But their stockholders got rich in the meantime and their customers had rolling blackouts. So, it would be like the banking industry. We would always have terrible electricity service, but every 10 years or so the provider would "crash and burn" and the taxpayers would pick up the bill.
Their stockholders got shafted, and no taxpayer funds were used to pay for anything. Since banking is already highly regulated, are you sure you picked the right side of this argument?
If there were no competition that benefited the consumer you'd still be on dial-up to write your response. Are you still on dial-up? No? Why do you think that happened?
I was thinking the same thing. Enron, those fine people who darned well showed the world how well deregulation of electricity would reduce prices... ROTFL. People forget so quickly. The IEEE has its head up it's political ass to suggest deregulation.
Enron crashed and burned itself out of existence. I'm pretty sure that's how it's supposed to work; companies that behave and perform badly don't last long.
Don't we hear every so often about how the US government wants backdoors into otherwise secure systems and crypto algorithms for "national security" or "law enforcement" purposes? I suspect that the MSA2000 was required to have a backdoor to appease Uncle Sam, and somebody at HP decided that if Uncle Sam wanted a backdoor, Uncle Sam could damn well have a goate.cx-esque backdoor.
Exactly! What happened was that they used this type of storage array to hold data on the 9/11 cover-up, and also to edit the footage of the "moon landing". Also the specs for their black surveillance whisper copters.
I find it interesting that some people on Slashdot consider them "freedom fighters" of a sort, trying to preserve freedom of speech, when some of the same group have actively tried to interfere with Tumblr and Facebook merely because they didn't like the kind of people who posted on them.
As someone upthread said, these aren't freedom fighters, they're thugs. Just because their targets at the moment include businesses you don't like, doesn't make them less so.
I'm not sure what to call them, exactly, but what's clear to me is that they have some power but are clueless in the application of that power to achieve their goals. If they can even articulate what their goals are.
I don't believe for one second that any of the companies they targeted will consider the likeliness of a DDOS response as a decision criteria going forward.
What? The current war in Iraq was declared by congress. What do you define as legally declared? There was even talk of a draft for Iraq, but it was decided against.
While Congress did vote to authorize the President's prosecution of the war, no formal declaration of war was ever made in the case of Iraq. Really, it's a very academic point but true nonetheless.
Frankly, I think we should have compulsory military service too.
It's called a draft, and it happens every time a legal war is declared.
And sometimes when war hasn't been formally declared. The last legally declared war was WWII. The last time there was compulsory military service was Vietnam.
How can this be? Only our best and brightest peers get to sit in that stupid box for way too long listening to a bunch of nonsense about something they could give to shits about, then make a decision that's fair. All the peers you WOULD want to sit there (if you're the one in court) will get removed by your courtroom adversary, or themselves anyway. What's left are those that could not come up with a good excuse to get out of the duty, and have nothing but time to waste pretending to do a public service that would be better served from a pool of paid peers. Unless you have a shitload of money, then you get a good lawyer and he'll fight for some "good jurors" for you at least. Good justice is served to those that can afford it. If not, you're fucked. AND they have to keep the jurors off the Internet. Face it, it's broken, or borken.
Have you ever actually served on a jury? I hear statements like yours often when this topic comes up, and it's just wrong. I have only my own experience to base my opinion on, but in everything I've been involved in the jurors were intelligent, educated people who wanted to see that justice was served.
'cause conservatives like to laud this kind of thing as a sign that their take on capitalism works. But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need? Random generosity & hoping for the best isn't a good way to stabilize human society.
Yes, because in the Worker's Paradise, hard work is its own reward. Wait, didn't we try that one already?
So no, it doesn't preclude you from having civilian casualties. The only way to preclude this is to never have war. Being that we are humans, you can have high hopes of this, but this will only happen when Santa Claus delivers it. However, if I were a civilian close to the fighting, I would rather have these fired when one side is trying to suppress fire (or take out the enemy).
A mortar will get behind a wall easily. Mortars are inexpensive, the rounds are inexpensive, and further they can have fins that could easily be computer controlled. Would have made a lot more sense to build a guided mortar system.
A mortar that only requires a single soldier to carry & fire, and can put a round on target in ten seconds?
Standard-issue M16 rifle variants do not cost anywhere near $28,000. Maybe if you include the cost of training the soldier, but not for the rifle itself. Perhaps 1/10 of that figure is more appropriate, assuming decent optics were included.
An 800-meter range would be a significant improvement over the 5.56 round used today, but accuracy of only one meter at that distance would render it useless for anything but explosive rounds. If accuracy at longer range to target were all that's needed, there are several easier and cheaper ways to get it.
Regarding civilian deaths or injuries, this would should cause fewer than the larger, less accurate explosive projectiles used today. If you're a civilian in the area this still might ruin your day, but a mortar shell would make sure of it. The best solution is, of course, to not have gunfights in a city, but that doesn't appear to be an option at present.
I think most here generally support neutrality. Some argue that ISPs should be able to prioritize traffic based on type but not destination - they could give priority to latency critical, but low bandwidth, packets like VOIP at the expense of FTP; but not give priority to their own VOIP traffic above other VOIP traffic.
The challenge with prioritization over the Internet is the trust model. If my ISP were to trust my network to mark priority levels there's nothing that prevents me from selfishly flagging all my traffic as real-time just to give myself lower-latency web browsing. So clearly the ISP won't trust anyone but themselves to mark traffic. Or maybe they trust me but only permit a certain percentage of bandwidth to be marked real-time, and charging me for that privilege depending on how big of a percentage I want. This is essentially how MPLS works today.
But then that data has to go somewhere, and it may traverse several other ISPs before reaching its destination, so all those other ISPs also have to trust that the traffic is flagged correctly and act appropriately. And if ISP X is sending 50% real-time traffic and ISP Y is sending 25% real-time traffic, the equitable peering arrangements that we have today are suddenly broken. Of course the natural solution then would be a centralized command and control to dictate and enforce how all these ISPs handle and charge one another for this traffic. And naturally this would be a government entity of some kind. Extrapolate from there yourselves.
Solar + EV = win. A neighbor of mine did this and his average bill is negative $2/month. Having an EV car shortens the solar panel system installation ROI period considerably.
It's odd that people would make these types of remarks about political motivations when the left is currently in power.
What the fuck are you talking about? The current administration is center-right, not even remotely "left."
I don't think we're using a common definition for those terms. I'm defining "left" as Democrat-controlled and "right" as Republican-controlled. Currently the administration is left by this definition. By "administration" I mean the legislative and executive branches of the government. Since all of these are still firmly controlled by the Democrats, at least for a couple more months, the administration is clearly controlled by the left. After January it will still be 2/3 controlled by the left.
How about U.S. senate republican staffers (not just some random individual republicans) who exploited a security hole to access senate democrats' private files and internal memos for a period of several years during the Bush admin?
As the accused also went to prison in your example, it actually supports my position. It doesn't appear that anyone got away with anything. So, thanks.
because political operatives for the GOP have basically skirted the law for decades pulling shit like this and the DOS attacks on democratic offices and phone systems.
Citation needed. Try to make it within the past 20 years. Good luck.
If he would have gotten less or even nothing when he would have chosen another side of the political spectrum - if there is such a thing on US news media?
MSNBC and Comedy Central tend to lean left of center. It's odd that people would make these types of remarks about political motivations when the left is currently in power. Who, exactly, is subverting the process now? Obama? Reid?
"If you illegally download a copyrighted work then it must have value to you; otherwise why bother spending the time and risk to obtain the work?"
Because I need a certain snippet out of the song to use according to fair use, unfortunately it is halfway through the song and thus it is practically impossible to obtain the clip I'd like to use since the demos available typically only play the first 15-30 seconds of the song.
It's a valid point, but certainly you aren't claiming that Fair Use is the primary driver of copyrighted product downloads?
Slashdot Mirror
But their stockholders got rich in the meantime and their customers had rolling blackouts. So, it would be like the banking industry. We would always have terrible electricity service, but every 10 years or so the provider would "crash and burn" and the taxpayers would pick up the bill.
Their stockholders got shafted, and no taxpayer funds were used to pay for anything. Since banking is already highly regulated, are you sure you picked the right side of this argument?
If there were no competition that benefited the consumer you'd still be on dial-up to write your response. Are you still on dial-up? No? Why do you think that happened?
I was thinking the same thing. Enron, those fine people who darned well showed the world how well deregulation of electricity would reduce prices... ROTFL. People forget so quickly. The IEEE has its head up it's political ass to suggest deregulation.
Enron crashed and burned itself out of existence. I'm pretty sure that's how it's supposed to work; companies that behave and perform badly don't last long.
Don't we hear every so often about how the US government wants backdoors into otherwise secure systems and crypto algorithms for "national security" or "law enforcement" purposes? I suspect that the MSA2000 was required to have a backdoor to appease Uncle Sam, and somebody at HP decided that if Uncle Sam wanted a backdoor, Uncle Sam could damn well have a goate.cx-esque backdoor.
Exactly! What happened was that they used this type of storage array to hold data on the 9/11 cover-up, and also to edit the footage of the "moon landing". Also the specs for their black surveillance whisper copters.
Or someone at HP is a moron.
We have 1Gb fiber to the home. :)
It's a bit easier to physically install cable infrastructure in country slightly smaller than California.
I find it interesting that some people on Slashdot consider them "freedom fighters" of a sort, trying to preserve freedom of speech, when some of the same group have actively tried to interfere with Tumblr and Facebook merely because they didn't like the kind of people who posted on them.
As someone upthread said, these aren't freedom fighters, they're thugs. Just because their targets at the moment include businesses you don't like, doesn't make them less so.
I'm not sure what to call them, exactly, but what's clear to me is that they have some power but are clueless in the application of that power to achieve their goals. If they can even articulate what their goals are.
I don't believe for one second that any of the companies they targeted will consider the likeliness of a DDOS response as a decision criteria going forward.
What? The current war in Iraq was declared by congress. What do you define as legally declared? There was even talk of a draft for Iraq, but it was decided against.
While Congress did vote to authorize the President's prosecution of the war, no formal declaration of war was ever made in the case of Iraq. Really, it's a very academic point but true nonetheless.
Frankly, I think we should have compulsory military service too.
It's called a draft, and it happens every time a legal war is declared.
And sometimes when war hasn't been formally declared. The last legally declared war was WWII. The last time there was compulsory military service was Vietnam.
How can this be? Only our best and brightest peers get to sit in that stupid box for way too long listening to a bunch of nonsense about something they could give to shits about, then make a decision that's fair. All the peers you WOULD want to sit there (if you're the one in court) will get removed by your courtroom adversary, or themselves anyway. What's left are those that could not come up with a good excuse to get out of the duty, and have nothing but time to waste pretending to do a public service that would be better served from a pool of paid peers. Unless you have a shitload of money, then you get a good lawyer and he'll fight for some "good jurors" for you at least. Good justice is served to those that can afford it. If not, you're fucked.
AND they have to keep the jurors off the Internet. Face it, it's broken, or borken.
Have you ever actually served on a jury? I hear statements like yours often when this topic comes up, and it's just wrong. I have only my own experience to base my opinion on, but in everything I've been involved in the jurors were intelligent, educated people who wanted to see that justice was served.
> with some judges now confiscating all phones and computers from jurors when they enter the courtroom
Gosh, and I just needed something to motivate me more to participate in juror duty.
Yeah, god forbid we actually participate in the judicial system we love to bash so much around here.
'cause conservatives like to laud this kind of thing as a sign that their take on capitalism works. But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need? Random generosity & hoping for the best isn't a good way to stabilize human society.
Yes, because in the Worker's Paradise, hard work is its own reward. Wait, didn't we try that one already?
So war will be over by christmas?
That depends... have we been Naughty, or Nice?
A mortar will get behind a wall easily. Mortars are inexpensive, the rounds are inexpensive, and further they can have fins that could easily be computer controlled. Would have made a lot more sense to build a guided mortar system.
A mortar that only requires a single soldier to carry & fire, and can put a round on target in ten seconds?
A couple points:
Standard-issue M16 rifle variants do not cost anywhere near $28,000. Maybe if you include the cost of training the soldier, but not for the rifle itself. Perhaps 1/10 of that figure is more appropriate, assuming decent optics were included.
An 800-meter range would be a significant improvement over the 5.56 round used today, but accuracy of only one meter at that distance would render it useless for anything but explosive rounds. If accuracy at longer range to target were all that's needed, there are several easier and cheaper ways to get it.
Regarding civilian deaths or injuries, this would should cause fewer than the larger, less accurate explosive projectiles used today. If you're a civilian in the area this still might ruin your day, but a mortar shell would make sure of it. The best solution is, of course, to not have gunfights in a city, but that doesn't appear to be an option at present.
He wrote up a white paper that addresses many of these questions. I probably should have included it in my original post.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8UUbV0VS_JyOTk0ODczYjYtZDI1NS00ZTk4LTg4ODYtNmU0MTU0NDNiNTRj&hl=en&authkey=CMrI8IUL
He wrote up a white paper that addresses many of these questions. I probably should have included it in my original post.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B8UUbV0VS_JyOTk0ODczYjYtZDI1NS00ZTk4LTg4ODYtNmU0MTU0NDNiNTRj&hl=en&authkey=CMrI8IUL
I think most here generally support neutrality. Some argue that ISPs should be able to prioritize traffic based on type but not destination - they could give priority to latency critical, but low bandwidth, packets like VOIP at the expense of FTP; but not give priority to their own VOIP traffic above other VOIP traffic.
The challenge with prioritization over the Internet is the trust model. If my ISP were to trust my network to mark priority levels there's nothing that prevents me from selfishly flagging all my traffic as real-time just to give myself lower-latency web browsing. So clearly the ISP won't trust anyone but themselves to mark traffic. Or maybe they trust me but only permit a certain percentage of bandwidth to be marked real-time, and charging me for that privilege depending on how big of a percentage I want. This is essentially how MPLS works today.
But then that data has to go somewhere, and it may traverse several other ISPs before reaching its destination, so all those other ISPs also have to trust that the traffic is flagged correctly and act appropriately. And if ISP X is sending 50% real-time traffic and ISP Y is sending 25% real-time traffic, the equitable peering arrangements that we have today are suddenly broken. Of course the natural solution then would be a centralized command and control to dictate and enforce how all these ISPs handle and charge one another for this traffic. And naturally this would be a government entity of some kind. Extrapolate from there yourselves.
This is why Net Neutrality is important.
Solar + EV = win. A neighbor of mine did this and his average bill is negative $2/month. Having an EV car shortens the solar panel system installation ROI period considerably.
It's odd that people would make these types of remarks about political motivations when the left is currently in power.
What the fuck are you talking about? The current administration is center-right, not even remotely "left."
I don't think we're using a common definition for those terms. I'm defining "left" as Democrat-controlled and "right" as Republican-controlled. Currently the administration is left by this definition. By "administration" I mean the legislative and executive branches of the government. Since all of these are still firmly controlled by the Democrats, at least for a couple more months, the administration is clearly controlled by the left. After January it will still be 2/3 controlled by the left.
How about U.S. senate republican staffers (not just some random individual republicans) who exploited a security hole to access senate democrats' private files and internal memos for a period of several years during the Bush admin?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_seen_as_extensive/
This may be the only relevant example in the replies, but I was unable to find out if anyone was punished... where they?
Okay. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/12/nation/na-gop12
And since they were caught and sentenced to jail time, what's the difference?
New Hampshire Senate Election Phone Jamming Scandal. There's a book by the perp.
As the accused also went to prison in your example, it actually supports my position. It doesn't appear that anyone got away with anything. So, thanks.
because political operatives for the GOP have basically skirted the law for decades pulling shit like this and the DOS attacks on democratic offices and phone systems.
Citation needed. Try to make it within the past 20 years. Good luck.
If he would have gotten less or even nothing when he would have chosen another side of the political spectrum - if there is such a thing on US news media?
MSNBC and Comedy Central tend to lean left of center. It's odd that people would make these types of remarks about political motivations when the left is currently in power. Who, exactly, is subverting the process now? Obama? Reid?
"If you illegally download a copyrighted work then it must have value to you; otherwise why bother spending the time and risk to obtain the work?"
Because I need a certain snippet out of the song to use according to fair use, unfortunately it is halfway through the song and thus it is practically impossible to obtain the clip I'd like to use since the demos available typically only play the first 15-30 seconds of the song.
It's a valid point, but certainly you aren't claiming that Fair Use is the primary driver of copyrighted product downloads?