Shouldn't market forces be allowed to decide whether or not the public wants their internet and mobile communications blocked or censored?
Assuming fair competition was occuring, sure. Unfortunately, when you're dealing with natural monopolies (and yes, ISPs are natural monopolies, due to the near insurmountable barriers of entry, both financial and regulatory), free market economics tends to fall on it's face.
Worse, last I checked, the FCC was easing (or flat out eliminating, I don't recall which) requirements that telcos provide cheap access to their copper (which was built using public easements, with the support of government funding, not to mention massive tax breaks) to competing ISPs, so their stranglehold on the market is only tightening. So unless you've got billions of dollars, and can convince a municipality to allow you to dig up public land in order to lay your own lines, I'd say the consumer is effectively screwed.
If Comcast is blocking, throttling, or in some other way denying traffic, don't they lose their common carrier status?
It's been said before. I might as well say it again. Comcast does not have common carrier status. That only applies to telcos. Heck, I'm not even sure DSL qualifies. But IP over cable most definitely does not.
Well, if you're too dumb to realize that means "you shouldn't be buying this if you don't live in Thailand", then you got what you deserved.
'course, I think you knew full well that you were buying a product that wasn't intended to be sold to you, and just figured you could get away with it. But whatever your beliefs are regarding Valve's "solution" to this "problem", don't try to claim ignorance... stupidity, maybe. Ignorance? I highly doubt it.
On the fucking box... that they didn't see until after they'd already paid and received shipment?
Actually, they didn't get a box at all. They got a key. From a shady source. And they damn well knew it. Further, the retailer could have enlightened them regarding the limitations of the software, given *they* were clearly in possession of the box, but they didn't.
Face it, the customer tried to get in on a scam and got fucked. It's their own damn fault. Why this has caused such an outrage, I'll never know...
The first is the driving force behind all of Microsoft's actions (and, in fact, almost everyone's): money.
Absolutely. But I think both of your ideas are off the mark (though you start to get it a bit later). The goal, here, probably isn't to make money selling Windows to XO users. In fact, I'll bet dollars to donuts their plan is to give away their port for free. No, the goal is to get people familiarized with Windows products. Remember, the developing world today will be the markets of the future for MS. Having an entire generation of children exposed to Windows could be a very good thing for Microsoft when those economies begin to mature.
They give it away for free - Thus proving it's worthless and shovelware
Well that's just idiotic. Are you saying Linux is shovelware?
Personally, I'm willing to bet that, if they do get Windows running on the OLPC, they *will* give it away for free. Odds are it will have to be fairly limited, anyway, given the limitations of the XO, so there's no danger of it biting into their regular revenue streams, and it's a great way for MS to get Windows in the hands of a developing world. thus familiarizing them with their products, which makes it more likely they'll adopt them later in life. And the beauty is, while such an action would normally constitute dumping, they can do it under the guise of "charity".
Finally, I see someone gets it! The issue, here, isn't whether a vulnerability in software on one VM could lead to a compromise of another. The issue is that the VM *itself* maybe insecure. And an exploit in the VM can lead to the entire machine, and all VMs on it, being compromised. *That* is the additional layer of software Theo is referring to, software which may be buggy, and is most certainly subject to attack.
Here, the states are suing another Secretary, right? They are trying to get the Secretary to take action by enacting regulations
No, they're suing the EPA to get waivers under the existing regulatory structure (which they were told they would get, and still haven't) so that they can go forward with their policies. California, as it happens, already has such a waiver, and the states participating in the suit are now demanding they be granted one, too.
If a given layer has a lot of "thin" structures in a sea of transparency, the move tool often grabs the layer behind rather than the layer intended, even if the intended layer is the currently active layer. GIMP should "fuzz" the opaque areas out a little bit to make them more grabbable, because chances are that's what the user wishes to move. I don't remember a time when I accidentally grabbed a layer that was too high on the Z-ordering. I curse endlessly when I grab the layer below the one I wanted though, and that happens regularly.
Regarding this particular issue, just hold down the shift key when click-dragging the layer. That modifier ensures you don't switch layers when grabbing/moving something.
Yeah, I know, it's another example of an undocumented, yet useful, GIMP hotkey, but hey, at least it's available.:)
You can't force a different branch of government to enact legislation.
Umm... that's not what's happening here. To quote the article you obviously didn't read:
"The legal move by the states to sue the Environmental Protection Agency is aimed at prodding the Bush administration to remove obstacles to more than a dozen states seeking to regulate global warming emissions from cars and trucks."
So the federal government is overstepping it's bounds, preventing the states from enacting laws to tighten pollution regulations within their borders, and so the states are suing. I fail to see what's unconstitutional about that.
WTF are you talking about? These aren't different branches of government (in case you've forgotten, and it appears you have, those would be the legislative, executive, and judiciary). They're completely separate levels of government, you tool. And of course a state can sue the feds. Why not?
Well, to be clear, Ron Paul is a libertarian who joined the Republican party because he knew he wouldn't have a chance as a third party representative. Unfortunately, as a consequence, his a little extremist for most Americans, and there's very little chance of him being nominated, let alone elected.
as larger percentages of the populace can build their own little inter-communicative sites.
HA HA HA HA! Oh god... are you serious? Most people can't even keep their Windows box up, running, and virus free, let alone build and deploy a damn social networking website.
Personally I prefer the right answer a tenth of a second slower, rather than a wrong answer fast.
No, you prefer that the DB give you more guarantees about consistency (yes, you can get by without FK constraints), at the expense of performance. And a tenth of a second would be a *significant* performance improvement for extremely large volume sites.
Again, it very much depends on the application involved. Pick the right tool for the right job. Sometimes, that's mysql.
Good for you. Of course, your applications may very well be of a different class, and so perhaps Postgres is a better solution. But remember, if you're doing mostly reads, and not a ton of writes, mysql will blow the socks off virtually any other solution. And, coincidentally, that pretty well describes most web applications in general, and probably Google in particular.
Good lord, are you telling me there's still people playing QWTF? Jebus... QWTF was actually the first, and subsequently last, online game I ever played. Until TF2, that is. 'course, the difference is, today, I... really really suck...
Well, now, here's where the fundamental disagreement comes in, doesn't it? What evidence do you have that Iraq supported Islamic terrorists, specifically Al Qaeda? Everything I've come across says that a) Saddam's regime was entirely secular, and b) he did his best to squash religious extremists because they posed a threat to his power. Nor was there, to my knowledge, any documented evidence of support of Al Qaeda by the Iraqi government. Unlike Afghanistan, which was known to be harbouring and supporting terrorists.
And, whether or not you believe Iraq supported terrorism, it was completely and utterly clear that Al Qaeda was, at the time, based primarily in Afghanistan, and that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Hence why the invasion of Afghanistan was met with relative support for the world community. And then, for reasons that remain specious, the US suddenly turned it's attention to Iraq, without finishing it's job in Afghanistan, and without catching Osama bin Laden, the individual generally considered the mastermind behind the attacks.
Meanwhile, if your memory remains clear, you might recall that the US never attempted to use terrorism as the basis for justifying an invasion of Iraq to the UN (probably because there was no such basis) (incidentally, they did attempt to use the terrorism line with the American public, but alas, they tend to be more gullible than the UN). Despite the fact that harbouring terrorists was a valid justification for invading Afghanistan, the US chose to justify the Iraqi invasion based on the claim that Iraq posed an imminent threat to it's neighbours, due to it's possession of WMDs. Except that the evidence was, at best, thin, at worst, flat out fabricated.
So, tell me, why would the US use the weak case of WMDs to justify the Iraqi invasion if the link to terrorism was so plainly clear? Unless, that is, it wasn't that clear, and you're simply mistaken.
I hope that we can agree that a defeat in Iraq would be a disaster for the US.
Unfortunately, this goes without saying. OTOH, I'm not convinced one *can* "win" in Iraq. I'm not even convinced you can form a stable government there, given the diverse and conflicting sets of religions and races. And that's ignoring the destabilizing forces of nations such as Iran, who *do* actively support terrorism. Of course, if the US had never gone in, or had actually planned out the postwar scenarios, we might not be in this mess. But, alas, it's too late now. The damage is done, and the only people winning are the extremists and the undertakers.
The Prez clearly stated that Iraq was an Al Qaeda ally.
Say what? With context or not, the speech clearly says the following:
now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
No amount of context changes the fact that what is said, there, is that attacking Iraq and bringing democracy there would, they claim, be a direct blow against the terrorists who carried out the attacks on 9/11.
So, in a sense, yes, you're right, Bush wasn't claiming Iraq actually carried out 9/11. He was claiming that they supported, and provided a "geographic base" for, the Islamic Jihadists who carried out those attacks. Except that, unfortunately for Bush and Co, Iraq was a secular state who had no ties with Al Qaeda (unlike, say, Saudi Arabia), and attacking them has done precisely the opposite of what they claimed: it's provided fuel to an already burning hatred against the US, and provided a lawless country in which terrorism could flourish.
Now, you could claim that, hey, they didn't know that was going to happen. Except, of course, that many people were telling them that this is *precisely* what would happen... including Bush Sr, as I recall. And they were right, much to the world's detriment.
Regardless, the point is that, yes, the US government attempted to draw a connection between Iraq and 9/11 by claiming they were an Al Qaeda supporter, despite evidence to the contrary. They then used this specious argument to wage a pointless war, diverting attention, funds, and resources away from far more important fronts, such as Afghanistan. And the result has been, without question, disastrous.
Did you just accidentally leave the most obvious answer, "both", out of the list of options? Or do you really believe that there can be one and only one explanation for the reduction in crime rates?
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't market forces be allowed to decide whether
or not the public wants their internet and mobile
communications blocked or censored?
Assuming fair competition was occuring, sure. Unfortunately, when you're dealing with natural monopolies (and yes, ISPs are natural monopolies, due to the near insurmountable barriers of entry, both financial and regulatory), free market economics tends to fall on it's face.
Worse, last I checked, the FCC was easing (or flat out eliminating, I don't recall which) requirements that telcos provide cheap access to their copper (which was built using public easements, with the support of government funding, not to mention massive tax breaks) to competing ISPs, so their stranglehold on the market is only tightening. So unless you've got billions of dollars, and can convince a municipality to allow you to dig up public land in order to lay your own lines, I'd say the consumer is effectively screwed.
If Comcast is blocking, throttling, or in some other way denying traffic, don't they lose their common carrier status?
It's been said before. I might as well say it again. Comcast does not have common carrier status. That only applies to telcos. Heck, I'm not even sure DSL qualifies. But IP over cable most definitely does not.
All it says is "For sale in Thailand only"
Well, if you're too dumb to realize that means "you shouldn't be buying this if you don't live in Thailand", then you got what you deserved.
'course, I think you knew full well that you were buying a product that wasn't intended to be sold to you, and just figured you could get away with it. But whatever your beliefs are regarding Valve's "solution" to this "problem", don't try to claim ignorance... stupidity, maybe. Ignorance? I highly doubt it.
On the fucking box... that they didn't see until after they'd already paid and received shipment?
Actually, they didn't get a box at all. They got a key. From a shady source. And they damn well knew it. Further, the retailer could have enlightened them regarding the limitations of the software, given *they* were clearly in possession of the box, but they didn't.
Face it, the customer tried to get in on a scam and got fucked. It's their own damn fault. Why this has caused such an outrage, I'll never know...
The first is the driving force behind all of Microsoft's actions (and, in fact, almost everyone's): money.
Absolutely. But I think both of your ideas are off the mark (though you start to get it a bit later). The goal, here, probably isn't to make money selling Windows to XO users. In fact, I'll bet dollars to donuts their plan is to give away their port for free. No, the goal is to get people familiarized with Windows products. Remember, the developing world today will be the markets of the future for MS. Having an entire generation of children exposed to Windows could be a very good thing for Microsoft when those economies begin to mature.
They give it away for free - Thus proving it's worthless and shovelware
Well that's just idiotic. Are you saying Linux is shovelware?
Personally, I'm willing to bet that, if they do get Windows running on the OLPC, they *will* give it away for free. Odds are it will have to be fairly limited, anyway, given the limitations of the XO, so there's no danger of it biting into their regular revenue streams, and it's a great way for MS to get Windows in the hands of a developing world. thus familiarizing them with their products, which makes it more likely they'll adopt them later in life. And the beauty is, while such an action would normally constitute dumping, they can do it under the guise of "charity".
WRONG! The company in question has to, at the very least, disclose those licensing restrictions!
Yeah... good thing they did then, jackass. It's on the fucking box, for god sake. If these idiots didn't know, it's their own damn fault.
This, ofcourse, only applies when your opponent is involved.
Do you normally make a habit of putting words in other people's mouths, or are you making an exception in this case?
Finally, I see someone gets it! The issue, here, isn't whether a vulnerability in software on one VM could lead to a compromise of another. The issue is that the VM *itself* maybe insecure. And an exploit in the VM can lead to the entire machine, and all VMs on it, being compromised. *That* is the additional layer of software Theo is referring to, software which may be buggy, and is most certainly subject to attack.
Here, the states are suing another Secretary, right? They are trying to get the Secretary to take action by enacting regulations
No, they're suing the EPA to get waivers under the existing regulatory structure (which they were told they would get, and still haven't) so that they can go forward with their policies. California, as it happens, already has such a waiver, and the states participating in the suit are now demanding they be granted one, too.
If a given layer has a lot of "thin" structures in a sea of transparency, the move tool often grabs the layer behind rather than the layer intended, even if the intended layer is the currently active layer. GIMP should "fuzz" the opaque areas out a little bit to make them more grabbable, because chances are that's what the user wishes to move. I don't remember a time when I accidentally grabbed a layer that was too high on the Z-ordering. I curse endlessly when I grab the layer below the one I wanted though, and that happens regularly.
:)
Regarding this particular issue, just hold down the shift key when click-dragging the layer. That modifier ensures you don't switch layers when grabbing/moving something.
Yeah, I know, it's another example of an undocumented, yet useful, GIMP hotkey, but hey, at least it's available.
You can't force a different branch of government to enact legislation.
Umm... that's not what's happening here. To quote the article you obviously didn't read:
"The legal move by the states to sue the Environmental Protection Agency is aimed at prodding the Bush administration to remove obstacles to more than a dozen states seeking to regulate global warming emissions from cars and trucks."
So the federal government is overstepping it's bounds, preventing the states from enacting laws to tighten pollution regulations within their borders, and so the states are suing. I fail to see what's unconstitutional about that.
I fail to see how this is inferior to the Gimp over multiple monitors.
And yet, some people prefer it. Go figure. Maybe it comes down to *gasp* personal taste!
WTF are you talking about? These aren't different branches of government (in case you've forgotten, and it appears you have, those would be the legislative, executive, and judiciary). They're completely separate levels of government, you tool. And of course a state can sue the feds. Why not?
Well, to be clear, Ron Paul is a libertarian who joined the Republican party because he knew he wouldn't have a chance as a third party representative. Unfortunately, as a consequence, his a little extremist for most Americans, and there's very little chance of him being nominated, let alone elected.
as larger percentages of the populace can build their own little inter-communicative sites.
HA HA HA HA! Oh god... are you serious? Most people can't even keep their Windows box up, running, and virus free, let alone build and deploy a damn social networking website.
Personally I prefer the right answer a tenth of a second slower, rather than a wrong answer fast.
No, you prefer that the DB give you more guarantees about consistency (yes, you can get by without FK constraints), at the expense of performance. And a tenth of a second would be a *significant* performance improvement for extremely large volume sites.
Again, it very much depends on the application involved. Pick the right tool for the right job. Sometimes, that's mysql.
To provide a more accurate comparison, JET is probably more akin to SQLite, which, BTW, is frickin' awesome.
I prefer Postgres to MySQL.
Good for you. Of course, your applications may very well be of a different class, and so perhaps Postgres is a better solution. But remember, if you're doing mostly reads, and not a ton of writes, mysql will blow the socks off virtually any other solution. And, coincidentally, that pretty well describes most web applications in general, and probably Google in particular.
Good lord, are you telling me there's still people playing QWTF? Jebus... QWTF was actually the first, and subsequently last, online game I ever played. Until TF2, that is. 'course, the difference is, today, I... really really suck...
Iraq supports Islamic terrorists.
Well, now, here's where the fundamental disagreement comes in, doesn't it? What evidence do you have that Iraq supported Islamic terrorists, specifically Al Qaeda? Everything I've come across says that a) Saddam's regime was entirely secular, and b) he did his best to squash religious extremists because they posed a threat to his power. Nor was there, to my knowledge, any documented evidence of support of Al Qaeda by the Iraqi government. Unlike Afghanistan, which was known to be harbouring and supporting terrorists.
And, whether or not you believe Iraq supported terrorism, it was completely and utterly clear that Al Qaeda was, at the time, based primarily in Afghanistan, and that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Hence why the invasion of Afghanistan was met with relative support for the world community. And then, for reasons that remain specious, the US suddenly turned it's attention to Iraq, without finishing it's job in Afghanistan, and without catching Osama bin Laden, the individual generally considered the mastermind behind the attacks.
Meanwhile, if your memory remains clear, you might recall that the US never attempted to use terrorism as the basis for justifying an invasion of Iraq to the UN (probably because there was no such basis) (incidentally, they did attempt to use the terrorism line with the American public, but alas, they tend to be more gullible than the UN). Despite the fact that harbouring terrorists was a valid justification for invading Afghanistan, the US chose to justify the Iraqi invasion based on the claim that Iraq posed an imminent threat to it's neighbours, due to it's possession of WMDs. Except that the evidence was, at best, thin, at worst, flat out fabricated.
So, tell me, why would the US use the weak case of WMDs to justify the Iraqi invasion if the link to terrorism was so plainly clear? Unless, that is, it wasn't that clear, and you're simply mistaken.
I hope that we can agree that a defeat in Iraq would be a disaster for the US.
Unfortunately, this goes without saying. OTOH, I'm not convinced one *can* "win" in Iraq. I'm not even convinced you can form a stable government there, given the diverse and conflicting sets of religions and races. And that's ignoring the destabilizing forces of nations such as Iran, who *do* actively support terrorism. Of course, if the US had never gone in, or had actually planned out the postwar scenarios, we might not be in this mess. But, alas, it's too late now. The damage is done, and the only people winning are the extremists and the undertakers.
*sigh* Sorry, yes, that would be what I meant. Yay reading comprehension!
The Prez clearly stated that Iraq was an Al Qaeda ally.
Say what? With context or not, the speech clearly says the following:
now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
No amount of context changes the fact that what is said, there, is that attacking Iraq and bringing democracy there would, they claim, be a direct blow against the terrorists who carried out the attacks on 9/11.
So, in a sense, yes, you're right, Bush wasn't claiming Iraq actually carried out 9/11. He was claiming that they supported, and provided a "geographic base" for, the Islamic Jihadists who carried out those attacks. Except that, unfortunately for Bush and Co, Iraq was a secular state who had no ties with Al Qaeda (unlike, say, Saudi Arabia), and attacking them has done precisely the opposite of what they claimed: it's provided fuel to an already burning hatred against the US, and provided a lawless country in which terrorism could flourish.
Now, you could claim that, hey, they didn't know that was going to happen. Except, of course, that many people were telling them that this is *precisely* what would happen... including Bush Sr, as I recall. And they were right, much to the world's detriment.
Regardless, the point is that, yes, the US government attempted to draw a connection between Iraq and 9/11 by claiming they were an Al Qaeda supporter, despite evidence to the contrary. They then used this specious argument to wage a pointless war, diverting attention, funds, and resources away from far more important fronts, such as Afghanistan. And the result has been, without question, disastrous.
Are both studies wrong? One study?
Did you just accidentally leave the most obvious answer, "both", out of the list of options? Or do you really believe that there can be one and only one explanation for the reduction in crime rates?
1. Look up the definitions of throughput and latency.
2. Develop a basic comprehension of the goals of QoS.
3. Re-evaluate your position.