GDP GDP GDP GDP GDP GDP GDP gdp gdp gdp gdp gdp gdp gdp
Get this through your stupid head, **it's about the GDP, stupid!** Regardless of who pays for it, there is MORE PAYING going on in the US. A lot more paying. And the system is not 'better' by any measurable amount. This is what people mean by 'spending less on healthcare'... they DO SPEND LESS. A LOT LESS. Understand?
Individual health insurance is an absolute joke in the US, especially for family care. If you do 'go it alone' and you don't make a ton of money (well into six figures) then you might as well just skip to the end, flush your cash down the toilet and file for Medicaid. You will end up there eventually.
Considering you have a family to look out for, you need need NEED to find a cooperative or small business owners group to buy into that provides benefits. It will still be very expensive, but you *will* be ruined if you go it alone or go without it.
I will take a shot at this, although I am not the OP. The botnet has little to do with Chuck Norris OR Linux in particular, only that these names come up when investigating it. It is a run of the mill botnet, it takes advantage of default/weak passwords.
The question was actually about the researcher; surely the author is already taking action to avoid the recourse of getting caught distributing/running a malicious botnet. However, the researcher (in this case Czech, could have easily been from the US) was the one that coined the name based on the code found. Would someone doing that be subject to legal action as a result? It's a gray area, but it wouldn't be hard to argue defamation if the researcher titled all his papers "Malicious Activity by Chuck Norris Botnet". Despite *our* ability to easily determine that the name has little to actually do with Chuck Norris, a less informed individual wouldn't be able to.
Honestly, I am not trying to be difficult here: what are you talking about?
Google is a predator, not prey. Is Google a threat to other companies? Yes. Has anyone tried to buy Google because they were a threat? No. Google is a predator, QED.
The engineer; he is one man, he is prey. Has a one man company ever competed with the likes of Google, Apple, etc (while they are still one-man companies)? Men like him (and, probably, you and I) get bought and sold day in and day out, the only flaw in this analogy is that the prey like being caught/exploited; it's a quick way to make money. This guy was prey, QED.
Finally, corporate rationality vs. that of a lion. I would argue that if anything lions are more rational; just because they act in self interest does not make them irrational, if anything it makes them more so. Google, on the other hand, often acts out of obscure self interest (through PR/political stunts, giving things away for free, etc) which to some may be 'rationality' but to an outsider it is the opposite. Google, in this case though, behaved in perfect self interest, and snatched the prey before it could be a benefit to a competitive animal (Apple).
It is a shame that Bad Analogy Guy seems to be taking the day off; we have to put up with this thought out shit!
I do believe you meant to say "Shogun", a game published in 1988 whose sole objective was to become popular enough to hold the title "zen master". You could achieve it through the usual benevolent acts of kindness, or killing anyone who didn't agree to like you. Very enlightening game for a 7 year old, let me tell you what.
That's like saying a lion that comes across a wounded gazelle in the jungle "doesn't have to kill it". Sure, it doesn't *have* to but you know damn well that it will, without blinking. Google has no reason to buy an App store developer and pay him to keep developing App store apps, plain and simple. Do you think they were looking to make an investment?
Back to the law of the jungle; Google merely did what anyone would do when faced with a conflict: throw money at it. This app was developed buy a guy so he could make money (hence why the app wasn't FOSS/free for all uses.) Google came along and made him a better offer, and he took it.
Actually, this is a good case for why a developer would FOSS an application in the first place. Of course, if you're in "Please Google buy me out and make me rich beyond avarice" mode, then you wouldn't.
How about creating a semi FOSS license that remains closed source, and immediately becomes FOSS or Public Domain should the company ever fold, or the software itself becomes otherwise unavailable.
Kind of a poison pill of everlasting life. It would prevent applications from ever disappearing except by natural death (nobody wants it any longer).
It takes two to tango; there is no doubt that the project author made the conscious decision to join Google knowing that he would forfeit control of the project. Google probably even said point blank "we want to put your expertise to work *for Google*" with the implication that otherwise, he was only really benefiting Apple.
Who here really thought Google would buy an iStore App company (the developer) with the intention of profiting from the App's sales? Anyone? Buying it to 'absorb' the IP (i.e. kill it) was the only real outcome.
Motivation is as motivation does; it is completely wrong to say 'why, no one would go to a new service when the old service works just fine!', regardless of the techniques used by the service. When something better comes along, people move without looking back. I am not saying Buzz is that better thing, but it is stupid to assume that just because existing things are popular now, that something else can't be in the future.
How is it any different than a watch store that advertises business hours of 9am-9pm? You know that noone is there... You know what they have inside... And yet no one blames the owners when the place gets knocked over after hours, nor would they if the owner happened to be inside and capable of defending himself.
Cost and flexibility? I mean physically flexible; cat5 is thinner and lighter, and will bend around corners a lot easier if you are retrofitting a house with it. Plus, it will handle gigabit speed in all but the most extreme circumstances. Sure, all else considered Cat6 > Cat5, but this guy needs to retrofit his house and he's a cheap ass; cat5 might be right up his alley.
Have any of you really tried this in a big house? Unless the house isn't that big (the OP says it is in fact big) and the coax was retrofitted and not installed permanently (which is quite possibly the case) trying to use the coax as a pull for cat5/6 is a bad idea.
There is a chance that the coax will reveal an ideal conduit (such as a hollow wall running from the basement to the attic) if you follow it carefully, from the living room down and then up. Using it as a pull from one end to the other is likely only going to achieve some strained hands.
Despite your humility, you may have in fact contributed something. If the OP doesn't want to invest money or significant time (if the house is indeed large the odds of using the coax as a pull string are very very low)... Then he can always just subscribe to a service that accomplishes exactly what he wants. While not the cheapest thing around, ATT will give you all the gear you need to make use of your coax.
It's not about the signal itself per se, it's about the discrete resolution of a cross sample of the signal gathering area. Human senses are interpreted in analog, but eyes have discrete photoreceptor sites for vision (rods and cones); meaning there is a fixed limit at which the retina can derive detail out of the light being fed to it. Go over the limit, and you start to see weird artifacts like red-green-blue concentrations appearing to be white.
Re:End of twitter? not likely...
on
Two Scoops of Buzz
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Yeah, Google didn't stand a chance against the likes of Hotmail and Yahoo Mail, their spunky little upstart 'gmail' thing took forEVER just to get out of beta! Can't say that anyone was really attracted to it, what with all the established options out there. Who will take it seriously?!!
A profile that put all the torrent-like traffic into a queue with 25kbit/s of bandwidth would have probably been more effective, you are right. But honestly, if you had the chance to rick-roll those dicks, wouldn't you?
The DNS server would, by their definition, be blacklisted almost immediately since it too will be creating a LOT of distinct connections to different addresses. Assuming they didn't shoot themselves in the foot by doing this (not adding it to a whitelist), they should be safe from would-be attackers.
Much more annoying and troublesome would be a DoS of random other participants, blacking out everyone's access. That is, until the mob mentality kicks in and anyone caught watching a screener of the new Twilight movie while sitting in a presentation is immediately beaten up and thrown out of the building.
And another thing. When are they going to finally perfect the first two dimensions? For those of us with Amblyopia that would be good enough. All they need is a display with a gamut equal to or better than typical vision, along with a resolution beyond the Nyquist limit of the eye at the practical viewing distance.
Oh, and I guess a camera that is all of those things too. Not too much to ask, all things considered.
Seriously, why is everyone obsessed with the third dimension? We have barely scratched the surface of the first two!
Think big. Sooner or later, we will have neural implants that can feed visual information directly into the brain. All I am saying, is that it would be cool if it came along *sooner*.
The usable viewing angle has to be something like 5 degrees +/- unless it somehow can target your eyes with a camera and tune the overlay to compensate... Either way it is limited to one user at a time, which is probably acceptable for most tablets.
Now, how about something for the 5% of us with Amblyopia?
But Which CNN was it? Ted Turner's? Rupert Murdoch's? Bill Gates'ss? How will I know the appropriate de-spin to apply to turn the report back into reasonable information?
Nevermind the fact that the ecosystems which we *rely on to survive* involve many species, in symbiotic relationships... You can call them cuddly or ugly or whatever, but you can NOT call them meaningless. Your existential rant was beautiful up until the part where you were a completely arrogant ass.
The "great cost and labor" actually goes INTO their extinction as we destroy natural habitats in search of food, oil, gold, etc.
Ready for the "big finish"? Hint: this isn't sarcasm...
If there is another mass extinction, it will INCLUDE US.
Perhaps a reduced distance? The power will be very low anyway, and there isn't much need for a rate higher than 1mbit (at least with 3g). How is it that those little bluetooth dongles work that are no longer/wider than a USB plug (1cm)?
Slashdot Mirror
GDP GDP GDP GDP GDP GDP GDP
gdp gdp gdp gdp gdp gdp gdp
Get this through your stupid head, **it's about the GDP, stupid!** Regardless of who pays for it, there is MORE PAYING going on in the US. A lot more paying. And the system is not 'better' by any measurable amount. This is what people mean by 'spending less on healthcare'... they DO SPEND LESS. A LOT LESS. Understand?
Individual health insurance is an absolute joke in the US, especially for family care. If you do 'go it alone' and you don't make a ton of money (well into six figures) then you might as well just skip to the end, flush your cash down the toilet and file for Medicaid. You will end up there eventually.
Considering you have a family to look out for, you need need NEED to find a cooperative or small business owners group to buy into that provides benefits. It will still be very expensive, but you *will* be ruined if you go it alone or go without it.
I will take a shot at this, although I am not the OP. The botnet has little to do with Chuck Norris OR Linux in particular, only that these names come up when investigating it. It is a run of the mill botnet, it takes advantage of default/weak passwords.
The question was actually about the researcher; surely the author is already taking action to avoid the recourse of getting caught distributing/running a malicious botnet. However, the researcher (in this case Czech, could have easily been from the US) was the one that coined the name based on the code found. Would someone doing that be subject to legal action as a result? It's a gray area, but it wouldn't be hard to argue defamation if the researcher titled all his papers "Malicious Activity by Chuck Norris Botnet". Despite *our* ability to easily determine that the name has little to actually do with Chuck Norris, a less informed individual wouldn't be able to.
Honestly, I am not trying to be difficult here: what are you talking about?
Google is a predator, not prey. Is Google a threat to other companies? Yes. Has anyone tried to buy Google because they were a threat? No. Google is a predator, QED.
The engineer; he is one man, he is prey. Has a one man company ever competed with the likes of Google, Apple, etc (while they are still one-man companies)? Men like him (and, probably, you and I) get bought and sold day in and day out, the only flaw in this analogy is that the prey like being caught/exploited; it's a quick way to make money. This guy was prey, QED.
Finally, corporate rationality vs. that of a lion. I would argue that if anything lions are more rational; just because they act in self interest does not make them irrational, if anything it makes them more so. Google, on the other hand, often acts out of obscure self interest (through PR/political stunts, giving things away for free, etc) which to some may be 'rationality' but to an outsider it is the opposite. Google, in this case though, behaved in perfect self interest, and snatched the prey before it could be a benefit to a competitive animal (Apple).
It is a shame that Bad Analogy Guy seems to be taking the day off; we have to put up with this thought out shit!
Is it wrong that, after googling "2 legged dog" and seeing the videos of Faith, I am laughing hysterically? And can't stop?
I do believe you meant to say "Shogun", a game published in 1988 whose sole objective was to become popular enough to hold the title "zen master". You could achieve it through the usual benevolent acts of kindness, or killing anyone who didn't agree to like you. Very enlightening game for a 7 year old, let me tell you what.
They didn't have to kill it.
That's like saying a lion that comes across a wounded gazelle in the jungle "doesn't have to kill it". Sure, it doesn't *have* to but you know damn well that it will, without blinking. Google has no reason to buy an App store developer and pay him to keep developing App store apps, plain and simple. Do you think they were looking to make an investment?
Back to the law of the jungle; Google merely did what anyone would do when faced with a conflict: throw money at it. This app was developed buy a guy so he could make money (hence why the app wasn't FOSS/free for all uses.) Google came along and made him a better offer, and he took it.
Actually, this is a good case for why a developer would FOSS an application in the first place. Of course, if you're in "Please Google buy me out and make me rich beyond avarice" mode, then you wouldn't.
How about creating a semi FOSS license that remains closed source, and immediately becomes FOSS or Public Domain should the company ever fold, or the software itself becomes otherwise unavailable.
Kind of a poison pill of everlasting life. It would prevent applications from ever disappearing except by natural death (nobody wants it any longer).
It takes two to tango; there is no doubt that the project author made the conscious decision to join Google knowing that he would forfeit control of the project. Google probably even said point blank "we want to put your expertise to work *for Google*" with the implication that otherwise, he was only really benefiting Apple.
Who here really thought Google would buy an iStore App company (the developer) with the intention of profiting from the App's sales? Anyone? Buying it to 'absorb' the IP (i.e. kill it) was the only real outcome.
Motivation is as motivation does; it is completely wrong to say 'why, no one would go to a new service when the old service works just fine!', regardless of the techniques used by the service. When something better comes along, people move without looking back. I am not saying Buzz is that better thing, but it is stupid to assume that just because existing things are popular now, that something else can't be in the future.
How is it any different than a watch store that advertises business hours of 9am-9pm? You know that noone is there... You know what they have inside... And yet no one blames the owners when the place gets knocked over after hours, nor would they if the owner happened to be inside and capable of defending himself.
Cost and flexibility? I mean physically flexible; cat5 is thinner and lighter, and will bend around corners a lot easier if you are retrofitting a house with it. Plus, it will handle gigabit speed in all but the most extreme circumstances. Sure, all else considered Cat6 > Cat5, but this guy needs to retrofit his house and he's a cheap ass; cat5 might be right up his alley.
Have any of you really tried this in a big house? Unless the house isn't that big (the OP says it is in fact big) and the coax was retrofitted and not installed permanently (which is quite possibly the case) trying to use the coax as a pull for cat5/6 is a bad idea.
There is a chance that the coax will reveal an ideal conduit (such as a hollow wall running from the basement to the attic) if you follow it carefully, from the living room down and then up. Using it as a pull from one end to the other is likely only going to achieve some strained hands.
Despite your humility, you may have in fact contributed something. If the OP doesn't want to invest money or significant time (if the house is indeed large the odds of using the coax as a pull string are very very low)... Then he can always just subscribe to a service that accomplishes exactly what he wants. While not the cheapest thing around, ATT will give you all the gear you need to make use of your coax.
It's not about the signal itself per se, it's about the discrete resolution of a cross sample of the signal gathering area. Human senses are interpreted in analog, but eyes have discrete photoreceptor sites for vision (rods and cones); meaning there is a fixed limit at which the retina can derive detail out of the light being fed to it. Go over the limit, and you start to see weird artifacts like red-green-blue concentrations appearing to be white.
Yeah, Google didn't stand a chance against the likes of Hotmail and Yahoo Mail, their spunky little upstart 'gmail' thing took forEVER just to get out of beta! Can't say that anyone was really attracted to it, what with all the established options out there. Who will take it seriously?!!
A profile that put all the torrent-like traffic into a queue with 25kbit/s of bandwidth would have probably been more effective, you are right. But honestly, if you had the chance to rick-roll those dicks, wouldn't you?
The DNS server would, by their definition, be blacklisted almost immediately since it too will be creating a LOT of distinct connections to different addresses. Assuming they didn't shoot themselves in the foot by doing this (not adding it to a whitelist), they should be safe from would-be attackers.
Much more annoying and troublesome would be a DoS of random other participants, blacking out everyone's access. That is, until the mob mentality kicks in and anyone caught watching a screener of the new Twilight movie while sitting in a presentation is immediately beaten up and thrown out of the building.
And another thing. When are they going to finally perfect the first two dimensions? For those of us with Amblyopia that would be good enough. All they need is a display with a gamut equal to or better than typical vision, along with a resolution beyond the Nyquist limit of the eye at the practical viewing distance.
Oh, and I guess a camera that is all of those things too. Not too much to ask, all things considered.
Seriously, why is everyone obsessed with the third dimension? We have barely scratched the surface of the first two!
Think big. Sooner or later, we will have neural implants that can feed visual information directly into the brain. All I am saying, is that it would be cool if it came along *sooner*.
The usable viewing angle has to be something like 5 degrees +/- unless it somehow can target your eyes with a camera and tune the overlay to compensate... Either way it is limited to one user at a time, which is probably acceptable for most tablets.
Now, how about something for the 5% of us with Amblyopia?
But Which CNN was it? Ted Turner's? Rupert Murdoch's? Bill Gates'ss? How will I know the appropriate de-spin to apply to turn the report back into reasonable information?
A sort of light speed for heat? Interesting idea... Where are the armchair physicists when you need them?
Nevermind the fact that the ecosystems which we *rely on to survive* involve many species, in symbiotic relationships... You can call them cuddly or ugly or whatever, but you can NOT call them meaningless. Your existential rant was beautiful up until the part where you were a completely arrogant ass.
The "great cost and labor" actually goes INTO their extinction as we destroy natural habitats in search of food, oil, gold, etc.
Ready for the "big finish"? Hint: this isn't sarcasm...
If there is another mass extinction, it will INCLUDE US.
Perhaps a reduced distance? The power will be very low anyway, and there isn't much need for a rate higher than 1mbit (at least with 3g). How is it that those little bluetooth dongles work that are no longer/wider than a USB plug (1cm)?