Who wants the Norton 90 day trial or the Lame Backup v3?
I know that not everyone is a power user, but I'd much rather install a bare version of my favorite OS and then build on it.
A setup that works great for me at the moment:
Debian stable (bare minimum) + kvm/qemu.
About a dozen virtual machines (Linux, XP, etc) on top of that for my daily activities.
As I said, I haven't read the law (who has?). But I somewhat remember allegations a few years back that some ISP that happened to offer VoIP services were throttling down VoIP from other companies. That's an example of QoS to me.
I never meant to say that I was for or against net neutrality. For the hundredth time, my only point was that it's much more complex than "no", and there are good arguments on both sides. There is a sizeable proportion of US citizens (I'm not a US citizen) who are already riled up against the federal government's interference with individual rights and private businesses. I expect the opposition to a law (that would put more red tape) to be higher in the US than it would be in Europe, that's it.
I guess someone had a different opinion and thought that a simple "no" was actually informative. I'll live with it.
There must be rules for commerce. But I belong to the group of people who think that the simpler the rules, the better off we all are. Writing rules on how this equipment should be used and that activity on my pipes should be permitted doesn't do much IMHO. I'd rather live in a world where educated customers can choose among a competing pool of transparent businesses. Again, I don't know the extent of the proposed rules in upcoming fair neutrality laws. But I'm afraid they will neither increase transparency and competition nor educate customers.
I believe transparency and competition. The issue with ISPs is the lack of transparency and competition. I fail to see how forbidding QOS will achieve that.
And btw, that was not even the point of my post before. The point was, it's more complex than "yes/no" and there are good arguments on both sides.
I understand that folks on/. don't want their p2p/voip bandwidth throttled (I know the issue is more complex than that, but I suppose it's the primary reason why everyone is so riled up, not concerns for competition). But how can someone think it's as easy as "yes" or "no" and have followers go "hell yeah, your answer was informative"? If I was a business, say an ISP, I wouldn't like at all the government to tell me I can't do QOS for useful and non-harming purposes, such as optimizing routes, or giving priority to DNS traffic, etc. If I'm paying for the pipes, I wouldn't accept that the government runs them. I believe one possible solution is to somewhat force ISPs and others to transparency, and let customers decide. Although I'm not an expert, so I would by no mean expect to have all the information to come up with the best decision.
What is at stake here is ensuring proper competition, customer protection and respecting basic rights enshrined in the constitution. Not ensuring you get the max bandwidth for your pr0n2peer.
Sure, you have +50% cores (12 instead of 8).
Now in terms of productivity, how much are you likely to gain? Not much, unless you run number crunching software that can scale to multiple cores.
It's been several years since we've seen the introduction of multi-core machines. Yet I'm not sure software is being developed with that in mind.
On the good side, putting SSDs in that machine will make the processor(s) less likely to wait for I/O on demanding tasks.
The article fails to mention... is flash supported?
Wrong again.
China borrows from the U.S. because it's their own commercial interest. If anything, it's only creating trade imbalances. You make it sound like "China gave the US a $400b check", but that's not the case *at all*.
Parent could not be more wrong.
India has its fair share of poverty and issues linked to population, yet does not need authoritarian laws to handle things.
There is no justification for hiding from or lying to your citizen.
Do you know how that sounds? Like that You'll be happy to know that the administrations from both sides since 9/11 have made it very hard to emigrate, although there is a lack of skilled workers in hard sciences in the US (please visit the DOS website if you doubt it). I won't even mention the fact that banks that received TARP money were not allowed to hire H1Bs. That's right. The system is broken, and the only thing the administration was able to do is rule out the hiring of thousands of more capable workers. Btw even low skilled immigration benefits a country's economy in many ways, there are studies on that (citation needed, I know).
What right wing racists and left wing protectionists fail to understand is that education in this great country fails to motivate "natives" to study hard sciences. I was lucky enough to study for a while in the U.S. and get (another) advanced degree here. Looking at the classroom is just like looking at my company now: "natives" are totally unrepresented because they simply don't have the skills in hard sciences. The CS and MIS grads you mention were not necessarily in the States, and they're the main portion of the supply for H1B.
Whatever the reason for a rant against H1B may be, there are 2 solutions: either study hard to get the job, or contact your congressmen to support protectionism. I personally worked hard to emigrate, and US immigration laws are the most intricate in the OECD. I firmly believe that bringin g in bright minds is the best way to boost this country's economy, and I like to think I contribute to that.
You know what? In about a year from now I'll have a Green Card in my pocket too. If I ever "take your job" I apologize in advance for it.
One may disagree with the man's opinions or his business, but I'd like to state the following.
I'm a happy reader of the WSJ, probably one of the best daily newspaper in the US. Even if it's supposed to be politically biased and not necessarily in the direction I would vote. The point is that good newspapers are rare, and most of them just act as repositories for Reuters stories. Who needs that? I'm happy that some papers still put an emphasis on content, and I'd gladly pay for the WSJ if I wasn't receiving it for free. Same thing, I've been a subscriber to The Economist for years, even though I could get all their articles online for free (well, until last fall).
The bottom line is, I'd rather pay for content and in depth-analysis than have a free shallow news feed.
Slashdot Mirror
Who wants the Norton 90 day trial or the Lame Backup v3?
I know that not everyone is a power user, but I'd much rather install a bare version of my favorite OS and then build on it.
A setup that works great for me at the moment:
Debian stable (bare minimum) + kvm/qemu.
About a dozen virtual machines (Linux, XP, etc) on top of that for my daily activities.
As I said, I haven't read the law (who has?). But I somewhat remember allegations a few years back that some ISP that happened to offer VoIP services were throttling down VoIP from other companies. That's an example of QoS to me.
I never meant to say that I was for or against net neutrality. For the hundredth time, my only point was that it's much more complex than "no", and there are good arguments on both sides. There is a sizeable proportion of US citizens (I'm not a US citizen) who are already riled up against the federal government's interference with individual rights and private businesses. I expect the opposition to a law (that would put more red tape) to be higher in the US than it would be in Europe, that's it.
I guess someone had a different opinion and thought that a simple "no" was actually informative. I'll live with it.
There must be rules for commerce. But I belong to the group of people who think that the simpler the rules, the better off we all are. Writing rules on how this equipment should be used and that activity on my pipes should be permitted doesn't do much IMHO. I'd rather live in a world where educated customers can choose among a competing pool of transparent businesses. Again, I don't know the extent of the proposed rules in upcoming fair neutrality laws. But I'm afraid they will neither increase transparency and competition nor educate customers.
I believe transparency and competition. The issue with ISPs is the lack of transparency and competition. I fail to see how forbidding QOS will achieve that.
And btw, that was not even the point of my post before. The point was, it's more complex than "yes/no" and there are good arguments on both sides.
How can this be modded "Informative"?
/. don't want their p2p/voip bandwidth throttled (I know the issue is more complex than that, but I suppose it's the primary reason why everyone is so riled up, not concerns for competition). But how can someone think it's as easy as "yes" or "no" and have followers go "hell yeah, your answer was informative"? If I was a business, say an ISP, I wouldn't like at all the government to tell me I can't do QOS for useful and non-harming purposes, such as optimizing routes, or giving priority to DNS traffic, etc. If I'm paying for the pipes, I wouldn't accept that the government runs them. I believe one possible solution is to somewhat force ISPs and others to transparency, and let customers decide. Although I'm not an expert, so I would by no mean expect to have all the information to come up with the best decision.
I understand that folks on
What is at stake here is ensuring proper competition, customer protection and respecting basic rights enshrined in the constitution. Not ensuring you get the max bandwidth for your pr0n2peer.
I actually loved* IBM Thinkpads and their TrackPoint for that!
*: it's all gone to hell since the purchase by Lenovo. Who do we turn to for high quality laptops now?
Sure, you have +50% cores (12 instead of 8). Now in terms of productivity, how much are you likely to gain? Not much, unless you run number crunching software that can scale to multiple cores. It's been several years since we've seen the introduction of multi-core machines. Yet I'm not sure software is being developed with that in mind. On the good side, putting SSDs in that machine will make the processor(s) less likely to wait for I/O on demanding tasks. The article fails to mention... is flash supported?
Someone who thinks of himself first and does not necessarily understand the concept of statistical inference and relevance?
"tend to" != "are all"
You're the troll.
What do you think you're doing Dave...
What about the guys killed by the government in the back of the "justice vans"? Do they care?
Wrong again. China borrows from the U.S. because it's their own commercial interest. If anything, it's only creating trade imbalances. You make it sound like "China gave the US a $400b check", but that's not the case *at all*.
Parent could not be more wrong. India has its fair share of poverty and issues linked to population, yet does not need authoritarian laws to handle things. There is no justification for hiding from or lying to your citizen.
An alternate partition is not a bad idea, but you must be able to prove that the partition you bring up when a gun is being pointed to your head is the partition you actually use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/truecrypts_deni.html
Do you know how that sounds? Like that
You'll be happy to know that the administrations from both sides since 9/11 have made it very hard to emigrate, although there is a lack of skilled workers in hard sciences in the US (please visit the DOS website if you doubt it). I won't even mention the fact that banks that received TARP money were not allowed to hire H1Bs. That's right. The system is broken, and the only thing the administration was able to do is rule out the hiring of thousands of more capable workers. Btw even low skilled immigration benefits a country's economy in many ways, there are studies on that (citation needed, I know).
What right wing racists and left wing protectionists fail to understand is that education in this great country fails to motivate "natives" to study hard sciences. I was lucky enough to study for a while in the U.S. and get (another) advanced degree here. Looking at the classroom is just like looking at my company now: "natives" are totally unrepresented because they simply don't have the skills in hard sciences. The CS and MIS grads you mention were not necessarily in the States, and they're the main portion of the supply for H1B.
Whatever the reason for a rant against H1B may be, there are 2 solutions: either study hard to get the job, or contact your congressmen to support protectionism. I personally worked hard to emigrate, and US immigration laws are the most intricate in the OECD. I firmly believe that bringin g in bright minds is the best way to boost this country's economy, and I like to think I contribute to that.
You know what? In about a year from now I'll have a Green Card in my pocket too. If I ever "take your job" I apologize in advance for it.
I call Godwin
anyone?
OS X 11 or OS XI?
One may disagree with the man's opinions or his business, but I'd like to state the following. I'm a happy reader of the WSJ, probably one of the best daily newspaper in the US. Even if it's supposed to be politically biased and not necessarily in the direction I would vote. The point is that good newspapers are rare, and most of them just act as repositories for Reuters stories. Who needs that? I'm happy that some papers still put an emphasis on content, and I'd gladly pay for the WSJ if I wasn't receiving it for free. Same thing, I've been a subscriber to The Economist for years, even though I could get all their articles online for free (well, until last fall). The bottom line is, I'd rather pay for content and in depth-analysis than have a free shallow news feed.