Re:QoS not needed or wanted on the Internet
on
IPv6 Essentials
·
· Score: 1
Bullshit. QoS is all about reducing latency for streams that require it. Latency is a function of, among other things, queuing behaviour at the router, and that is an issue irrespective of the total amount of bandwidth being utilized.
It's like retail - whoever has the lowest prices gets substantially all of the business, so prices race to the bottom for everybody.
And so everything costs less and people with fewer dollars can by more, effectively increasing their purchasing power and raising the standard of living.
That's what I see coming from unrestricted globalization - the entire world's standard of living drops to the lowest standard of living existing today, and stays there.
Why on earth would that happen? If the standard living of a given nation increases over time, why wouldn't the standard of living of the global population do the same?
Besides, there's counter-examples galore. Just look at India or China. Both are seeing rapid increases in standard of living.
And a dinosaur's bone probably doesn't have any bacteria in it either (given the function of antibodies is to, you know... destroy bacteria). As for your "30 year" claim, this site indicates that canned meats have an indefinite shelf life.
Really! Then explain to me why a can of corn can last for *years* and still be fine. I mean, everyone knows it should rot just like in a garbage can, right?
Ok, So what should she have done and what pieces of information did the CIA director give pointing to it?
Well, it seems to me that, between that report and the report proving that Al Qaeda was, in fact, responsible for the Cole bombing, they had sufficient evidence to gain the basing rights they needed to deploy troops into Afghanistan and destroy those training camps. Who knows, that may have been sufficient to discourage the 9/11 attackers from following through on their plan. Is that a given? No, of course not. But the complete lack of action by the Bush administration during the first months of office is, I think, sufficient evidence of incompetance.
The fee is not small. It is well north of $150 a year. It rises every year, faster than inflation. It is probably one of the most regressive taxes ever devised, and falls most heavily on those who can least afford it.
Dude. That's *12* dollars a month... 12 dollars! And it's on a f'ing luxury (yes, TV is a luxury... if you're a single mother who can't spare $12/month, you've got other problems and should probably just sacrifice the damn TV). In exchange, you have world-class media coverage on multiple formats, and online content that's only just being seen in other countries, and most of it without commercials! Seriously, you don't understand how great you have it.
If the alternative is that I have to pay more money for crappier content *and* have to watch 20 minutes of commercials per hour... I'll pay the damn $12, thank you very much.
I don't think you understand. The party proposing these bills wants them for set of reasons. In this case, finding terrorists may be one of those reasons, but there are probably others, such as protecting the president from impeachment (by retroactively approving previous wiretapping activities). In order to get the bill to pass, they need to get people to vote for it. So, especially around election time, they use words like "people who vote against this are coddling terrorists"... this forces people who would otherwise oppose the bill to think twice: if they oppose the bill, they're voting in line with their principles, but they'll get smeared as a coward during the forthcoming campaign.
It all comes down to manipulating the minds of the people. After all, you don't want to coddle terrorists, do you?
Umm... by using traditional investigating techniques to identify potential suspects, and then requesting warrants for those individuals based on the evidence you have.
Or are you under the rather silly impression that phone tapping is being used to actually *find* the terrorists?
What is it with Republicans and their extreme views? The world isn't black and white.
Woah woah. Don't, for one second, believe these republicans (or democrats) *actually* believe this stuff. Statements about "coddling" terrorists are made to: to polarize the electorate, mobilize their base, and demonize their opponents. It's 100% pure marketing. That's it, that's all. And it's important to understand this, because beneath all the rhetoric, these politicians do have real motivations for their actions, and it's vitally important for the voters to understand those motivations.
Actually, I think Perl6 will ultimately be a much better language in which to design large systems. It's object system is much more powerful (with Roles, which as I understand it act like a combination of interfaces and mixins), which will make it easier to build more modular software (P5's package system is useable, but let's face it, it's not particularly clean). Plus, things like optionally stricter typing and DBC-like functionality mean (hopefully) fewer bugs.
Additionally, P6 expands Perl's functional capabilities, adding things like continuations, which could allow for Seaside/Rails-like webapp development.
Lastly, Perl6 could end up being one of the few mainstream languages with parallelization semantics defined right in it's core, which means all these multicore machines that are coming out could be more easily leveraged.
While indeed Perl operators are becoming more "consistent" among themselves, I think Perl's decision to undefine decades-old comforts like the ternary operator (?:) and bit shifting () is a huge mistake. If a language wants to change these things, the results should be clearly *more* intuitive, not just different.
Well, to play devils advocate, how often do you find yourself using the terniary operator or bitshifting in Perl? What if you could, instead, leverage those tokens for other, more commonly used operations?
Yes, I understand this means Perl 6 requires a greater mindshift because it doesn't follow other languages and inherit C-like syntax. OTOH, who says C is the best? Why is '??!!' worse that '?:'? Heck, I would argue that '??!!' is easier to visually parse, because the character delimiters are very clear (searching for the ':' in a complex terniary expression can be a bit of a chore, depending on how nasty the original programmer was).
So I would hardly call this a "huge mistake". Will it be a bit annoying to adapt to? Sure. But learning new programming languages (even somewhat unusual ones) should be fairly easy for any experienced developer... it's just syntax, after all.
At least then, I will gain something for my trouble.
Well, ideally Perl 6 *will* be the superior language, though that remains to be seen...
Umm... what? Pugs is an attempt at a reference implementation of... Perl 6. If you write code and it runs in Pugs, then it should run in any other Perl 6 implementation. Unless, that is, I'm missing something...
Anti-Americanism comes with the territory of being the biggest kid on the block.
"self-deluging (sic) flattery"
The funny thing is, when I get together with a bunch of my foreign coworkers or friends out at a bar, we all get along splendidly
"I do not dislike the USA population as a whole (as is becomming more and more the current mentality), because, as individuals, I know you have some swell persons living there."
The US is the only country to support dictators?
I don't recall the parent suggesting this is so, though in recent memory, the US is probably the most guilty (at least in part because of the Cold War).
That's a very romantic notion of the Roman Empire. They were really quite nasty.
The point is that, while nasty, they did build a useful empire. Give me a US manipulated nation that's actually thrived as a result, and I'll be very surprised.
The only one being arrogant is you!
And you're being an irrational apologist. I would argue that the US is the only remaining nation that is actively working to build an empire (though the government calls it "spreading democracy"). Thus, the idea that empires are a thing of the past isn't, I think, such an unusual idea.
but I think in the end we are bound to our biology.
LOL! You actually believe empire building is something that's wired into us thanks to evolution? Wow... that's a new one. Justifying the US foreign policy because it's just a result of genetic programming... so much for "nuture", eh?
I think places like Canada would certainly benefit from global warming
Oh FFS. As a Canadian, let me tell you, just because it's cold up here occasionally, doesn't mean global warming is welcome. I happen to live in the northernmost major city in Canada (the 55th parallel, to be precise), out in the prairies where we tend to have fairly severe winters, and global warming is a real problem for a number of reasons:
1. Increased aridity thanks to increased temperature and shifts in weather patterns. This causes things like:
a) Decreased agricultural productivity.
b) Increased top soil erosion.
c) Increased forest fire frequency.
2. Damage to local wildlife, which (like the human inhabitants) are adapted to the current climate.
And I'm sure the list goes on. So, please, stop it with this bullshit. Global warming doesn't equate to lovely sub-tropical conditions up here. Like everywhere else, it means a rapid changes that neither the human nor animal populations are prepared for.
Yeah, no kidding... I mean, there definitely aren't any successfulBSDvariants available and widely deployed. And there certainly aren't any other successfulnon-GPLprojects out there. Yup, the GPL is definitely *the* only way to go if you want to make a successful open source project... assuming, that is, you're a single-minded zealot (or troll?).
he want's to make some quick coin and sit on his laurels for the rest of his life
How, precisely, would he do this by sticking with GPLv2?
Perhaps, and hey, this is just a guess, Linus thinks that the GPLv3 will outlaw uses (such as signed code) which he feels are legitimate, this overly limiting the application domains in which OSS can play.
BTW, do you always chalk up disagreements with your personal opinions as flaws in the other person's character? Just OOC?
Huh? Come on, who doesn't honestly believe that Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Guido van Rossum, Larry Wall, etc, are nothing more than a bunch of script kiddies...;)
Well, to play devil's advocate, the solution is that the owner of the device is given a keypair. When the user installs software on their system, they sign it with their private key, which is presumably kept in some secure location (or, at minimum, is protected with a strong password). When the OP's GPLv3 application goes to verify the libraries it's linking with, it uses the user's public key (which is kept in some standard spot on the machine) to validate the signatures.
This allows the user to modify the software in the system while still providing a high level of trust, as it becomes the *user's* responsibility (as opposed to some nebulous "trusted third party") to vouch for the software on their system.
Of course, this doesn't stop, say, Redhat from signing binaries and having those signatures optionally validated on the receiving end. However, it would still be necessary for the binaries to be signed by the user's private key before they could actually be used.
But what I fear most people forget. Yes America does put its nose into other peoples business but it tends to be very generous as well. Just look at all the Aid given during the sunami or Aids funding in Afica, or general Aid to the world. It dwarfs all other Countries.
*Please* tell me you understand the difference between peaceful aid and unilateral invasion. I mean, you can't be *that* brainwashed, can you?
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. QoS is all about reducing latency for streams that require it. Latency is a function of, among other things, queuing behaviour at the router, and that is an issue irrespective of the total amount of bandwidth being utilized.
It's like retail - whoever has the lowest prices gets substantially all of the business, so prices race to the bottom for everybody.
And so everything costs less and people with fewer dollars can by more, effectively increasing their purchasing power and raising the standard of living.
That's what I see coming from unrestricted globalization - the entire world's standard of living drops to the lowest standard of living existing today, and stays there.
Why on earth would that happen? If the standard living of a given nation increases over time, why wouldn't the standard of living of the global population do the same?
Besides, there's counter-examples galore. Just look at India or China. Both are seeing rapid increases in standard of living.
And a dinosaur's bone probably doesn't have any bacteria in it either (given the function of antibodies is to, you know... destroy bacteria). As for your "30 year" claim, this site indicates that canned meats have an indefinite shelf life.
Really! Then explain to me why a can of corn can last for *years* and still be fine. I mean, everyone knows it should rot just like in a garbage can, right?
Idiot...
Ok, So what should she have done and what pieces of information did the CIA director give pointing to it?
Well, it seems to me that, between that report and the report proving that Al Qaeda was, in fact, responsible for the Cole bombing, they had sufficient evidence to gain the basing rights they needed to deploy troops into Afghanistan and destroy those training camps. Who knows, that may have been sufficient to discourage the 9/11 attackers from following through on their plan. Is that a given? No, of course not. But the complete lack of action by the Bush administration during the first months of office is, I think, sufficient evidence of incompetance.
The fee is not small. It is well north of $150 a year. It rises every year, faster than inflation. It is probably one of the most regressive taxes ever devised, and falls most heavily on those who can least afford it.
Dude. That's *12* dollars a month... 12 dollars! And it's on a f'ing luxury (yes, TV is a luxury... if you're a single mother who can't spare $12/month, you've got other problems and should probably just sacrifice the damn TV). In exchange, you have world-class media coverage on multiple formats, and online content that's only just being seen in other countries, and most of it without commercials! Seriously, you don't understand how great you have it.
If the alternative is that I have to pay more money for crappier content *and* have to watch 20 minutes of commercials per hour... I'll pay the damn $12, thank you very much.
I don't think you understand. The party proposing these bills wants them for set of reasons. In this case, finding terrorists may be one of those reasons, but there are probably others, such as protecting the president from impeachment (by retroactively approving previous wiretapping activities). In order to get the bill to pass, they need to get people to vote for it. So, especially around election time, they use words like "people who vote against this are coddling terrorists"... this forces people who would otherwise oppose the bill to think twice: if they oppose the bill, they're voting in line with their principles, but they'll get smeared as a coward during the forthcoming campaign.
It all comes down to manipulating the minds of the people. After all, you don't want to coddle terrorists, do you?
How do you know which calls to listen in on?
Umm... by using traditional investigating techniques to identify potential suspects, and then requesting warrants for those individuals based on the evidence you have.
Or are you under the rather silly impression that phone tapping is being used to actually *find* the terrorists?
What is it with Republicans and their extreme views? The world isn't black and white.
Woah woah. Don't, for one second, believe these republicans (or democrats) *actually* believe this stuff. Statements about "coddling" terrorists are made to: to polarize the electorate, mobilize their base, and demonize their opponents. It's 100% pure marketing. That's it, that's all. And it's important to understand this, because beneath all the rhetoric, these politicians do have real motivations for their actions, and it's vitally important for the voters to understand those motivations.
Actually, I think Perl6 will ultimately be a much better language in which to design large systems. It's object system is much more powerful (with Roles, which as I understand it act like a combination of interfaces and mixins), which will make it easier to build more modular software (P5's package system is useable, but let's face it, it's not particularly clean). Plus, things like optionally stricter typing and DBC-like functionality mean (hopefully) fewer bugs.
Additionally, P6 expands Perl's functional capabilities, adding things like continuations, which could allow for Seaside/Rails-like webapp development.
Lastly, Perl6 could end up being one of the few mainstream languages with parallelization semantics defined right in it's core, which means all these multicore machines that are coming out could be more easily leveraged.
This could also be related to good ol' Second-system Syndrome, of which I suspect Perl 6 is suffering, at least in part.
While indeed Perl operators are becoming more "consistent" among themselves, I think Perl's decision to undefine decades-old comforts like the ternary operator (?:) and bit shifting () is a huge mistake. If a language wants to change these things, the results should be clearly *more* intuitive, not just different.
Well, to play devils advocate, how often do you find yourself using the terniary operator or bitshifting in Perl? What if you could, instead, leverage those tokens for other, more commonly used operations?
Yes, I understand this means Perl 6 requires a greater mindshift because it doesn't follow other languages and inherit C-like syntax. OTOH, who says C is the best? Why is '??!!' worse that '?:'? Heck, I would argue that '??!!' is easier to visually parse, because the character delimiters are very clear (searching for the ':' in a complex terniary expression can be a bit of a chore, depending on how nasty the original programmer was).
So I would hardly call this a "huge mistake". Will it be a bit annoying to adapt to? Sure. But learning new programming languages (even somewhat unusual ones) should be fairly easy for any experienced developer... it's just syntax, after all.
At least then, I will gain something for my trouble.
Well, ideally Perl 6 *will* be the superior language, though that remains to be seen...
Umm... what? Pugs is an attempt at a reference implementation of... Perl 6. If you write code and it runs in Pugs, then it should run in any other Perl 6 implementation. Unless, that is, I'm missing something...
Yeah, this would be called Gentrification, and in my area, and I'm sure many others, it's a growing trend.
I suspect the GP was referring to the graphic novel/movie "V for Vendetta".
Anti-Americanism comes with the territory of being the biggest kid on the block.
"self-deluging (sic) flattery"
The funny thing is, when I get together with a bunch of my foreign coworkers or friends out at a bar, we all get along splendidly
"I do not dislike the USA population as a whole (as is becomming more and more the current mentality), because, as individuals, I know you have some swell persons living there."
The US is the only country to support dictators?
I don't recall the parent suggesting this is so, though in recent memory, the US is probably the most guilty (at least in part because of the Cold War).
That's a very romantic notion of the Roman Empire. They were really quite nasty.
The point is that, while nasty, they did build a useful empire. Give me a US manipulated nation that's actually thrived as a result, and I'll be very surprised.
The only one being arrogant is you!
And you're being an irrational apologist. I would argue that the US is the only remaining nation that is actively working to build an empire (though the government calls it "spreading democracy"). Thus, the idea that empires are a thing of the past isn't, I think, such an unusual idea.
but I think in the end we are bound to our biology.
LOL! You actually believe empire building is something that's wired into us thanks to evolution? Wow... that's a new one. Justifying the US foreign policy because it's just a result of genetic programming... so much for "nuture", eh?
but someone has to benefit.
You mean like New Orleans?
I think places like Canada would certainly benefit from global warming
Oh FFS. As a Canadian, let me tell you, just because it's cold up here occasionally, doesn't mean global warming is welcome. I happen to live in the northernmost major city in Canada (the 55th parallel, to be precise), out in the prairies where we tend to have fairly severe winters, and global warming is a real problem for a number of reasons:
1. Increased aridity thanks to increased temperature and shifts in weather patterns. This causes things like:
a) Decreased agricultural productivity.
b) Increased top soil erosion.
c) Increased forest fire frequency.
2. Damage to local wildlife, which (like the human inhabitants) are adapted to the current climate.
And I'm sure the list goes on. So, please, stop it with this bullshit. Global warming doesn't equate to lovely sub-tropical conditions up here. Like everywhere else, it means a rapid changes that neither the human nor animal populations are prepared for.
you can see how well BSD did with that.
Yeah, no kidding... I mean, there definitely aren't any successful BSD variants available and widely deployed. And there certainly aren't any other successful non-GPL projects out there. Yup, the GPL is definitely *the* only way to go if you want to make a successful open source project... assuming, that is, you're a single-minded zealot (or troll?).
he want's to make some quick coin and sit on his laurels for the rest of his life
How, precisely, would he do this by sticking with GPLv2?
Perhaps, and hey, this is just a guess, Linus thinks that the GPLv3 will outlaw uses (such as signed code) which he feels are legitimate, this overly limiting the application domains in which OSS can play.
BTW, do you always chalk up disagreements with your personal opinions as flaws in the other person's character? Just OOC?
Huh? Come on, who doesn't honestly believe that Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Guido van Rossum, Larry Wall, etc, are nothing more than a bunch of script kiddies... ;)
How?
Umm... because people would download pirated copies of the tracks and cars, too?
Well, to play devil's advocate, the solution is that the owner of the device is given a keypair. When the user installs software on their system, they sign it with their private key, which is presumably kept in some secure location (or, at minimum, is protected with a strong password). When the OP's GPLv3 application goes to verify the libraries it's linking with, it uses the user's public key (which is kept in some standard spot on the machine) to validate the signatures.
This allows the user to modify the software in the system while still providing a high level of trust, as it becomes the *user's* responsibility (as opposed to some nebulous "trusted third party") to vouch for the software on their system.
Of course, this doesn't stop, say, Redhat from signing binaries and having those signatures optionally validated on the receiving end. However, it would still be necessary for the binaries to be signed by the user's private key before they could actually be used.
But what I fear most people forget. Yes America does put its nose into other peoples business but it tends to be very generous as well. Just look at all the Aid given during the sunami or Aids funding in Afica, or general Aid to the world. It dwarfs all other Countries.
*Please* tell me you understand the difference between peaceful aid and unilateral invasion. I mean, you can't be *that* brainwashed, can you?