I'm sorry, your comment implied that QoS and aggressive traffic shaping were the only ways to deal with the current situation, and that a robust infrastructure isn't necessary - which, frankly, is a ridiculous posture to take. (Not, perhaps, as ridiculous as building a network that can handle multiple exabytes of data transfers when one capable of handling mere terabytes will suffice, but ridiculous nonetheless.)
As I said, QoS and traffic shaping have their place; however, their place is secondary to having a robust infrastructure that can handle the traffic currently being generated - something which, according to all appearances, does not currently exist in many parts of the United States, which is why so many ISPs are relying on QoS and aggressive traffic shaping instead of building up the infrastructure.
Relying solely on QoS and traffic shaping is like sticking a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound; it might help in the short term, but it's not a permanent solution.
No, it's not ridiculous. The infrastructure the US has is woefully substandard, usually due to perceived minimal return on investment.
Case in point: the cable company my town contracted with to provide lines refused to run them up certain roads because "it wouldn't be profitable". They only ran the lines when the town council asked them how much more unprofitable defending against a breach-of-contract lawsuit would be.
That's not to say QoS doesn't have a place in ISP traffic management; however, relying solely on QoS and aggressive traffic shaping essentially ignores the proverbial elephant in the room: namely, that the infrastructure for Internet traffic in the United States is shit - especially if, like me, you live in a rural area (one where, until recently, your only options for an Internet connection were dialup, dialup, and . . . oh, yeah, dialup!).
Ray -
Surely, if it's evidence, it can't be proprietary.
If I were the judge in this case, I would have said "Proprietary evidence? You must be joking. Either show me the evidence, or I'm dismissing your case for lack thereof."
That's what a judge is supposed to say.
. . . And yet this judge didn't.
Something is decidedly fishy here - it looks like someone needs to do some digging and find out why the judge in question acted as he did.
However, I will admit that this "proprietary evidence" thing does seem to give any defense attorneys who may be involved a rather powerful hole to exploit. Perhaps they could file a motion to compel against the plaintiffs, requiring that they reveal their evidence or risk a subsequent motion to quash/dismiss with prejudice?
(IANAL, so I don't know if such a thing seems feasible - but based on what little I do know [mostly from reading your blog] it seems like that would be a logical course of action to me: attack the inherent contradiction of "proprietary evidence", arguing that if something is evidence, it cannot be proprietary? Just my $0.03, adjusted for inflation . . . )
Surely, if it's evidence, it can't be proprietary.
If I were the judge in this case, I would have said "Proprietary evidence? You must be joking. Either show me the evidence, or I'm dismissing your case for lack thereof."
Indeed so. Someone with a $30K income and no/minimal outstanding debts is a better candidate for a loan than someone who makes $100K a year, but has seven over-limit credit cards and a defaulted loan.
Why? Because the person with the minimal debt has proven himself to be more responsible with his money (and thus more likely to make his payments on time), whereas the guy with the over-limit credit cards and the defaulted loan has shown that he can't be trusted to make his payments on time.
So, correct me if I'm wrong . . . but if I read this right, then TCP/IP stacks would therefore be prior art on this patent, thus rendering it invalid, yes?
The whole point of video games is to do things that you couldn't possibly do in real life safely. In my opinion, MADD should be ENCOURAGING people to drive drunk in GTA IV, using this logic:
"See how much harder and more dangerous it is to drive drunk? And this is just in a video game...imagine what would happen if you did it in real life." I'll drink to that!
Eh. I never really got into WoW myself, and I could live without a WoW movie.
But a Command & Conquer movie . . . that's another story. I'd love to see one of those. (Just keep Uwe Boll away from it, or I'll have to feed him to my sharks.)
Slashdot Mirror
Well said, good sir. If I had mod points, I'd be dropping some on your last comment.
I'm sorry, your comment implied that QoS and aggressive traffic shaping were the only ways to deal with the current situation, and that a robust infrastructure isn't necessary - which, frankly, is a ridiculous posture to take. (Not, perhaps, as ridiculous as building a network that can handle multiple exabytes of data transfers when one capable of handling mere terabytes will suffice, but ridiculous nonetheless.)
As I said, QoS and traffic shaping have their place; however, their place is secondary to having a robust infrastructure that can handle the traffic currently being generated - something which, according to all appearances, does not currently exist in many parts of the United States, which is why so many ISPs are relying on QoS and aggressive traffic shaping instead of building up the infrastructure.
Relying solely on QoS and traffic shaping is like sticking a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound; it might help in the short term, but it's not a permanent solution.
No, it's not ridiculous. The infrastructure the US has is woefully substandard, usually due to perceived minimal return on investment.
Case in point: the cable company my town contracted with to provide lines refused to run them up certain roads because "it wouldn't be profitable". They only ran the lines when the town council asked them how much more unprofitable defending against a breach-of-contract lawsuit would be.
That's not to say QoS doesn't have a place in ISP traffic management; however, relying solely on QoS and aggressive traffic shaping essentially ignores the proverbial elephant in the room: namely, that the infrastructure for Internet traffic in the United States is shit - especially if, like me, you live in a rural area (one where, until recently, your only options for an Internet connection were dialup, dialup, and . . . oh, yeah, dialup!).
Ray - Surely, if it's evidence, it can't be proprietary. If I were the judge in this case, I would have said "Proprietary evidence? You must be joking. Either show me the evidence, or I'm dismissing your case for lack thereof."
That's what a judge is supposed to say.
. . . And yet this judge didn't.
Something is decidedly fishy here - it looks like someone needs to do some digging and find out why the judge in question acted as he did.
However, I will admit that this "proprietary evidence" thing does seem to give any defense attorneys who may be involved a rather powerful hole to exploit. Perhaps they could file a motion to compel against the plaintiffs, requiring that they reveal their evidence or risk a subsequent motion to quash/dismiss with prejudice?
(IANAL, so I don't know if such a thing seems feasible - but based on what little I do know [mostly from reading your blog] it seems like that would be a logical course of action to me: attack the inherent contradiction of "proprietary evidence", arguing that if something is evidence, it cannot be proprietary? Just my $0.03, adjusted for inflation . . . )
Ray -
Surely, if it's evidence, it can't be proprietary.
If I were the judge in this case, I would have said "Proprietary evidence? You must be joking. Either show me the evidence, or I'm dismissing your case for lack thereof."
-Arrak Esterhazy (a/k/a PXC_Macavity)
Indeed so. Someone with a $30K income and no/minimal outstanding debts is a better candidate for a loan than someone who makes $100K a year, but has seven over-limit credit cards and a defaulted loan.
Why? Because the person with the minimal debt has proven himself to be more responsible with his money (and thus more likely to make his payments on time), whereas the guy with the over-limit credit cards and the defaulted loan has shown that he can't be trusted to make his payments on time.
A very good point, Aphoxema. Yes, Microsoft likely has the legal right to do what they've done with the 360.
...So tell me, 172656, Why do you hate America?
:)
However, was it an ethical move? Personally, I doubt it.
Also, this made me laugh. Thank you for brightening my day
So, correct me if I'm wrong . . . but if I read this right, then TCP/IP stacks would therefore be prior art on this patent, thus rendering it invalid, yes?
Turtles all the way down, is it?
In that case, we just go back to Sneakernet.
You and me both, Ray.
Okay, what part of "Organize BEFORE they rise" don't you understand?
*headshake* Bloody amateurs.
Eh. I never really got into WoW myself, and I could live without a WoW movie.
But a Command & Conquer movie . . . that's another story. I'd love to see one of those. (Just keep Uwe Boll away from it, or I'll have to feed him to my sharks.)