impeached right there. It shows a clear belief that the bill of rights made a mistake in not singling out atheists as not being allowed the same rights as other people, and therefore shows a lack of willingness to fully uphold them.
That actually sends a pretty clear signal to me that since I'm not much of a believer in any of the 'big entity in the sky' relgions, that I may very well face a loss of rights that I might otherwise be accorded. That's not OK.
I agree that the situation with schools is kind of stupid. I like school vouchers because I think that it provides a good way for Christians to make sure their children have a lot of mistaken beliefs about the world without bothering the rest of us. And I fully support the right of Christians (and anybody else) to bring their children up the way they see fit, and I can see how the current public school system makes that hard.
But, largely, it's non-christians who are persecuted in the modern US.
You oughta find some people who will pay you to release that stuff. Maybe try releasing a little and seeing if people will pay you to release more.
This about those who would treat copyright as a pure property right vs. those who don't. Almost everybody who wants copyright treated as a pure property right doesn't create anything. They are a publisher or corporation who aggregates the copyrights of all its employees, or some other entity concerned with the accumulation of coprights.
Accumulating an asset that has a built in time when it becomes utterly worthless is a very unpleasant proposition. It is much nicer and more convenient to treat the asset as some sort of durable good like a box of bolts or something. In fact, copyright has the potential for being the perfect asset since it doesn't decay at all!
But, the people who do create know that being able to create relies on a rich environment of ideas to draw from. Treating copyrights as a pure asset destroys that environment and creates an environment where the only things that get created are those the primary holders of copyrights are willing to allow to be created.
It really irritates me when I see the word 'consumer' when I hear talk about copyrights. There are no 'consumers', there are people. Everybody writes things and says stuff, and many people sing or dance or make up silly lyrics or any number of things.
This isn't about 'consumers', those incredibly dumb entities that eat products and shit cash. Casting it as that kind of a fight is inane.
*looks confused* And I never said it did. In fact, I cited two studies, one saying the exact opposite of your comment.
The most worthwhile comment so far on the whole thread.
The previous studies have shown that people with high levels of education are less likely to develop the disease, which was interesting and a bit mystifying.
This study shows that perhaps that's not really what's going on. Perhaps something about education that makes you more resistant to the disease and more able to compensate for the slow decline it induces, but once you do start declining, it happens faster. The two studies together make a lot of sense and point to a mechanism. Either taken alone seems a bit strange.
I suspect they may be able to manage without having to have a relicensable InnoDB or BDB. As I understand it, they sell the interface code under a commercial license so that programs can link that in without having to be released under the GPL. So, I suspect their business model is mostly safe.
But yes, that is a worry. If something happens that is a more serious threat to their business model than future versions of the engine being proprietary, they may have to change business models, and that would be a huge upheaval.
Given what you say about the GPL extensions making things harder for people who would try to fork development into a closed source variant, I may have to look at PostgresSQL again.
I have a tendency to avoid databases in general though for other technical reasons. I don't like the fragmentation of namespace they represent. I think it creates undue administration hassles, and is otherwise painful to work with. If I got paid to do whatever I felt like, I might put some time into trying to bring filesystems to a point where they could compete with SQL databases for some of the things those databases are good at.
But, I have ocassion to recommend SQL databases to people who feel they absolutely must have them, so I'll reconsider PostgresSQL now.
My time and attention to the project represent a contribution. I avoid contributing to BSD licensed projects because of the high likelihood of my investment being co-opted and used to push a technology that makes things more closed.
The ridiculously liberal BSD license is my biggest problem with Postgress, and a reason I will avoid using it or targetting it with anything I write.
I understand that this is the case. And this is a much thornier problem to solve. :-(
I fully realize this. I'm no Christian apologist by any means. I'm not even Christian.
I chose Christianity simply because it's currently the dominant religion among western style democracies.
Thanks. I may pull that and put it on my LJ.
That has the Muhammed with a bomb in his turban, a molitav cocktail in his hand and a machine gun slung over his back, with a crazed expression saying "That will teach them not to depict me and my followers as violent and intolerant.". In the backround there should be an embassy burning and lots of burning pieces of paper flying around with the words 'defaced website' on them.
For good measure, we could have a cartoon of Jesus using thumbscrews or having sex or something too. I'd host it. I think those cartoons would make an excellent worldwide protest against this sort of idiotic behavior.