Rather than standards compliance, it's better to get the users to move away from 10 years old OS which support will end. Vista/Win7 are by default a lot more secure operating systems than XP.
So, those wanting to or forced to use IE-only websites might also be forced to upgrade from XP. Welcome to the effects of proprietary lock-in.
Forced to upgrade? IE8 works just fine on XP and will continue to do so. It also doesn't have any of the exploits that IE6 has.
Also, how does it differ between proprietary and open source then? If you're using some 10 years old version of your Linux OS and it doesn't support some feature that the newer OS/kernel versions have, you're not going to be able to install programs that require said feature.
Education is exactly what you should do, I'm not denying that. But as it was with me (and most likely with you), these things will start to come up when you hit 14-16 years. I never had a talk about such things with my parents, but on the other hand we have those in schools at 7-9th grades. I never really made any big mistakes, I was with a same girl for my teenage years and little bit further and we did love each other, but it also meant things like sending those photos and whatever else.
But point being, you need to teach it before that age actually comes. It doesn't make any sense to interfere with it when it's happening, as that won't result in anything. Education on things before helps.
I agree that some teens are really stupid on that regard and maybe don't understand, but there are also those who do. And as you said, the "bad morality" thing that is being pushed about sex probably just makes things worse. But the fact is, ~16 year olds will be interested on the opposite sex and will have sex, and for me it's all ok, even if I was a parent. However, I would want to make sure to teach my kid about the possible damages/STD/bad things about it, instead of just trying to deny it completely (not going to work).
What comes to US mindset about sex, I really wonder why it's so frowned upon. It's a great thing and gives pleasure to life. Violence, on the hand, is not.
I've never liked to get around, so instead of condom we just got pills for my girlfriend. This was after we had dated for a long time and could be quite sure that neither one didn't have STD or anything else for that matter.
If I think back being a teenager, the stupid things were more in the 11-14 years old range. At 16-17 I was already quite adult like and not much different than now. Sure I know a lot more now, but the basics were there a lot more than at 11-12 year old.
The thing is, people are stupid at different things, because their interests are different. It's a fact people will make mistakes - you as a parent just need to teach them not to make bad enough mistakes. I sure as hell had my fights with my parents as a teen and so did my girlfriend, and now that I think of it, yeah it was quite stupid. But it teaches you and sometimes it is what you need to make it in life.
You need to be stupid as a teenager to be wise as an adult and learn from things.
At that point you should had taught your kid to behave correctly and know about HIV and pregnant stuff. Hell, they even teach those things in school here. It's too late when they're already 16-17.
the students and their parents could be prosecuted if they did not participate in an after-school 'education program.'
I love the fucking hypocrisy around sex in USA. Sure, violence and killing people is all okay, but when it's about natural human function like sex it's all bad and must be hidden. It's a great irony that just an hour ago I read news that you can't even say tampon on US TV commercial about tampon products. Women bleed once a month. Accept it and get on with your lifes.
When I was a teen we sent back and forth nude pictures of ourself with my girlfriend, and I suspect many others did too. Hell, we even had sex like every other teenager does. 15-16 year old is perfectly capable to understand sex. Age of consent is 14-16 in most of the world and 17-18 in more liberal US states. It makes absolutely no sense that you can have sex but not send a dirty picture of yourself to your boy/girlfriend, and if you do you will be taken to some kind of "education program".
The fact that parents can block some "sexting" prosecution is a stupid point. If I was a parent I wouldn't want to interfere with my 16-17 year old teen sex life, and I sure as hell didn't want my parents to interfere with mine when I was that age.
Maybe Google servers as in search, but I think YouTube needs different kind of build as they're delivering massive amount of video content instead of doing database queries. I suspect the article is about Google's search servers.
But like even the title of the story says, we are talking about bandwidth. That doesn't include infrastructure cost. Just bandwidth which, if Google indeed does peer (and not transit) with all of their network partners, are somewhat zero. Infrastructure costs are an another matter (and would still be there, as YouTube and Google would need to run their network nevertheless)
Uh, did you forget that Google has datacenters all around the world and also reside in many IPX? Sure it might be peering between them, but because of that they can sell it too.
But in that case it's better for you than not getting the free doctor's visit, which is the whole point. The whole article is talking about bandwidth specifically, not the whole infrastructure costs.
Well, the bill being zero is just speculation from the author of the article. It doesn't imply that there are no running costs providing all of that, but that the bandwidth itself could be close to zero cost if Google is directly peering with other companies (every other article previously assumes that Google is buying their bandwidth). I work at the same place where the main IXP of my country is and while I don't know the details, it's not an uncommon thing with smaller companies either. I'm quite sure there are similar contracts between ISP's and certain big media companies that rely heavily on the Internet as it just makes business sense to everyone. It would be stupid not to use that.
Hell, there are weirder peering contracts too. A good example is that of The Pirate Bay, which has several AS to run their site and provide stable peering. DCSnet, PRQ and other belong all under the same umbrella and by the looks of it, have been improving their contracts with other ISP's to both get TPB to be more stable and maybe also to monetarize their peering contracts with several big ISP's. Remember that they're backed up by Carl Lundström who founded Rix Telecom AB (Port80), and Google also is peering with Port80.
Even when smaller companies are doing that, it would be stupid of Google not to utilize their infrastructure. But I'm quite certain they do, they are a geek company after all, so they must know it.
It's relative of course, but the cost of routers and maintenance is nowhere near buying the bandwidth.
Also if Google is wise, they're generating income on their infrastructure too. Who says some of their peering contract isn't actually buying bandwidth from Google?
And combined with the role-playing element, if you're wasting many hours a day at staring a game, you might as well make a character who has a nice ass.
YouTube alone has direct peering contracts with AT&T, RETN, TINET and via Google AS with Net Access, NTT Communications, Telia, Level3, SIG, Sprint, Global Crossing, MFN, Cogent, Port80, Internet2 and AOL.
Depending on the terms, it means Google can also act as a peering or transit point between these companies and or even have an IXP's at their locations, so theres incentive for ISP's to sign up beneficial transit agreement, especially considering Google has data centers around the world. Google has more power than Tier 1 ISP's alone. The article's note about "serving customers YouTube faster" is a moot point - Google's infrastructure and routing contracts alone act as a great incentive for ISP's to make a peering agreement with Google.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather than standards compliance, it's better to get the users to move away from 10 years old OS which support will end. Vista/Win7 are by default a lot more secure operating systems than XP.
So, those wanting to or forced to use IE-only websites might also be forced to upgrade from XP. Welcome to the effects of proprietary lock-in.
Forced to upgrade? IE8 works just fine on XP and will continue to do so. It also doesn't have any of the exploits that IE6 has.
Also, how does it differ between proprietary and open source then? If you're using some 10 years old version of your Linux OS and it doesn't support some feature that the newer OS/kernel versions have, you're not going to be able to install programs that require said feature.
XP is an 10 year old OS. Users will move on. Vista/Win7 are soon passing XP in market share and will do even more so as people buy new computers.
Besides, IE8 is a perfectly secure browser with sandboxing for XP and it has none the exploits that IE6 has. It's good for XP users.
So feds should shut them down because they create and contribute nothing? What law are you referring to?
They track the browser downloads depending on source, so they do actually have a quite good idea how many people are installing via ballot screen.
This is what happens when you try to be smart ass and move all of your work load to other countries because it's supposedly cheaper. Good job.
How exactly will you learn from NOT doing stupid things?
You learn from stupid things because afterwards you realize how stupid they were. If you didn't do them, you learnt nothing.
+5 insightful.
Of course, you all get the point without nitpicking over english.
Education is exactly what you should do, I'm not denying that. But as it was with me (and most likely with you), these things will start to come up when you hit 14-16 years. I never had a talk about such things with my parents, but on the other hand we have those in schools at 7-9th grades. I never really made any big mistakes, I was with a same girl for my teenage years and little bit further and we did love each other, but it also meant things like sending those photos and whatever else.
But point being, you need to teach it before that age actually comes. It doesn't make any sense to interfere with it when it's happening, as that won't result in anything. Education on things before helps.
I agree that some teens are really stupid on that regard and maybe don't understand, but there are also those who do. And as you said, the "bad morality" thing that is being pushed about sex probably just makes things worse. But the fact is, ~16 year olds will be interested on the opposite sex and will have sex, and for me it's all ok, even if I was a parent. However, I would want to make sure to teach my kid about the possible damages/STD/bad things about it, instead of just trying to deny it completely (not going to work).
What comes to US mindset about sex, I really wonder why it's so frowned upon. It's a great thing and gives pleasure to life. Violence, on the hand, is not.
I've never liked to get around, so instead of condom we just got pills for my girlfriend. This was after we had dated for a long time and could be quite sure that neither one didn't have STD or anything else for that matter.
If I think back being a teenager, the stupid things were more in the 11-14 years old range. At 16-17 I was already quite adult like and not much different than now. Sure I know a lot more now, but the basics were there a lot more than at 11-12 year old.
The thing is, people are stupid at different things, because their interests are different. It's a fact people will make mistakes - you as a parent just need to teach them not to make bad enough mistakes. I sure as hell had my fights with my parents as a teen and so did my girlfriend, and now that I think of it, yeah it was quite stupid. But it teaches you and sometimes it is what you need to make it in life.
You need to be stupid as a teenager to be wise as an adult and learn from things.
At that point you should had taught your kid to behave correctly and know about HIV and pregnant stuff. Hell, they even teach those things in school here. It's too late when they're already 16-17.
So maybe they should raise their child correctly then?
the students and their parents could be prosecuted if they did not participate in an after-school 'education program.'
I love the fucking hypocrisy around sex in USA. Sure, violence and killing people is all okay, but when it's about natural human function like sex it's all bad and must be hidden. It's a great irony that just an hour ago I read news that you can't even say tampon on US TV commercial about tampon products . Women bleed once a month. Accept it and get on with your lifes.
When I was a teen we sent back and forth nude pictures of ourself with my girlfriend, and I suspect many others did too. Hell, we even had sex like every other teenager does. 15-16 year old is perfectly capable to understand sex. Age of consent is 14-16 in most of the world and 17-18 in more liberal US states. It makes absolutely no sense that you can have sex but not send a dirty picture of yourself to your boy/girlfriend, and if you do you will be taken to some kind of "education program".
The fact that parents can block some "sexting" prosecution is a stupid point. If I was a parent I wouldn't want to interfere with my 16-17 year old teen sex life, and I sure as hell didn't want my parents to interfere with mine when I was that age.
Maybe Google servers as in search, but I think YouTube needs different kind of build as they're delivering massive amount of video content instead of doing database queries. I suspect the article is about Google's search servers.
But like even the title of the story says, we are talking about bandwidth. That doesn't include infrastructure cost. Just bandwidth which, if Google indeed does peer (and not transit) with all of their network partners, are somewhat zero. Infrastructure costs are an another matter (and would still be there, as YouTube and Google would need to run their network nevertheless)
Uh, did you forget that Google has datacenters all around the world and also reside in many IPX? Sure it might be peering between them, but because of that they can sell it too.
Read the title of the story. We are talking about bandwidth, not what it costs to run the whole YouTube.
But in that case it's better for you than not getting the free doctor's visit, which is the whole point. The whole article is talking about bandwidth specifically, not the whole infrastructure costs.
Well, the bill being zero is just speculation from the author of the article. It doesn't imply that there are no running costs providing all of that, but that the bandwidth itself could be close to zero cost if Google is directly peering with other companies (every other article previously assumes that Google is buying their bandwidth). I work at the same place where the main IXP of my country is and while I don't know the details, it's not an uncommon thing with smaller companies either. I'm quite sure there are similar contracts between ISP's and certain big media companies that rely heavily on the Internet as it just makes business sense to everyone. It would be stupid not to use that.
Hell, there are weirder peering contracts too. A good example is that of The Pirate Bay, which has several AS to run their site and provide stable peering. DCSnet, PRQ and other belong all under the same umbrella and by the looks of it, have been improving their contracts with other ISP's to both get TPB to be more stable and maybe also to monetarize their peering contracts with several big ISP's. Remember that they're backed up by Carl Lundström who founded Rix Telecom AB (Port80), and Google also is peering with Port80.
Even when smaller companies are doing that, it would be stupid of Google not to utilize their infrastructure. But I'm quite certain they do, they are a geek company after all, so they must know it.
It's relative of course, but the cost of routers and maintenance is nowhere near buying the bandwidth.
Also if Google is wise, they're generating income on their infrastructure too. Who says some of their peering contract isn't actually buying bandwidth from Google?
And combined with the role-playing element, if you're wasting many hours a day at staring a game, you might as well make a character who has a nice ass.
I really don't see why Google would be paying much. It seems the guy who wrote that article now discovered how peering works.
Routing graph for YouTube AS
Routing graph for Google AS
YouTube alone has direct peering contracts with AT&T, RETN, TINET and via Google AS with Net Access, NTT Communications, Telia, Level3, SIG, Sprint, Global Crossing, MFN, Cogent, Port80, Internet2 and AOL.
Depending on the terms, it means Google can also act as a peering or transit point between these companies and or even have an IXP's at their locations, so theres incentive for ISP's to sign up beneficial transit agreement, especially considering Google has data centers around the world. Google has more power than Tier 1 ISP's alone. The article's note about "serving customers YouTube faster" is a moot point - Google's infrastructure and routing contracts alone act as a great incentive for ISP's to make a peering agreement with Google.