Not quite. The cert also needs to contain the name of the host that you're connected to, otherwise your browser is going to complain. Is your ISP going to be able to get a cert issued to them with the hostname "www.bankofamerica.com"? Unlikely.
Not just unlikely - but rather easy. How many ISPs come with install software?
So blackhat ISP sets their install software to install a new root certificate, with THEM as the root of this new "trusted" certificate.
Then, if they want to issue a certificate for "www.bankofamerica.com" it takes a few nanoseconds of processor time to cook one up using their "trusted" root certificate. Then, all the power and magic of SSL is brought to its knees because of a single, trusted, unethical root certificate.
Feel free to check me up. It's not only not hard, I could probably cook it up in an afternoon. Furthermore, doing an SSL cert check and tying it to your MAC address so that having this new root cert (and its accompanying security holes) would be REQUIRED to get access.
So, you try to go to ANY SSL website, and you see "sorry, but to view this page, you need to install the security package from TrustWorthy ISP - click here to install!".
Don't tell me this wouldn't work - who would really know, if the proxy actually HONORED the ssl cert to BofA?
Encryption allows Alice to send a message to Bob that can't be viewed by Jack. The problem with DRM is it uses encryption such that Bob and Jack are the same person.
Think about it.
Alice (the publisher of the song) is using encryption to ensure that you and only you (Bob) can recieve the message. But Jack (also you) is being prevented from viewing the message.
The only reason that DRM is making any kind of headway is because of the hand-waving around terms like "dual key cryptography" and "license management". When you get right down to it, the content producers exist to deliver content to me. Once I get it, the only thing limiting my distribution of that content is legal in nature - I'm afraid of getting sued or prosecuted, so I don't.
Speakers can be recorded, screens can be videotaped. DRM can make it more difficult to copy content, but it will NEVER make it impossible. And the sad part is, DRM frequently makes it more difficult to VIEW content legitimately.
As a good example, I just set up a Windows XP laptop for one of my sales associates. I spent an ungodly amount of time going thru "Genuine Advantage" this and "Genuine" that, along with some dozen or more reboots. It's riduculously annoying, especially when updating a new CentOS system takes a single line:
yum -y update; shutdown -r now;
Microsoft has it wrong, and it may well be their undoing to find this out.
I just don't get it. I mean, I really, REALLY don't get it?!?!?!
Places like 365 Main offer top-notch server hosting for dirt-cheap prices. I have a half-rack there with 6, quad-core Opteron clustered LAMP servers in place now. Reliability is excellent, bandwidth availability is fabulous (we have a Gb interface to the Internet) and the price is just astonishingly cheap - although we are an "Internet Company", we spend more on phone calls than we do on hosting and related fees. Never mind hotels and travel/flight expenses!
We've gotten between 4 and 5 nines of uptime over the last 4 years just by using quality software, (Linux software stack) good quality (but generic) hardware, and a good quality, outsourced hosting environment, at a price you simply couldn't believe.
I've seen plenty of other companies roll their own datacenter at 3-10x the cost, with greatly reduced reliability, embarassing outages, and lots of internal friction over maintenance overhead. Me? I want it cheap, fast, and reliable. It really IS a case of cheaper is actually the best!
I can see the need for an "internal" datacenter if your needs are largely local and your bandwidth usage is great - think enterprise application availability, or large volume local network storage. But if your company's core deliverable is public facing, I can't imagine any advantage to having your own datacenter until you company income passes the "100 million/year" mark.
And yes, I'm the CTO of a million-dollar per year Internet services/software company, growing at about 50% annually. (We'll probably be close to the 2 million-dollar-per-year mark by Christmas)
Each driver==each electron. Whether you choose to track electrons with free will or with robotics, it's still too small and random to keep track of all the time.
Cool! A car analogy! I think that when you track electrons with free will or with robotics, they're more like cars with sirens on them. You know, cops. Like you see on TV late nights, where they have hot chicks run DNA tests.
It seems somewhat counterintuitive that airlines would ignore such an obvious way to save fuel if there weren't tradeoffs involved, considering its one of their single greatest expenditures.
The aviation industry is simply counterintuitive.
While most people think that the aerospace industry is high-tech, the truth is that it's rather backward. Airframe designs routinely remain in active use for 30+ years, sometimes 50 or more! An entire industry that's focused on reliability first and foremost beyond new innovations and improvements. Strictly speaking, it's an industry that's been largely paralyzed by liability attorneys.
As a pilot, I'm frequently amazed by how much is left to the pilot. Statistically, 70% of aviation deaths occur because of "pilot error". Yet while aviation systems are kept starkly simple to "improve reliability", very little is done to reduce pilot workload. It's as though there's this culture of finger-pointing, simply because it's easier than innovating the cockpit into something that reduces pilot workload.
Why would I have to adjust the fuel mixture MANUALLY on an airplane to get peak performance, when my cheap-o Saturn SL2 does the job nicely, even adapting itself to my specific driving habits? Why would I need to adjust the manifold pressure of a fixed-speed prop to get optimum performance when the transmission in my cheap-o Saturn SL2 does the job nicely at 1/10 the price?
Technology like this, that reduces pilot workload, will serve to reduce pilot workload and improve aviation safety.
Yes, the commercial airline industry has done a decent job of implementing many of these features - but I often feel as though the FAA is as much about suppressing the aviation industry as it is about promoting it.
One should never consider the source when determining the validity and importance of information except as a last resort. Instead, one should consider the information itself and let it stand or fall on its own merit.
Sounds all nice and fuzzy. Only problem is that this idea is utterly worthless in any environment where computational power is limited. And the memory capacity and computational power of our poor little brain is very limited indeed.
The number of shortcuts taken by our brain in order to reduce the computation cost is staggering. One of the tools used to reduce computation is the abstract concept. By pattern matching common things into categories, it allows us to generalize the amount of information to process. In short, since we can genericize the properties of a pine tree, we can draw deductions about all pine trees based on these properties, allowing for an immense reduction of computation.
The truth is that you could spend centuries contemplating the bullshit being generated in a single day on this Earth. Resources to consider all information independently of source simply does not exist. Thus, we have to find ways to shortcut the bullshit factor and get to information with a better signal to noise ratio.
Look at it like this: Are you going to read every A/C post that's been moderated to -1? Because if really and truly don't consider the source of data, that's what you're saying we should all do.
Somehow, I doubt that you do this. Idealism is nice and all, but come back when you've had a better taste of reality.
apparently my choice was wise. can trust these people.
RedHat is definitely one of the good guys. While Google's Evil-o-meter has been slipping of late, RedHat has consistently been true to their mission. They develop technology that's open and freely available a-la CentOS and have some of the finest hacks around working full time on open stuff. (Alan Cox, et al)
RedHat tends to get dissed around here a bit because they target servers rather than workstation/desktop Linux. They are focused on making money the honorable way, and some people seem to have problems with anybody making money.
But look at their track record. They've consistently been true to the spirit and purpose of the GPL and free or open source software in general, and have been both profitable and successful in doing so. (Hint: Ubuntu is not yet profitable)
One difference might be that people sort of think of email more like a letter than a postcard. A court could find that email has protections similar to a letter.
But how can this situation be likened to a car? Car analogies are always the best way to explain complicated things!
The point of Godwin's Law is that there are some issues that are just too emotionally laden to rationally discuss. The Holocaust is one, and I'd argue that slavery is another.
But *you* broght up slavery. I merely brought up the issue of state's rights as "bodies politic". I didn't say why, I didn't get into it at all, other than to indicate that states have been telling the feds to screw themselves as long as there's been a federal government to yell at.
Don't put this one on me - it's entirely YOUR doing.
You know, more and more we are seeing states resisting things the federal government is doing.
BZZZZZTTT!!!
What this post reflects is a young understanding of something that's been going on as long as there have been states. It's why there ARE states - the term "state" can literally mean "country", and the "United States of America" can be literally read as "United Countries of America". It's a "body politic".
If you'd paid attention in history class, you'd remember that once upon a time, each state printed their own money, and had their own laws. They were, quite literally, separate nations until they united under the Constitution of the United States. This isn't new, and a modicum of research will reveal this.
Remember the (ahem) Civil War? Wasn't that a good case of states resisting what the federal government is doing?
Your voice means NOTHING if you don't submit it via the proper channels. If you care about your politicians, then VOTE. If you care about FCC decisions, then COMMENT. It's your civic duty. When people argue politics with me, my first question is: "In the last election, did you vote?". If the answer is no, then I refuse to discuss politics, after telling them "I don't care what you think, your opinion doesn't matter!".
I commented to the FCC, and I sincerely hope you did, too. Here's my comment to the FCC, first posted to slashdot here. Here's what I wrote:
Airwaves belong to everyone. Although transmission is regulated, reception is open and unrestricted. And the only purpose of the regulation is to ensure that the openness of the medium is preserved and the utility of the radio space is not compromised.
This is as it should be. Everybody benefits when the utility of a common resource is preserved. Otherwise, the phenomenon of the "Tragedy of the Commons" rears its ugly head. Here, overly agressive private consumption of a public resource causes a compromise of the utility of the common resource, to the detriment of all, including the private individuals hogging the resource!
The Internet is, by definition, a shared resource. It's a peering agreement based on communications protocols which enable all of its parts to cooperate together, seamlessly, for the public benefit. Any part can access any other part as though all parts were local. It's the first, truly open, global communications system whose immense potential for benefiting humankind has barely begun.
It is now up to you, here, to declare for our progeny, that this shared, common resource shall remain open and free for the benefit of all, to ensure its use, utility, and power so that everybody can benefit.
Balkanizing this public medium with an "unequal" internet, where the common carriers of the traffic are free to degrade access to portions of the network not in their personal interest, serves only to pillage the utility of the common good. It provides enhanced short-term profits for the pillager, but degrades the overall utility of the network.
Please, please please, follow the forefathers before you who have declared that this land be preserved for the common good, and those who declared that the roads be preserved for the common good, and those who have declared that the nation's power grid and telephone grid be regulated to preserve their utility for the common good.
The utility of the Internet should be preserved. Please, please, keep it neutral.
Years ago, when keyboards were still worth something, I sold used computers CHEAP! I'd take older computers, refurbish them, and sell them with a 90-day warrantee. They sold like hotcakes.
My favorite trick involved a stack of junk keyboards often obtained for FREE, a broom, a hose, and a $1 bottle of dish soap out on the front sidewalk. I'd lay out the keyboards, hose them down, squirt the $1 dish soap all over the keyboards, then scrub vigorously with the broom. When all the crud had been scrubbered on the keyboard, I'd hose them down thoroughly with LOTS AND LOTS OF WATER.
Left to dry for a week or two, I'd usually see about 9/10 work perfectly. I'd "make" close to $200 in an hour or two of actual work. And that 9/10 ratio didn't account for the fact that these keyboards were UNTESTED.
I'd hope you picked smokin', 'cause I'm sitting here in my bedroom, 12.45 AM, on a lounge chair, with my half-naked and thoroughly satisfied wife falling asleep on the bed to my left side, with a glass of Cabernet Sauvignon on my right.
The internet is carried by interconnected *private* machinery and is therefore not subject to the same principles.
Because... why?
So too is it thus with telephone and other utilities.
While utilities such as telephone and power are "private", they are HEAVILY REGULATED and their ability to profit from their "natural monopoly" is preserved. This is practically a perfect parallel.
I myself think that the internet should be neutral for the simple fact that it can be useful [and sometimes critical] to just about everyone. And let's face it. It's not like we're going to build a separate, public, broadband network. Good luck getting the people to pay *that* tax! Similarly, electricity is a private utility with massive public dependence, so the government keeps a justifiably watchful eye.
Glad to find that when it comes down to it, we agree.
May it be so with the internet, but I have my doubts that it will go through.
Me too. But did you even bother to post to the FCC? If it's not worth even that much to you, you're just talking out your arse. It's not like these guys at the FCC are going to seek YOU out...
Airwaves belong to everyone. Although transmission is regulated, reception is open and unrestricted. And the only purpose of the regulation is to ensure that the openness of the medium is preserved and the utility of the radio space is not compromised.
This is as it should be. Everybody benefits when the utility of a common resource is preserved. Otherwise, the phenomenon of the "Tragedy of the Commons" rears its ugly head. Here, overly agressive private consumption of a public resource causes a compromise of the utility of the common resource, to the detriment of all, including the private individuals hogging the resource!
The Internet is, by definition, a shared resource. It's a peering agreement based on communications protocols which enable all of its parts to cooperate together, seamlessly, for the public benefit. Any part can access any other part as though all parts were local. It's the first, truly open, global communications system whose immense potential for benefiting humankind has barely begun.
It is now up to you, here, to declare for our progeny, that this shared, common resource shall remain open and free for the benefit of all, to ensure its use, utility, and power so that everybody can benefit.
Balkanizing this public medium with an "unequal" internet, where the common carriers of the traffic are free to degrade access to portions of the network not in their personal interest, serves only to pillage the utility of the common good. It provides enhanced short-term profits for the pillager, but degrades the overall utility of the network.
Please, please please, follow the forefathers before you who have declared that this land be preserved for the common good, and those who declared that the roads be preserved for the common good, and those who have declared that the nation's power grid and telephone grid be regulated to preserve their utility for the common good.
The utility of the Internet should be preserved. Please, please, keep it neutral.
Its not racist its damn hard to understand people through an accent *especially* if you dont know what you're doing looking for help.
How true that is!
Today I was out flying and over the radio heard an impenetrable Asian accent. I literally could not determine if he was even speaking English, though I'm pretty sure that technically, he was. I tried and tried to figure it out. Even worse, it was all self-announced on a Unicom frequency shared by a number of local airports - I have no idea if he was even within 100 miles of me.
It's not racism - it's simply an ability to communicate.
For Intuit, the move is a bit of a milestone -- QuickBooks is the first of its products [to] work on open source software."
Ok, Quicken IS NOT Quickbooks. But for a decent, simple-to-use checkbook manager, Quicken is hard to beat. It's incredibly user-friendly, and the ancient version I have, version 5.0 for DOS, works great on FreeDOS. I use it all the time, Quicken 5 on FreeDOS on Linux via SSH in Xterm. (no kidding!)
This lets me do my books anytime, anyplace where I can get an xterm or putty loaded. (pretty much EVERYWHERE) Since it's done everything I've ever needed for my personal checking accounts, why would I use anything else?
Here is a cool site - a hot chix0r on a hot bike drives thru Chernobyl. The pictures are gripping, and not just because the hot chick is in some of them. Check it out.
Sorry, I'm a Linux lover and all, but the sheer volume of crap in your post forces me to respond. I'll take a few choice tidbits:
Microsoft knows that they have peaked in the software industry, and they are desperately seeking a way to continue their unprecedented growth.
Except that it IS precedented by 20 years of.... growth!
We all know it's not going to happen; most of Microsoft's hardware products (aside from keyboards, joysticks, and mice) have been duds in the marketplace.
Eh, like the XBox? An "I'm feeling lucky" searching for "XBOX sales wii" returns this website - and even if the sales figures are a few months old, they're nothing to shake a stick at.
They tried search engines and failed miserably, even though the MSIE default page was MSN.
I think the Novell deal is something different though. I think that they want to focus more on services and become a solutions provider like IBM did, so that way no matter WHAT the techology choice is, Microsoft still get at least a slice of the pie, and then other forces at Microsoft who are desperate to maintain their positions and power at Microsoft are using this development to spread anti-Linux FUD.
Wow! Something insightful! No, not really. It's been industry mantra for at least 5-10 years: "SERVICES! SERVICES! SERVICES!". They're a tad late to the game, but they certainly aren't going the way of DEC.
Everything above may be totally off base, but really, I do think that these moves are out of desperation because they see the strength of their stock eroding very quickly.
Your post is actually very reminiscent of another post I've seen from time to time here on slashdork. It usually starts like this: "It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying..."
That's why you use hardware RAID. A good card will allow you to swap out drives and rebuild, or add new drives to the array, without ever needing to unmount the anything.
But the minute or so of uptime you get by not having to power down the computer is more than made up when the controller chip on your beautiful RAID controller sizzles. Using Linux software RAID lets you plug the drive(s) into another computer of a completely different chipset, boot up, and continue operations as though nothing had ever gone wrong. IMHO, this is far preferable to the effective lock-in presented to you by hardware controllers.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite. The cert also needs to contain the name of the host that you're connected to, otherwise your browser is going to complain. Is your ISP going to be able to get a cert issued to them with the hostname "www.bankofamerica.com"? Unlikely.
Not just unlikely - but rather easy. How many ISPs come with install software?
So blackhat ISP sets their install software to install a new root certificate, with THEM as the root of this new "trusted" certificate.
Then, if they want to issue a certificate for "www.bankofamerica.com" it takes a few nanoseconds of processor time to cook one up using their "trusted" root certificate. Then, all the power and magic of SSL is brought to its knees because of a single, trusted, unethical root certificate.
Feel free to check me up. It's not only not hard, I could probably cook it up in an afternoon. Furthermore, doing an SSL cert check and tying it to your MAC address so that having this new root cert (and its accompanying security holes) would be REQUIRED to get access.
So, you try to go to ANY SSL website, and you see "sorry, but to view this page, you need to install the security package from TrustWorthy ISP - click here to install!".
Don't tell me this wouldn't work - who would really know, if the proxy actually HONORED the ssl cert to BofA?
Encryption allows Alice to send a message to Bob that can't be viewed by Jack. The problem with DRM is it uses encryption such that Bob and Jack are the same person.
Think about it.
Alice (the publisher of the song) is using encryption to ensure that you and only you (Bob) can recieve the message. But Jack (also you) is being prevented from viewing the message.
The only reason that DRM is making any kind of headway is because of the hand-waving around terms like "dual key cryptography" and "license management". When you get right down to it, the content producers exist to deliver content to me. Once I get it, the only thing limiting my distribution of that content is legal in nature - I'm afraid of getting sued or prosecuted, so I don't.
Speakers can be recorded, screens can be videotaped. DRM can make it more difficult to copy content, but it will NEVER make it impossible. And the sad part is, DRM frequently makes it more difficult to VIEW content legitimately.
As a good example, I just set up a Windows XP laptop for one of my sales associates. I spent an ungodly amount of time going thru "Genuine Advantage" this and "Genuine" that, along with some dozen or more reboots. It's riduculously annoying, especially when updating a new CentOS system takes a single line:
yum -y update; shutdown -r now;
Microsoft has it wrong, and it may well be their undoing to find this out.
I just don't get it. I mean, I really, REALLY don't get it?!?!?!
Places like 365 Main offer top-notch server hosting for dirt-cheap prices. I have a half-rack there with 6, quad-core Opteron clustered LAMP servers in place now. Reliability is excellent, bandwidth availability is fabulous (we have a Gb interface to the Internet) and the price is just astonishingly cheap - although we are an "Internet Company", we spend more on phone calls than we do on hosting and related fees. Never mind hotels and travel/flight expenses!
We've gotten between 4 and 5 nines of uptime over the last 4 years just by using quality software, (Linux software stack) good quality (but generic) hardware, and a good quality, outsourced hosting environment, at a price you simply couldn't believe.
I've seen plenty of other companies roll their own datacenter at 3-10x the cost, with greatly reduced reliability, embarassing outages, and lots of internal friction over maintenance overhead. Me? I want it cheap, fast, and reliable. It really IS a case of cheaper is actually the best!
I can see the need for an "internal" datacenter if your needs are largely local and your bandwidth usage is great - think enterprise application availability, or large volume local network storage. But if your company's core deliverable is public facing, I can't imagine any advantage to having your own datacenter until you company income passes the "100 million/year" mark.
And yes, I'm the CTO of a million-dollar per year Internet services/software company, growing at about 50% annually. (We'll probably be close to the 2 million-dollar-per-year mark by Christmas)
Each driver==each electron. Whether you choose to track electrons with free will or with robotics, it's still too small and random to keep track of all the time.
Cool! A car analogy! I think that when you track electrons with free will or with robotics, they're more like cars with sirens on them. You know, cops. Like you see on TV late nights, where they have hot chicks run DNA tests.
Mmmmmm... Hot chicks with big breasts....
Sorry, was I saying something?
It seems somewhat counterintuitive that airlines would ignore such an obvious way to save fuel if there weren't tradeoffs involved, considering its one of their single greatest expenditures.
The aviation industry is simply counterintuitive.
While most people think that the aerospace industry is high-tech, the truth is that it's rather backward. Airframe designs routinely remain in active use for 30+ years, sometimes 50 or more! An entire industry that's focused on reliability first and foremost beyond new innovations and improvements. Strictly speaking, it's an industry that's been largely paralyzed by liability attorneys.
As a pilot, I'm frequently amazed by how much is left to the pilot. Statistically, 70% of aviation deaths occur because of "pilot error". Yet while aviation systems are kept starkly simple to "improve reliability", very little is done to reduce pilot workload. It's as though there's this culture of finger-pointing, simply because it's easier than innovating the cockpit into something that reduces pilot workload.
Why would I have to adjust the fuel mixture MANUALLY on an airplane to get peak performance, when my cheap-o Saturn SL2 does the job nicely, even adapting itself to my specific driving habits? Why would I need to adjust the manifold pressure of a fixed-speed prop to get optimum performance when the transmission in my cheap-o Saturn SL2 does the job nicely at 1/10 the price?
There is a new Diesel/Jet-A engine made by Thielert that eliminates the need to do either. I push the lever in and get more power. I pull it out to slow down.
Technology like this, that reduces pilot workload, will serve to reduce pilot workload and improve aviation safety.
Yes, the commercial airline industry has done a decent job of implementing many of these features - but I often feel as though the FAA is as much about suppressing the aviation industry as it is about promoting it.
One should never consider the source when determining the validity and importance of information except as a last resort. Instead, one should consider the information itself and let it stand or fall on its own merit.
Sounds all nice and fuzzy. Only problem is that this idea is utterly worthless in any environment where computational power is limited. And the memory capacity and computational power of our poor little brain is very limited indeed.
The number of shortcuts taken by our brain in order to reduce the computation cost is staggering. One of the tools used to reduce computation is the abstract concept. By pattern matching common things into categories, it allows us to generalize the amount of information to process. In short, since we can genericize the properties of a pine tree, we can draw deductions about all pine trees based on these properties, allowing for an immense reduction of computation.
The truth is that you could spend centuries contemplating the bullshit being generated in a single day on this Earth. Resources to consider all information independently of source simply does not exist. Thus, we have to find ways to shortcut the bullshit factor and get to information with a better signal to noise ratio.
Look at it like this: Are you going to read every A/C post that's been moderated to -1? Because if really and truly don't consider the source of data, that's what you're saying we should all do.
Somehow, I doubt that you do this. Idealism is nice and all, but come back when you've had a better taste of reality.
apparently my choice was wise. can trust these people.
RedHat is definitely one of the good guys. While Google's Evil-o-meter has been slipping of late, RedHat has consistently been true to their mission. They develop technology that's open and freely available a-la CentOS and have some of the finest hacks around working full time on open stuff. (Alan Cox, et al)
RedHat tends to get dissed around here a bit because they target servers rather than workstation/desktop Linux. They are focused on making money the honorable way, and some people seem to have problems with anybody making money.
But look at their track record. They've consistently been true to the spirit and purpose of the GPL and free or open source software in general, and have been both profitable and successful in doing so. (Hint: Ubuntu is not yet profitable)
One difference might be that people sort of think of email more like a letter than a postcard. A court could find that email has protections similar to a letter.
But how can this situation be likened to a car? Car analogies are always the best way to explain complicated things!
The point of Godwin's Law is that there are some issues that are just too emotionally laden to rationally discuss. The Holocaust is one, and I'd argue that slavery is another.
But *you* broght up slavery. I merely brought up the issue of state's rights as "bodies politic". I didn't say why, I didn't get into it at all, other than to indicate that states have been telling the feds to screw themselves as long as there's been a federal government to yell at.
Don't put this one on me - it's entirely YOUR doing.
Oh geez. Godwin's Law has already reared its ugly head.
Didn't expect that to happen THIS FAST, though... sheesh!
You know, more and more we are seeing states resisting things the federal government is doing.
BZZZZZTTT!!!
What this post reflects is a young understanding of something that's been going on as long as there have been states. It's why there ARE states - the term "state" can literally mean "country", and the "United States of America" can be literally read as "United Countries of America". It's a "body politic".
If you'd paid attention in history class, you'd remember that once upon a time, each state printed their own money, and had their own laws. They were, quite literally, separate nations until they united under the Constitution of the United States. This isn't new, and a modicum of research will reveal this.
Remember the (ahem) Civil War? Wasn't that a good case of states resisting what the federal government is doing?
Your voice means NOTHING if you don't submit it via the proper channels. If you care about your politicians, then VOTE. If you care about FCC decisions, then COMMENT. It's your civic duty. When people argue politics with me, my first question is: "In the last election, did you vote?". If the answer is no, then I refuse to discuss politics, after telling them "I don't care what you think, your opinion doesn't matter!".
I commented to the FCC, and I sincerely hope you did, too. Here's my comment to the FCC, first posted to slashdot here. Here's what I wrote:
Airwaves belong to everyone. Although transmission is regulated,
reception is open and unrestricted. And the only purpose of the
regulation is to ensure that the openness of the medium is preserved
and the utility of the radio space is not compromised.
This is as it should be. Everybody benefits when the utility of a
common resource is preserved. Otherwise, the phenomenon of the
"Tragedy of the Commons" rears its ugly head. Here, overly agressive
private consumption of a public resource causes a compromise of the
utility of the common resource, to the detriment of all, including
the private individuals hogging the resource!
The Internet is, by definition, a shared resource. It's a peering
agreement based on communications protocols which enable all of its
parts to cooperate together, seamlessly, for the public benefit. Any
part can access any other part as though all parts were local. It's
the first, truly open, global communications system whose immense
potential for benefiting humankind has barely begun.
It is now up to you, here, to declare for our progeny, that this
shared, common resource shall remain open and free for the benefit of
all, to ensure its use, utility, and power so that everybody can benefit.
Balkanizing this public medium with an "unequal" internet, where the
common carriers of the traffic are free to degrade access to portions
of the network not in their personal interest, serves only to pillage
the utility of the common good. It provides enhanced short-term
profits for the pillager, but degrades the overall utility of the
network.
Please, please please, follow the forefathers before you who have
declared that this land be preserved for the common good, and those
who declared that the roads be preserved for the common good, and
those who have declared that the nation's power grid and telephone
grid be regulated to preserve their utility for the common good.
The utility of the Internet should be preserved. Please, please, keep it neutral.
Years ago, when keyboards were still worth something, I sold used computers CHEAP! I'd take older computers, refurbish them, and sell them with a 90-day warrantee. They sold like hotcakes.
My favorite trick involved a stack of junk keyboards often obtained for FREE, a broom, a hose, and a $1 bottle of dish soap out on the front sidewalk. I'd lay out the keyboards, hose them down, squirt the $1 dish soap all over the keyboards, then scrub vigorously with the broom. When all the crud had been scrubbered on the keyboard, I'd hose them down thoroughly with LOTS AND LOTS OF WATER.
Left to dry for a week or two, I'd usually see about 9/10 work perfectly. I'd "make" close to $200 in an hour or two of actual work. And that 9/10 ratio didn't account for the fact that these keyboards were UNTESTED.
I can answer which one you do least...
I'd hope you picked smokin', 'cause I'm sitting here in my bedroom, 12.45 AM, on a lounge chair, with my half-naked and thoroughly satisfied wife falling asleep on the bed to my left side, with a glass of Cabernet Sauvignon on my right.
But I don't smoke.
ptash!
The internet is carried by interconnected *private* machinery and is therefore not subject to the same principles.
Because... why?
So too is it thus with telephone and other utilities.
While utilities such as telephone and power are "private", they are HEAVILY REGULATED and their ability to profit from their "natural monopoly" is preserved. This is practically a perfect parallel.
I myself think that the internet should be neutral for the simple fact that it can be useful [and sometimes critical] to just about everyone. And let's face it. It's not like we're going to build a separate, public, broadband network. Good luck getting the people to pay *that* tax! Similarly, electricity is a private utility with massive public dependence, so the government keeps a justifiably watchful eye.
Glad to find that when it comes down to it, we agree.
May it be so with the internet, but I have my doubts that it will go through.
Me too. But did you even bother to post to the FCC? If it's not worth even that much to you, you're just talking out your arse. It's not like these guys at the FCC are going to seek YOU out...
Airwaves belong to everyone. Although transmission is regulated,
reception is open and unrestricted. And the only purpose of the
regulation is to ensure that the openness of the medium is preserved
and the utility of the radio space is not compromised.
This is as it should be. Everybody benefits when the utility of a
common resource is preserved. Otherwise, the phenomenon of the
"Tragedy of the Commons" rears its ugly head. Here, overly agressive
private consumption of a public resource causes a compromise of the
utility of the common resource, to the detriment of all, including
the private individuals hogging the resource!
The Internet is, by definition, a shared resource. It's a peering
agreement based on communications protocols which enable all of its
parts to cooperate together, seamlessly, for the public benefit. Any
part can access any other part as though all parts were local. It's
the first, truly open, global communications system whose immense
potential for benefiting humankind has barely begun.
It is now up to you, here, to declare for our progeny, that this
shared, common resource shall remain open and free for the benefit of
all, to ensure its use, utility, and power so that everybody can benefit.
Balkanizing this public medium with an "unequal" internet, where the
common carriers of the traffic are free to degrade access to portions
of the network not in their personal interest, serves only to pillage
the utility of the common good. It provides enhanced short-term
profits for the pillager, but degrades the overall utility of the
network.
Please, please please, follow the forefathers before you who have
declared that this land be preserved for the common good, and those
who declared that the roads be preserved for the common good, and
those who have declared that the nation's power grid and telephone
grid be regulated to preserve their utility for the common good.
The utility of the Internet should be preserved. Please, please, keep it neutral.
Its not racist its damn hard to understand people through an accent *especially* if you dont know what you're doing looking for help.
How true that is!
Today I was out flying and over the radio heard an impenetrable Asian accent. I literally could not determine if he was even speaking English, though I'm pretty sure that technically, he was. I tried and tried to figure it out. Even worse, it was all self-announced on a Unicom frequency shared by a number of local airports - I have no idea if he was even within 100 miles of me.
It's not racism - it's simply an ability to communicate.
I gave up drinkin', smokin', bloggin', and sex... .. and it was the WORST 20 minutes OF MY LIFE!!!!
Guess which one I do most?
For Intuit, the move is a bit of a milestone -- QuickBooks is the first of its products [to] work on open source software."
Ok, Quicken IS NOT Quickbooks. But for a decent, simple-to-use checkbook manager, Quicken is hard to beat. It's incredibly user-friendly, and the ancient version I have, version 5.0 for DOS, works great on FreeDOS. I use it all the time, Quicken 5 on FreeDOS on Linux via SSH in Xterm. (no kidding!)
This lets me do my books anytime, anyplace where I can get an xterm or putty loaded. (pretty much EVERYWHERE) Since it's done everything I've ever needed for my personal checking accounts, why would I use anything else?
It's not illegal to own copy equipment. It's illegal to use copy equipment to commit blatant acts of piracy. Take a look at it:
A) People were at swap meets, etc. selling copyrighted material
B) that they had no right to sell
C) in LARGE quantities
D) and had the equipment to do it on the cheap.
Any one of these facts by themselves is no big deal. But put them all together, and you have a big, big legal problem on your hands.
Here is a cool site - a hot chix0r on a hot bike drives thru Chernobyl. The pictures are gripping, and not just because the hot chick is in some of them. Check it out.
Sorry, I'm a Linux lover and all, but the sheer volume of crap in your post forces me to respond. I'll take a few choice tidbits:
Microsoft knows that they have peaked in the software industry, and they are desperately seeking a way to continue their unprecedented growth.
Except that it IS precedented by 20 years of.... growth!
We all know it's not going to happen; most of Microsoft's hardware products (aside from keyboards, joysticks, and mice) have been duds in the marketplace.
Eh, like the XBox? An "I'm feeling lucky" searching for "XBOX sales wii" returns this website - and even if the sales figures are a few months old, they're nothing to shake a stick at.
They tried search engines and failed miserably, even though the MSIE default page was MSN.
I have a tough time calling the 4th most popular website in the United States a "miserable failure". No, they aren't FIRST, but that's a long way from some of the worst.
I think the Novell deal is something different though. I think that they want to focus more on services and become a solutions provider like IBM did, so that way no matter WHAT the techology choice is, Microsoft still get at least a slice of the pie, and then other forces at Microsoft who are desperate to maintain their positions and power at Microsoft are using this development to spread anti-Linux FUD.
Wow! Something insightful! No, not really. It's been industry mantra for at least 5-10 years: "SERVICES! SERVICES! SERVICES!". They're a tad late to the game, but they certainly aren't going the way of DEC.
Everything above may be totally off base, but really, I do think that these moves are out of desperation because they see the strength of their stock eroding very quickly.
Hmmm. Up by almost 50% in the last year. Yep. Definite erosion. They're probably getting ready to jump out of the window.
Your post is actually very reminiscent of another post I've seen from time to time here on slashdork. It usually starts like this: "It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying..."
Nothing to see here. Move along
Is there *REALLY* nothing here, or has this been (gasp!) censored?
That's why you use hardware RAID. A good card will allow you to swap out drives and rebuild, or add new drives to the array, without ever needing to unmount the anything.
But the minute or so of uptime you get by not having to power down the computer is more than made up when the controller chip on your beautiful RAID controller sizzles. Using Linux software RAID lets you plug the drive(s) into another computer of a completely different chipset, boot up, and continue operations as though nothing had ever gone wrong. IMHO, this is far preferable to the effective lock-in presented to you by hardware controllers.
For me, it's all 100% software RAID 1.
Perhaps the CMYK Plugin for the ubiquitous GIMP?
No, it's not exactly in the same league, but for many uses, it's plenty good enough...