...and I don't understand why. I have lots of shady connections in the Middle East. I'm known for my nasty opinions. I even have the same last name as a famous Russian terrorist. (He lived a century ago and is no relation, but still.) I guess it's who you know.
Using the orbit downloader large http transfers are regularly augmented by P2P transfers from other orbit users. Similarly a system based on DHTs, like the Coral Cache, is quite feasible.
I said "serve up a web page" not "download a massive file". Those are not the same application. The fact that they both can (but not necessarily should) use HTTP is an implementation detail.
When you butt into a conversation, show people the courtesy of finding out what the conversation is about. The dude I was replying to asserted that the client-server model was obsolete because it relied too much on overtaxed servers. In his model high-bitrate symmetrical connections would allow client-server connections to be replaced by P2P connections. I responded with a list of applications that use client-server, and would be difficult or impossible to convert to P2P. Massive file transfers were not on the list. I'd be the last to argue that that wasn't a good P2P application.
Do you know the difference between argument and contradiction?
Anyway, the issue isn't about symmetry. It's about how what you can do with P2P technology. Can you see a way to serve up a web page using P2P? I can't.
Ask yourself: why is Microsoft a monopoly? Yes, they've done all kinds of evil stuff to maintain their stranglehold on the marketplace, but how did they get it in the first place? Because of the technological lockin they've had since the IBM PC came out in 1981. Developers have to code applications against Microsoft APIs because that's where the users are. Users have to buy systems that run Microsoft OSs because that's where the applications are.
But a lot of factors are beginning to interfere with this vicious cycle. Nowadays a lot of applications are web-based, and you don't need Windows to run a web browser. Users are rebelling against the usability and cost of ownership issues. Macs can now run most Windows apps; yes, they need Windows in a VM to do it, but once the Mac platform grabs enough market share (8% and climbing rapidly) developers who aren't rabid Mac fanchildren are going to start considering it again.
And finally, there's the big one: retailers are pissed at Microsoft. Over and over, Microsoft has delivered updated OSs late, and screwed them up when they finally got them out the door. This hurts the retailer's ability to sell all those shiny new computers they just ordered. So they're going to more seriously consider Microsoft alternatives. That means that products that previously couldn't find a sales channel — web appliances, cheap computers running Linux — now actually have a chance.
This is why I refuse to install Vista on any new PC I'm putting together...
I hope that's not the only reason! There are more problems with Vista that I can count, and many of them are a lot worse than "it makes me feel like a criminal".
The correlation/causation fallacy is always an issue. That's one reason (among many) no single study should be viewed in isolation. Though in this short attention span society, people will always prefer to do so.
As for brain damage causing "violent or criminal behavior" — that's not exactly what we're talking about here. We're just talking about violent crime, not crime in general. This was noted in TFA:
Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, wonders how lead could have had such a strong effect on violent crime while, according to Reyes, it showed almost no effect on property crimes like theft. Actually, Miron seems to be a little clueless. It doesn't take a criminologist to know that where property crimes tend to require at least a little foresight and planning ("Wait until the clerk is busy with a customer"), violent crimes tend to be pretty impulsive ("Shut the fuck up, asshole!"). You often hear about a violent person that they have "poor impulse control". And ability to control your own actions is strongly associated with cognitive impairment.
It's funny the 500th time... but for totally different reasons.
Do you and I belong to the same species? I'm skeptical. In any case, I have heard the ISR joke at least 500 times — it would be hard to browse Slashdot without that happening. Maybe the problem is that I didn't think it was funny the first time.
And it's also pretty interesting how a joke can start in one small place on the Internet, and if you pay attention, you can watch it infect more and more Internet communities.
That describes things like LOLcats. It doesn't describe things like telling the same joke in the same forum over and over.
And although I love LOLcats (no flames please; either you're a cat person or you're not) I think it's dumb to call a LOLcat a meme. "Cats are funny" is hardly a new concept.
Calling a tired old joke a "meme" is pretentious crap. The word comes from Richard Dawkins's theory that some ideas are to culture what genes are to biology. I think that's an overrated theory, but even if I took it seriously (especially if I took seriously) I'd be irritated at people who think that telling the same joke over and over to the same audience is somehow spreading an idea. It's more like a social earworm. Mindworm?
Actually, I suspect that many regulars do like the endless repetition of "in Soviet Russia" and "our x overlords". You and I get tired of hearing the same jokes over and over, but we might well be in the minority.
One problem is that the mod system give you a way to mod up good jokes, but no way to mod down bad ones. ("Overrated" is not supposed to be used for that, though it sometimes is.) So anybody who has a reaction to a story that's even vaguely humorous jumps in with it, because theres a good chance they'll be modded up.
Solution: balance the upmode "funny" with a new downmod: "lame".
I believe you're misreading the last sentence. "$5K damage to one or more individuals" does not mean cumulative damage of $5K. It means there has to be at least one person who lost $5K.
This is a prime example of the hazards of amateur legal scholarship. I like to think I'm good at deciphering obscure language (being a technical writer, I do it a lot), but I wouldn't bet the farm on my own opinion — or on yours.
You're correct. And you're even making optimistic assumptions, such as their distributor not ripping them off. Entertainment companies are notorious for finding ways to shift "costs" to their artists.
Plus they retained ownership of their work. I have a musician brother-in-law who's furious about work he created but isn't allowed to distribute, because he had to sell the copyright in order to get it published. What really drives him (and his fans) up the wall is that the copyright owner is just sitting on the material, with no plans to distribute it.
The fact that Radiohead did so well with this experiment is interesting, but not too surprising. When there's strong "customer" loyalty, it doesn't matter whether payment are voluntary or not. Banks and other money brokers often consider not-for-profit organizations good credit risks, even if most of their money comes from voluntary donations. Giving money when you don't have to shows your loyalty, and that portends a reliable revenue stream.
I'm not a Radiohead fan. But it's true that a good chunk of the software I "buy" is donationware.
Perhaps a new business model has been invented? We can but hope.
Yes, but the aliens will wonder why those little black objects were so well preserved, and each wrapped in a decorative cloak. The obvious conclusion is that they are the mortal remains of highly venerated beings, probably priests of the "Hostess" cult.
Wrong on both counts. Most parasites co-evolve with their hosts. That means that most parasite species are unique to the hosts they inhabit. (Pediculus humanus capitis, for example, lives on the human scalp and nowhere else.) It also means that parasites can't do too much damage to their hosts, because they have nowhere to go if the hosts die off.
Of course, there are parasites that jump species, and humans, having invaded almost every habitat on the planet, have encountered (and been infected by) most of them. Such species haven't co-evolved with their hosts and do indeed present a threat to them. But these are the exceptions, and it's only due to our spreading them around that they're threats to other species.
I heard an interview once with a scientist who wanted "endangered species" to include the less cuddly critters. He cited the fact that when the last surviving California condors were captured for breeding, the first thing that was done to them was a delousing. It never occurred to anybody that if a species is endangered, then their parasites must be endangered as well.
Nothing can destroy twinkies. When humanity is long gone, alien archaeologists will marvel at the mummified remains of the dominant life form, all worshipers of the mysterious god Hostess.
Just because it is their network DOES not give them the right to FORGE IP packets to look as if they come from elsewhere.
That's certainly dishonest, but that doesn't make it illegal. They're basically lying to their customers (or rather, their customers' software). Lying isn't illegal unless you do it in connection with an actual crime. For example, you can go around telling people that you're Steven King, and not be breaking any laws. But if you try to collect his book royalties...
Somebody used the word "fraud". That word is not a synonym for "lying". For there to be fraud, you have to be causing somebody a material loss. Do undelivered packets count as a "material loss"? IANAL, but I'm sceptical.
It might still be true that Comcast is breaking the law somehow. There might be some communications law or regulation that forbids providers from this kind of manipulation of their customers' traffic. But it's not as obvious as you're claiming.
That would be like a courier service forging documents from 2 people wanting to communicate saying "Stop sending documents" if they didn't want them to talk. They'd never do something that stupid...
And it's certainly stupid. But only because there are easier ways to tell your customers that you can't carry their shipment. If, for example, FedEx caught you shipping plant seeds or pornography or human body parts (all on their forbidden list), they'd probably just return the shipment to you. But if they did deliver a nasty note to your recipient, what law would they be breaking?
Of course, if they refused to return your property, they'd be committing theft. But is an IP packet "property"? Well, if it is, they can always email you back all the IP packets it didn't deliver....
Common sense? You've got to be kidding me. It's "common sense" to find a strange gadget with a bunch of wires hanging out, and just assume it's not dangerous?
I work at Sun, where (for obvious reasons) StarOffice/OpenOffice is mandatory for most people. It's not usually a big issue for me, because I'm a tech writer, and most of my documents get authored in FrameMaker format (which is only editable in FrameMaker) or HTML (which I prefer to edit by hand), or on a TWiki. But despite my limited use of OO, there are still issues:
People sometimes share documents in OO format. If the document is distributed widely enough, there's always somebody who can't open it, even though it's supposedly the company standard. When I distribute a document, it's either in PDF (because everybody has Adobe Reader or an equivalent) or on our department TWiki (because Wikis are much better than email sharing for collaboration).
When I do a presentation, it's in OO Impress. In theory, I can save to PowerPoint format, but I've had bad experiences with that filter and never use it. If I need to distribute the presentation, I export to PDF.
Sun outsources things like payroll and HR. Sometimes the vendors send us forms in.doc format. These do import into OO, but formatting inconsistencies cause changes, such as making a one-page form slop over to two pages.
Slightly offtopic opinion: I think that word processor files are way overused. I've even seen people write up a short memo in word and attach it to an email, instead of just writing an email! Ninety-nine times out of a hundred. documents shared as word processor files would be better shared other ways.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah right. You don't need to carry a wheelchair, therefore it's something nobody should care about.
...and I don't understand why. I have lots of shady connections in the Middle East. I'm known for my nasty opinions. I even have the same last name as a famous Russian terrorist. (He lived a century ago and is no relation, but still.) I guess it's who you know.
In Soviet Russia... Oh, never mind.
When you butt into a conversation, show people the courtesy of finding out what the conversation is about. The dude I was replying to asserted that the client-server model was obsolete because it relied too much on overtaxed servers. In his model high-bitrate symmetrical connections would allow client-server connections to be replaced by P2P connections. I responded with a list of applications that use client-server, and would be difficult or impossible to convert to P2P. Massive file transfers were not on the list. I'd be the last to argue that that wasn't a good P2P application.
Do you know the difference between argument and contradiction?
Anyway, the issue isn't about symmetry. It's about how what you can do with P2P technology. Can you see a way to serve up a web page using P2P? I can't.
That's great for sharing bootleg TV episodes. How about serving up a web page? Doing a banking transaction? Streaming live TV? Running a MMORPG?
The 1960s called and they want their hippie attitude back.
Our servers are plenty fast, thank you very much.
Ask yourself: why is Microsoft a monopoly? Yes, they've done all kinds of evil stuff to maintain their stranglehold on the marketplace, but how did they get it in the first place? Because of the technological lockin they've had since the IBM PC came out in 1981. Developers have to code applications against Microsoft APIs because that's where the users are. Users have to buy systems that run Microsoft OSs because that's where the applications are.
But a lot of factors are beginning to interfere with this vicious cycle. Nowadays a lot of applications are web-based, and you don't need Windows to run a web browser. Users are rebelling against the usability and cost of ownership issues. Macs can now run most Windows apps; yes, they need Windows in a VM to do it, but once the Mac platform grabs enough market share (8% and climbing rapidly) developers who aren't rabid Mac fanchildren are going to start considering it again.
And finally, there's the big one: retailers are pissed at Microsoft. Over and over, Microsoft has delivered updated OSs late, and screwed them up when they finally got them out the door. This hurts the retailer's ability to sell all those shiny new computers they just ordered. So they're going to more seriously consider Microsoft alternatives. That means that products that previously couldn't find a sales channel — web appliances, cheap computers running Linux — now actually have a chance.
Good lord, I'm actually feeling optimistic!
As for brain damage causing "violent or criminal behavior" — that's not exactly what we're talking about here. We're just talking about violent crime, not crime in general. This was noted in TFA: Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, wonders how lead could have had such a strong effect on violent crime while, according to Reyes, it showed almost no effect on property crimes like theft. Actually, Miron seems to be a little clueless. It doesn't take a criminologist to know that where property crimes tend to require at least a little foresight and planning ("Wait until the clerk is busy with a customer"), violent crimes tend to be pretty impulsive ("Shut the fuck up, asshole!"). You often hear about a violent person that they have "poor impulse control". And ability to control your own actions is strongly associated with cognitive impairment.
And although I love LOLcats (no flames please; either you're a cat person or you're not) I think it's dumb to call a LOLcat a meme. "Cats are funny" is hardly a new concept.
Calling a tired old joke a "meme" is pretentious crap. The word comes from Richard Dawkins's theory that some ideas are to culture what genes are to biology. I think that's an overrated theory, but even if I took it seriously (especially if I took seriously) I'd be irritated at people who think that telling the same joke over and over to the same audience is somehow spreading an idea. It's more like a social earworm. Mindworm?
In Soviet Russia, worn out jokes own you!
Actually, I suspect that many regulars do like the endless repetition of "in Soviet Russia" and "our x overlords". You and I get tired of hearing the same jokes over and over, but we might well be in the minority.
One problem is that the mod system give you a way to mod up good jokes, but no way to mod down bad ones. ("Overrated" is not supposed to be used for that, though it sometimes is.) So anybody who has a reaction to a story that's even vaguely humorous jumps in with it, because theres a good chance they'll be modded up.
Solution: balance the upmode "funny" with a new downmod: "lame".
I believe you're misreading the last sentence. "$5K damage to one or more individuals" does not mean cumulative damage of $5K. It means there has to be at least one person who lost $5K.
This is a prime example of the hazards of amateur legal scholarship. I like to think I'm good at deciphering obscure language (being a technical writer, I do it a lot), but I wouldn't bet the farm on my own opinion — or on yours.
You're correct. And you're even making optimistic assumptions, such as their distributor not ripping them off. Entertainment companies are notorious for finding ways to shift "costs" to their artists.
Plus they retained ownership of their work. I have a musician brother-in-law who's furious about work he created but isn't allowed to distribute, because he had to sell the copyright in order to get it published. What really drives him (and his fans) up the wall is that the copyright owner is just sitting on the material, with no plans to distribute it.
The fact that Radiohead did so well with this experiment is interesting, but not too surprising. When there's strong "customer" loyalty, it doesn't matter whether payment are voluntary or not. Banks and other money brokers often consider not-for-profit organizations good credit risks, even if most of their money comes from voluntary donations. Giving money when you don't have to shows your loyalty, and that portends a reliable revenue stream.
I'm not a Radiohead fan. But it's true that a good chunk of the software I "buy" is donationware.
Perhaps a new business model has been invented? We can but hope.
Yes, but the aliens will wonder why those little black objects were so well preserved, and each wrapped in a decorative cloak. The obvious conclusion is that they are the mortal remains of highly venerated beings, probably priests of the "Hostess" cult.
Wrong on both counts. Most parasites co-evolve with their hosts. That means that most parasite species are unique to the hosts they inhabit. (Pediculus humanus capitis, for example, lives on the human scalp and nowhere else.) It also means that parasites can't do too much damage to their hosts, because they have nowhere to go if the hosts die off.
Of course, there are parasites that jump species, and humans, having invaded almost every habitat on the planet, have encountered (and been infected by) most of them. Such species haven't co-evolved with their hosts and do indeed present a threat to them. But these are the exceptions, and it's only due to our spreading them around that they're threats to other species.
I think you answered your own question.
I heard an interview once with a scientist who wanted "endangered species" to include the less cuddly critters. He cited the fact that when the last surviving California condors were captured for breeding, the first thing that was done to them was a delousing. It never occurred to anybody that if a species is endangered, then their parasites must be endangered as well.
I'm sure the square-jawed guy with the white shirt and tie is standing by.
Nothing can destroy twinkies. When humanity is long gone, alien archaeologists will marvel at the mummified remains of the dominant life form, all worshipers of the mysterious god Hostess.
Somebody used the word "fraud". That word is not a synonym for "lying". For there to be fraud, you have to be causing somebody a material loss. Do undelivered packets count as a "material loss"? IANAL, but I'm sceptical.
It might still be true that Comcast is breaking the law somehow. There might be some communications law or regulation that forbids providers from this kind of manipulation of their customers' traffic. But it's not as obvious as you're claiming.And it's certainly stupid. But only because there are easier ways to tell your customers that you can't carry their shipment. If, for example, FedEx caught you shipping plant seeds or pornography or human body parts (all on their forbidden list), they'd probably just return the shipment to you. But if they did deliver a nasty note to your recipient, what law would they be breaking?
Of course, if they refused to return your property, they'd be committing theft. But is an IP packet "property"? Well, if it is, they can always email you back all the IP packets it didn't deliver....
Common sense? You've got to be kidding me. It's "common sense" to find a strange gadget with a bunch of wires hanging out, and just assume it's not dangerous?
Slightly offtopic opinion: I think that word processor files are way overused. I've even seen people write up a short memo in word and attach it to an email, instead of just writing an email! Ninety-nine times out of a hundred. documents shared as word processor files would be better shared other ways.