1. More reliable estimates are 3-5, and they started killing immediately to prove their point. Pilots are trained that most hijakings end peacefully and would probably not offer much resistance since they didnt' know what the outcome would be.
2. We don't know what the CIA knew, but basically if only 16 people knew about it and they didn't openly talk about it they probably would't find out. Most of our intelligence (way too much) today comes from electronic surveilance.
3. There are arab airlines. I'm sure some of their (ex)pilots are militant. And once the plane was in the air the most difficult thing about flying is probably knowing where the controls are (hence the flight training manuals in the car)
4. The planes did not cause the buildings to colapse. The fires actually melted the structural steel. Otherwise they would have collapsed more immediatly.
5. The attacks were only as syncronized as the flights were. You can accomplish this "syncronization" with a tool as sophisticated as travelocity.
As for the usuall terrorist M.O. do you really think it is less complicated to make a bomb (that works as designed) than it is to stick a razor in a toothbrush and make a knife?
The reality is that the scariest thing about this attack is how easy it actually was. Once the terrorists walked through the metal detectors with thier toiletry case filled with knives there really wasn't anything that could be done to stop them.
The media and at least one US Rep. have speculated that they had help at the airport, but if that were so I think it would be much more likely that they would use guns than knives.
Of course your argument depends on the unstated premise that everything big business wants is bad. Of course this premise is false, and your argument is complete bunk.
The Kyoto treaty was badly flawed. The best argument in favor of honoring it was that it was signed by a previous administration. Of course that line of reason goes against our principle of electing a new president at least every 8 years.
Bush (mostly congress actually) cut taxes for everybody who pays taxes. What he didn't do was RAISE taxes on the wealthy so he could GIVE more money to the poor.
Microsoft is not being "let off" the government is simply dropping the one part of the case that they have not yet proven in order to more expeditiously punish Microsoft on the counts they have already been found guilty of.
Another multiple success story is the University of Wisconsin. In the 1920s, it developed a process for irradiating certain foodstuffs with ultraviolet rays to enhance Vitamin D formation--a technology that found its way into virtually every milk bottle. Decades later, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation patented certain derivatives of Vitamin D now used to treat renal osteodystrophy and other bone-related diseases. Gross revenue surpassed $14 million, and the university netted about $8 million.
That works out to *a lot* less than a few cents a gallon. And it would seem those patents would have expired by now.
The link from the FAQ is bad. Try this one they also state.
As for a ship date, (from the FAQ):
Only a limited number of ReplayTV 4000s will be manufactured this year. They will ship to customers on November 15. You can be guaranteed one of the first ReplayTV 4000's by reserving yours today. Go to the buy now page or call 1-877-ReplayTV. ReplayTV 4000s will not be sold in retail stores.
I fail to see how George's policy towards logging concerns could be to blame for something that happend 90 years ago, but I'll just ignore the ad hominem attack and assume that you know what you are talking about and that you have already read the Federal Wildland Fire Policy and you therefore know that according to itsGuiding Principles and PoliciesThe role of wildland fire as an essential ecological process and natural change agent is only secondary to Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in every fire management activity.
For more information you might try this FAQ at the Bureau of Land Management. I'll bet some of the folks there even read your friend's book.
Well, if you are doing NAT then you'd need 100 IP addresses, on the other hand if you are doing PAT, (NAT using ports instead of seperate addresses) you'd have a shitload of traffic going to high ports. That's what they look for, not utilization. Saturating the pipe with a couple of big transfers to one machine looks very different than saturating the pipe with 100 people browsing the web.
Nice Internet buzzwords. Too bad you aparantly don't understand any of them.
You don't need to run BGP, or a block of public addresses. All of the cheap Cable/DSL routers do PAT and could handle this quite fine as long as you don't have too many nodes.
1. If you can't get DSL where you love it is probably because of distance and/or line quality. Either wiill screw you if you are trying to "roll your own"
2. The phone company only runs pairs between you and the CO not every house on the block, so an alarm loop to your next door neighbor still has to go all the way to the CO and back. If you are not at the same CO, good luck and $$$$$.
3. If you can get the phone company to sell you an alarm loop remeber, it will probably be off the crappiest pair they can find, bridge taps and load coils everywhere, they aren't stupid. This things are designed ring a phone or light a light at some distance not carry high-frequency.
When my company needed to connect two buildings 1/2 a mile apart we were looking for cheap high speed options. We checked into this, $12/month, and with a lot of trial and error we might have made it work. I reccomended point-to-point T1 $250/month, but we wound up going with point-to-point 802.11.
But, again, versions already released onder the GPL can not have their licenses changed.
Not true. There is nothing that prevents the copyright holder from licensing the exact same software to different users with different licenses. They (probably) cannot revoke the license already granted, but they can certainly stop distributing the software under that license and instead distribute the SAME version under a new license.
It is COMPLETELY LEGAL to make copies of digital material on approved devices (read: paid royalties and implement SCMS) using approved media (read: paid royalties). This is the legislation that allowed the sale of DAT, MD, and home audio CD Burners.
The phrase you are looking for is Probable Cause. A police office must have probable cause to belive you commited a crime to arrest you, and while being black isn't probable cause you'd be amazed what is.
So what happened here is the ISP had "probable cause" in some form of documentation from the MPAA and they slapped the guy on the wrist. We can assume that the documentation was credible (there are a couple smart people that work at the ISP) or the ISP probably would have told them to STFU. Before you rail about how we shouldn't trust the corporation, remeber that you are trusting the girl who swears her boyfriend didn't do it.
The ISP didn't say "you are a pirate", they said, "you have been accused of being a pirate," they arrested him (suspended his account) and then released him on bail.
Have you ever read the DMCA? Why do you think that instead of being forced to pay millions of dollars to the RIAA Napster has only been forced to remove copyright infringing content?
The DMCA actually PROTECTS service providers from being liable for contributory infringment, as long as they takes steps to remove irfiringing content when they are made aware of it by the copyright holders.
Remember the 60,000 pages of usernames Meltallica provided to Napster? All of those people were illegaly trading copyrighted material. If Napster had not cut off those users accounts they would have been liable for contrubutory infringement.
Which Brings us to this lawsuit. The 750 artists are suing MP3.com for contributory infringement. Of course MP3.com is only liable if they knew that the service was being used for infringing purposes and they did not make a good faith effort to stop the infringing activity. These issues will be decided by a court (as they should) not here on/.
Well, here the water is provided by the City of Dallas, the cable is from AT&T, the phone is SWBell, and the electric is TXU.
The cable goes out twice a month, the power brownsout once a week, the phone was out for a week once because of old trunks and an idiot with a backhoe, yet the water is always running.
That said I would lopve to have 9 water companies, as well as real competition in the other areas, but there is no need for competing companies to run their own pipes.
There is a happy medium. Take power for example, if the state owned the transmission and distribution, but let private companies do the production. The maintenance of the states facilities would be done with funds from the fees the producers would pay for the privelage of selling electricity. The producers sign up whomever they want, and they have to contribute as much power to the grid as their customers use.
The phone equivalent would be replacing the RBOCs with some quasi government entity that maintained the infrastructure, but doesn't provide any services, just rents space in the CO to various LECs.
As much as I am against bigger government, I do believe that right now, we have government working hard in the wrong places. In some cases the government is best suited for running these natural monopololies, would you want to have to drive on roads laid by private companies? The purpose of our government should be exactly things like this that benefit all taxpayers, and would not be well served by private companies.
Please cite one example where large scale government intrusion in the form of regulation has helped any market.
While I can't cite the existance of a totally free market, because like everything else in the real world we deal in shades of grey I can cite many markets that should have been free that have been completely destroyed by government regulation. Example, Phone service, Electricity Generation, Cable TV, Railroad, etc.
Unfortunately few consumers are willing to put up with a free market. Like social security, medicare, etc. government regulation of the telcos is an unfortunate and unnecesarry intrusion that seems conviennient at the time, even though its absence would be even better.
Don't forget that in this case the monopoly you are refering to was created by regulation.
Created and made rich, because people were unwilling to live with a telephone system were diferent cities had different carriers that might or might no connect to each other.
Had that regulation never occured, something would have happened, since my window into parrallel universes is broken today I can't say exactly what the landscape of telephony would look like, but as they say, "If things were different they wouldn't be the same."
Sorry, but you take an industry that is basically built around an out of government regulations and start deregulating small bits of it while crying out that deregulation doesn't work. At some point we will have to pull the proverbial rug out from under the phone company and it will be difficult indeed. When we have true deregulation, then we will have true competition.
If your measure of "good" is based on relative levels of freedom as opposed to everyone being equal then the free market, even if it results in pockets of wealth and poverty (as it must) is still better than a society without freedom where everyone is equally poor.
Of course if your measure of "good" is that everyone has the same amount of stuff no matter how much or little they work, and have no control over their own destinies then by this standard China is the most prosperous nation in the world.
Liberals are always quick resort to the "human impact" argument when they can't come up with a real argument. What about the human impact of social wealfare? Have government aid programs rid us of poverty? Did it work in the USSR? In the moderately socialist countries that exist today, how blissful is it to pay 70% of what you earn in taxes? What is the human impact of telling people they are all equal and deserve all the same things no matter what they do to earn them?
But eventually the big strong animal becomes fat and lazy.
Then it is a target for the formerly weaker animals.
None of the lean and mean animals can do anything about it because the fat and lazy animal can afford powerful lobbyists that keep the animal fat and lazy... using your tax money
If the market is really deregulated tehn buying all the polititians in Washington won't do a thing for them sore of regulating th market again. This is exactly why as long as we have government subsidies, preferences, low interst loans, etc. we will not have the benfits of a free market.
For the most part the people screaming about de-regulation have no idea what they are talking about.
Imaging if the ILECs who own all of the copper running down the street and into everyone's house could charge the CLEC's any rate they wanted for them to use that copper. Essentially you let the LEC's set their competetors prices. The only CLEC's left would be the ones who can provide their own access (read: cable companies and wireless providers). Sprint is attempting to do this with ION, and AT&T is doing this with "Digital Phone Service" but both of these services are only available in limited areas.
Now take it a step further, the LEC's aren't required to allow access to the cable plant, or the CO. If you want to be an IXC and service the LEC's customers you have to pay UNREGULATED rent in the LEC's wire centers. Bye bye competative long distance.
You can see how with complete deregulation it would be trivial for the LEC's to put all of their competition out of buisiness and just keep raising prices. Well at some point in the price raising it will be feasable for a competitor to enter the market again because by raising prices to consumers, the LEC has raised the profit potential for the competitor.
For an example of this type of market behavior look at the energy crisis in CA. They deregulated power, and worsend the situation by not allowing new power plants to be built. Essentially they gave the already existing monopoly free reign. Consequently prices skyrocket. If the government enforces price caps it will never be profitable for competition, they need to let energy prices keep climbing (sorry Silicon Valley) until someone else can afford to break the existing monopoly and restore competion.
This is probably what will happen with DSL. You will notice in most areas that as companies go out of business DSL prices will go up. Once they reach a certain level it will once again be profitable for these companies to get back in the game and the cycle will repeat. Until a competitor enters the arena that can tolerate the down cycle there will be no true competition.
The alternative being the Government using MY money to prop up a "weak" animal so I can feel good about there not being a monopoly. No thanks.
The author of the article says he supports the free market, but then says he supports the federal government giving billions of dollars to companies who agree to provide access in rural areas. That's the kind of horseshit that liberals always temper "deregulation" with, and that's why we only every get half-regulation. In a free market, if it isn't profitable big companies won't do it. That is why we have government enitities that do things like build roads, deliver mail, etc. Proving this point the author points out that in Canada DSL has a much higher penetration than in the US, but he ignores the fact that the Canadian government mandated that everyone be able to get DSL.
Government Intervention != Free Market
If you are really in favor of a free market then you must accept that sometimes that will lead to monopolies, and sometimes it will lead to a service that you want not being provided to you. In some markets there is room for lots of companies, in some there isn't.
Yes, you are ignorant. If you had read the article you would know that the IETF cannot proceed without the permission of Adobe and Xerox because the new standard relies on IP from the two companies.
The money was later restored in a conference committee, but Congress delayed the launch until January 2001, when Gore was to leave the vice presidency, and required that the project first be analyzed by the National Academy of Sciences.
In March 2000, a National Academy committee reported that Triana had "the potential to make unique scientific contributions," even though the mission had "higher than usual risks."
With the Academy endorsement and money from Congress, NASA kicked the project into high gear. The spacecraft, bristling with science instruments and Gore's camera, was built in record time--- but by then it was too late.
You'd know that congress gave them the money, there just isn't room on the shuttle for it. You know with the space station and all.
If there's no proxy tunneling my SSL connection to www.buystuff.com, then my credit card number will go through the air, completely insecure.
I'm not sure you said what you meant. If it is an SSL connection to buystuff.com then your traffic is already encrypted. If you introduce a proxy into this you will break the SSL. The salient point about WEP that people tend to ignore is that it is not designed to provide security, only Wired Equivalent Privacy. And indeed, even with the recent announcements 802.11 is at least as secure as running Ethernet cables through your parking lot.
The problem of being able to access someone elses 802.11 network is totally different than the problems with WEP.
Why should Sklyarov have known that what he did was illegal in the US? He's a Russian citizen living in Russia, why should he care about every stupid law passed in another country? Granted, the US isn't exactly Elbonia, so it's probably not a bad idea for him to keep tabs on that sort of thing, but should he be legally required to? I sure hope not.
If you are going to do business in another country (like selling software) then obviously you should be familiar with that country's laws.
Slashdot Mirror
2. We don't know what the CIA knew, but basically if only 16 people knew about it and they didn't openly talk about it they probably would't find out. Most of our intelligence (way too much) today comes from electronic surveilance.
3. There are arab airlines. I'm sure some of their (ex)pilots are militant. And once the plane was in the air the most difficult thing about flying is probably knowing where the controls are (hence the flight training manuals in the car)
4. The planes did not cause the buildings to colapse. The fires actually melted the structural steel. Otherwise they would have collapsed more immediatly.
5. The attacks were only as syncronized as the flights were. You can accomplish this "syncronization" with a tool as sophisticated as travelocity.
As for the usuall terrorist M.O. do you really think it is less complicated to make a bomb (that works as designed) than it is to stick a razor in a toothbrush and make a knife?
The reality is that the scariest thing about this attack is how easy it actually was. Once the terrorists walked through the metal detectors with thier toiletry case filled with knives there really wasn't anything that could be done to stop them.
The media and at least one US Rep. have speculated that they had help at the airport, but if that were so I think it would be much more likely that they would use guns than knives.
The Kyoto treaty was badly flawed. The best argument in favor of honoring it was that it was signed by a previous administration. Of course that line of reason goes against our principle of electing a new president at least every 8 years.
Bush (mostly congress actually) cut taxes for everybody who pays taxes. What he didn't do was RAISE taxes on the wealthy so he could GIVE more money to the poor.
Microsoft is not being "let off" the government is simply dropping the one part of the case that they have not yet proven in order to more expeditiously punish Microsoft on the counts they have already been found guilty of.
Another multiple success story is the University of Wisconsin. In the 1920s, it developed a process for irradiating certain foodstuffs with ultraviolet rays to enhance Vitamin D formation--a technology that found its way into virtually every milk bottle. Decades later, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation patented certain derivatives of Vitamin D now used to treat renal osteodystrophy and other bone-related diseases. Gross revenue surpassed $14 million, and the university netted about $8 million.
That works out to *a lot* less than a few cents a gallon. And it would seem those patents would have expired by now.
As for a ship date, (from the FAQ):
Only a limited number of ReplayTV 4000s will be manufactured this year. They will ship to customers on November 15. You can be guaranteed one of the first ReplayTV 4000's by reserving yours today. Go to the buy now page or call 1-877-ReplayTV. ReplayTV 4000s will not be sold in retail stores.
For more information you might try this FAQ at the Bureau of Land Management. I'll bet some of the folks there even read your friend's book.
And how do you measure your reference mass? It sounds like they are just reinventing the scale, not the kilogram.
You don't need to run BGP, or a block of public addresses. All of the cheap Cable/DSL routers do PAT and could handle this quite fine as long as you don't have too many nodes.
2. The phone company only runs pairs between you and the CO not every house on the block, so an alarm loop to your next door neighbor still has to go all the way to the CO and back. If you are not at the same CO, good luck and $$$$$.
3. If you can get the phone company to sell you an alarm loop remeber, it will probably be off the crappiest pair they can find, bridge taps and load coils everywhere, they aren't stupid. This things are designed ring a phone or light a light at some distance not carry high-frequency.
When my company needed to connect two buildings 1/2 a mile apart we were looking for cheap high speed options. We checked into this, $12/month, and with a lot of trial and error we might have made it work. I reccomended point-to-point T1 $250/month, but we wound up going with point-to-point 802.11.
Am I. . . Registered to Vote or Not?
New York City edition
Not true. There is nothing that prevents the copyright holder from licensing the exact same software to different users with different licenses. They (probably) cannot revoke the license already granted, but they can certainly stop distributing the software under that license and instead distribute the SAME version under a new license.
Remember the Audio Home Recording Act?
It is COMPLETELY LEGAL to make copies of digital material on approved devices (read: paid royalties and implement SCMS) using approved media (read: paid royalties). This is the legislation that allowed the sale of DAT, MD, and home audio CD Burners.
So what happened here is the ISP had "probable cause" in some form of documentation from the MPAA and they slapped the guy on the wrist. We can assume that the documentation was credible (there are a couple smart people that work at the ISP) or the ISP probably would have told them to STFU. Before you rail about how we shouldn't trust the corporation, remeber that you are trusting the girl who swears her boyfriend didn't do it.
The ISP didn't say "you are a pirate", they said, "you have been accused of being a pirate," they arrested him (suspended his account) and then released him on bail.
The DMCA actually PROTECTS service providers from being liable for contributory infringment, as long as they takes steps to remove irfiringing content when they are made aware of it by the copyright holders.
Remember the 60,000 pages of usernames Meltallica provided to Napster? All of those people were illegaly trading copyrighted material. If Napster had not cut off those users accounts they would have been liable for contrubutory infringement.
Which Brings us to this lawsuit. The 750 artists are suing MP3.com for contributory infringement. Of course MP3.com is only liable if they knew that the service was being used for infringing purposes and they did not make a good faith effort to stop the infringing activity. These issues will be decided by a court (as they should) not here on /.
The cable goes out twice a month, the power brownsout once a week, the phone was out for a week once because of old trunks and an idiot with a backhoe, yet the water is always running.
That said I would lopve to have 9 water companies, as well as real competition in the other areas, but there is no need for competing companies to run their own pipes.
There is a happy medium. Take power for example, if the state owned the transmission and distribution, but let private companies do the production. The maintenance of the states facilities would be done with funds from the fees the producers would pay for the privelage of selling electricity. The producers sign up whomever they want, and they have to contribute as much power to the grid as their customers use. The phone equivalent would be replacing the RBOCs with some quasi government entity that maintained the infrastructure, but doesn't provide any services, just rents space in the CO to various LECs.
As much as I am against bigger government, I do believe that right now, we have government working hard in the wrong places. In some cases the government is best suited for running these natural monopololies, would you want to have to drive on roads laid by private companies? The purpose of our government should be exactly things like this that benefit all taxpayers, and would not be well served by private companies.
While I can't cite the existance of a totally free market, because like everything else in the real world we deal in shades of grey I can cite many markets that should have been free that have been completely destroyed by government regulation. Example, Phone service, Electricity Generation, Cable TV, Railroad, etc.
Unfortunately few consumers are willing to put up with a free market. Like social security, medicare, etc. government regulation of the telcos is an unfortunate and unnecesarry intrusion that seems conviennient at the time, even though its absence would be even better.
Created and made rich, because people were unwilling to live with a telephone system were diferent cities had different carriers that might or might no connect to each other.
Had that regulation never occured, something would have happened, since my window into parrallel universes is broken today I can't say exactly what the landscape of telephony would look like, but as they say, "If things were different they wouldn't be the same."
Sorry, but you take an industry that is basically built around an out of government regulations and start deregulating small bits of it while crying out that deregulation doesn't work. At some point we will have to pull the proverbial rug out from under the phone company and it will be difficult indeed. When we have true deregulation, then we will have true competition.
If your measure of "good" is based on relative levels of freedom as opposed to everyone being equal then the free market, even if it results in pockets of wealth and poverty (as it must) is still better than a society without freedom where everyone is equally poor.
Of course if your measure of "good" is that everyone has the same amount of stuff no matter how much or little they work, and have no control over their own destinies then by this standard China is the most prosperous nation in the world.
Liberals are always quick resort to the "human impact" argument when they can't come up with a real argument. What about the human impact of social wealfare? Have government aid programs rid us of poverty? Did it work in the USSR? In the moderately socialist countries that exist today, how blissful is it to pay 70% of what you earn in taxes? What is the human impact of telling people they are all equal and deserve all the same things no matter what they do to earn them?
Then it is a target for the formerly weaker animals.
None of the lean and mean animals can do anything about it because the fat and lazy animal can afford powerful lobbyists that keep the animal fat and lazy... using your tax money
If the market is really deregulated tehn buying all the polititians in Washington won't do a thing for them sore of regulating th market again. This is exactly why as long as we have government subsidies, preferences, low interst loans, etc. we will not have the benfits of a free market.
Imaging if the ILECs who own all of the copper running down the street and into everyone's house could charge the CLEC's any rate they wanted for them to use that copper. Essentially you let the LEC's set their competetors prices. The only CLEC's left would be the ones who can provide their own access (read: cable companies and wireless providers). Sprint is attempting to do this with ION, and AT&T is doing this with "Digital Phone Service" but both of these services are only available in limited areas.
Now take it a step further, the LEC's aren't required to allow access to the cable plant, or the CO. If you want to be an IXC and service the LEC's customers you have to pay UNREGULATED rent in the LEC's wire centers. Bye bye competative long distance.
You can see how with complete deregulation it would be trivial for the LEC's to put all of their competition out of buisiness and just keep raising prices. Well at some point in the price raising it will be feasable for a competitor to enter the market again because by raising prices to consumers, the LEC has raised the profit potential for the competitor.
For an example of this type of market behavior look at the energy crisis in CA. They deregulated power, and worsend the situation by not allowing new power plants to be built. Essentially they gave the already existing monopoly free reign. Consequently prices skyrocket. If the government enforces price caps it will never be profitable for competition, they need to let energy prices keep climbing (sorry Silicon Valley) until someone else can afford to break the existing monopoly and restore competion.
This is probably what will happen with DSL. You will notice in most areas that as companies go out of business DSL prices will go up. Once they reach a certain level it will once again be profitable for these companies to get back in the game and the cycle will repeat. Until a competitor enters the arena that can tolerate the down cycle there will be no true competition.
The author of the article says he supports the free market, but then says he supports the federal government giving billions of dollars to companies who agree to provide access in rural areas. That's the kind of horseshit that liberals always temper "deregulation" with, and that's why we only every get half-regulation. In a free market, if it isn't profitable big companies won't do it. That is why we have government enitities that do things like build roads, deliver mail, etc. Proving this point the author points out that in Canada DSL has a much higher penetration than in the US, but he ignores the fact that the Canadian government mandated that everyone be able to get DSL.
Government Intervention != Free Market
If you are really in favor of a free market then you must accept that sometimes that will lead to monopolies, and sometimes it will lead to a service that you want not being provided to you. In some markets there is room for lots of companies, in some there isn't.
The money was later restored in a conference committee, but Congress delayed the launch until January 2001, when Gore was to leave the vice presidency, and required that the project first be analyzed by the National Academy of Sciences.
In March 2000, a National Academy committee reported that Triana had "the potential to make unique scientific contributions," even though the mission had "higher than usual risks."
With the Academy endorsement and money from Congress, NASA kicked the project into high gear. The spacecraft, bristling with science instruments and Gore's camera, was built in record time--- but by then it was too late.
You'd know that congress gave them the money, there just isn't room on the shuttle for it. You know with the space station and all.
I'm not sure you said what you meant. If it is an SSL connection to buystuff.com then your traffic is already encrypted. If you introduce a proxy into this you will break the SSL. The salient point about WEP that people tend to ignore is that it is not designed to provide security, only Wired Equivalent Privacy. And indeed, even with the recent announcements 802.11 is at least as secure as running Ethernet cables through your parking lot.
The problem of being able to access someone elses 802.11 network is totally different than the problems with WEP.
If you are going to do business in another country (like selling software) then obviously you should be familiar with that country's laws.