I doubt you even got a reply from them. The number of letters they get must be substantial, they probably have secretaries paid to write the responses on their behalf. If you email them, you don't even get that - just a one-button-to-send form letter from the secretary.
"Only with the backing of regulations preventing smaller competitors from actually competing."
No. That's the 'natural' part of a natural monopoly. It happens without any regulation. Natural monopoly occurs under conditions in which those smaller competitors are unable to compete for various reasons, princibly related to industries for which the capital cost is prohibatively high. This is espicially the case with utilities: It costs a huge amount of money to dig up roads and lay pipes or cables. Whoever owns the cables (Unless regulations say otherwise) gets 100% of the market share in that area. It isn't economical for any new competitor to enter, because they'd have to pay the huge initial cost for cable-laying but would then have to compete with an established competitor who already has every customer signed up.
I use a squid proxy with a blacklist of ad-servers. It worked great, until about two weeks ago when I noticed the sudden return of ads. On further investigation, it turned out that some of the ad-networks had switched to HTTPS, which doesn't get proxied. So I had to configure bind with a bodgey DNS block too.
The really annoying thing is that sooner or later one of those ad networks will forget to renew their cert and everyone visiting a webpage with one of their ads will get a 'untrusted certificate' message.
It'll break some existing malware. It'll take the authors a week or so to adapt, and then a few more weeks for the scammers to deploy patches. Doesn't seem worth the effort, really.
The read-only flag is largely disused. The NTFS permissions are the new one and, oddly enough, it's impossible to write to the hosts file without running as admin and clicking the 'this program wants unrestricted access' dialog. But Microsoft knows just as well as everyone else in IT that to the typical user, that dialog is meaningless: All they know is that clicking yes makes the computer do as it's told.
The internet was not designed corporate-controlled. If it were, it would function like cable TV: You would have servers and clients as very different things. Clients would never be able to connect to other clients, home connections would never be able to run a server, and the only connections that could would be charged high enough to exclude those without money to spend. If the government or communcations and media companies of the US had seen the internet coming, they'd have killed it before it got popular. It took them all by surprise. Even then the early years were dominated by companies desperatly trying to stake their claim in a walled garden (AOL, compuserv) where they would have power to take a cut.
Your routing may be good, but I see a weakness: You still *need* routing for everything. You might find content-addressible networking of some use there: Every node becomes a cache. It's rather sucky for real-time communications, but great for dissemination purposes. For example, the owner of a node takes a video of something newsworthy. Without content addressible networking, every node on the network requests it from that node: If a hundred people request, that's a hundred retransmissions, and if the node goes down then the content goes inaccessible (at least until one of those who did get it puts up a mirror). Add a CAN component though, and the file becomes practically impossible to take down: Every node it passes through becomes a mirror, and anyone who requests it gets their copy from the nearest node to already have it. I think you might find a shared-store CAN a most useful feature to add. Plain old IP(/v6) for communication, CAN for dissemination.
You might want to study Freenet. Setting aside the justifiable paranoia designed into their network, they have solved much the same problem: Communicating on a mesh (logical, not physical) topology when nodes are prone to go down suddenly and inter-node links are of very limited capacity.
I think you missed the point. Yes, they are the same species, just as my two examples are both vehicles. But one is a machine adapted to survive, endure and perform to it's limits, and the other is a toy.
I've seen worse. There's a certain group I know of that dabbles in high-energy experiments. Capacitor bank and such. But when you see their group shot... http://birds-are-nice.me/explodium/mk7.html
But you need a license to operate them right now, otherwise the FCC will eventually notice. If you want to prepare for the collapse of civilisation, it's not enough to just have the radio: You also need experience operating it, and contacts with others in range. If you already know each other it is much easier to coordinate.
Eventually, but by the time linux has caught up there is new hardware out. It's a miracle the community manages as well as they do - most hardware manufacturers are just uninterested. Upwards of 90% of desktop customers run windows, so there is no business incentive to support anything else.
I run windows on (non-retina) MBP for the same reason. It'd run linux, except that I have no need to: Linux runs on my two (atom) servers, and one of the windows always open is a VNC session to one of those.
I think perhaps they are, but the reporting doesn't describe exactly what was infected. Not all of the computers at any large organisation are used for ultra-high-security work - there's also a lot of office staff with desktops for routine administrative things which become a lot easier if they have email and web access to do research and communicate with the outside world.
The target is an arm of the Saudi state. The same state which makes it a criminal offense to try to preach any faith other than Islam, or for women to leave the house without their male owner in escort. This attack is just a big game of Dicks vs Assholes, and right now I'm cheering for the Dicks.
Would that be 'The Message' bible? That piece of crap doesn't even deserve to be called a 'translation.' I'm an atheist, and even I find it offensive that someone had so little respect for the historical text as to produce The Message. Some people try to defend it by calling it a 'paraphrase' instead, but that is simply excusing the terrible inaccuracies and even entire verses outright rewritten.
It's easy to go without chick-fil-a. A minor inconvenience at most. Going without oil, though, is a major problem. Especially so in the US.
For a related example, look at all those people who boycott genetically-modified foods, but would suddenly find their objections disappear upon diagnosis of diabeties. The best treatment involves insulin produced by transgenic bacteria. Or the fuss last year when it was emerged that some of the flavorings used in coke-cola and a few other products were tested on human embryonic stem cells - there were a lot of boycotts over that one, but always of food. No-one called for a boycott of drugs, even though practically every medication developed in the last thirty years was developed and tested using the same cell line, HEK 293.
If you're trying to be a creationist troll, it helps if you avoid making your references so obscure only a seasoned internet debater would even recognise a reference is being made.
They might have changed, but when I got my MBP back in 2011, it defaulted to one-button-only. It does support a two-finger-rightclick, but only if you enable it in system preferences first.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt you even got a reply from them. The number of letters they get must be substantial, they probably have secretaries paid to write the responses on their behalf. If you email them, you don't even get that - just a one-button-to-send form letter from the secretary.
"Only with the backing of regulations preventing smaller competitors from actually competing."
No. That's the 'natural' part of a natural monopoly. It happens without any regulation. Natural monopoly occurs under conditions in which those smaller competitors are unable to compete for various reasons, princibly related to industries for which the capital cost is prohibatively high. This is espicially the case with utilities: It costs a huge amount of money to dig up roads and lay pipes or cables. Whoever owns the cables (Unless regulations say otherwise) gets 100% of the market share in that area. It isn't economical for any new competitor to enter, because they'd have to pay the huge initial cost for cable-laying but would then have to compete with an established competitor who already has every customer signed up.
I use a squid proxy with a blacklist of ad-servers. It worked great, until about two weeks ago when I noticed the sudden return of ads. On further investigation, it turned out that some of the ad-networks had switched to HTTPS, which doesn't get proxied. So I had to configure bind with a bodgey DNS block too.
The really annoying thing is that sooner or later one of those ad networks will forget to renew their cert and everyone visiting a webpage with one of their ads will get a 'untrusted certificate' message.
It'll break some existing malware. It'll take the authors a week or so to adapt, and then a few more weeks for the scammers to deploy patches. Doesn't seem worth the effort, really.
The read-only flag is largely disused. The NTFS permissions are the new one and, oddly enough, it's impossible to write to the hosts file without running as admin and clicking the 'this program wants unrestricted access' dialog. But Microsoft knows just as well as everyone else in IT that to the typical user, that dialog is meaningless: All they know is that clicking yes makes the computer do as it's told.
The internet was not designed corporate-controlled. If it were, it would function like cable TV: You would have servers and clients as very different things. Clients would never be able to connect to other clients, home connections would never be able to run a server, and the only connections that could would be charged high enough to exclude those without money to spend.
If the government or communcations and media companies of the US had seen the internet coming, they'd have killed it before it got popular. It took them all by surprise. Even then the early years were dominated by companies desperatly trying to stake their claim in a walled garden (AOL, compuserv) where they would have power to take a cut.
Your routing may be good, but I see a weakness: You still *need* routing for everything. You might find content-addressible networking of some use there: Every node becomes a cache. It's rather sucky for real-time communications, but great for dissemination purposes. For example, the owner of a node takes a video of something newsworthy. Without content addressible networking, every node on the network requests it from that node: If a hundred people request, that's a hundred retransmissions, and if the node goes down then the content goes inaccessible (at least until one of those who did get it puts up a mirror). Add a CAN component though, and the file becomes practically impossible to take down: Every node it passes through becomes a mirror, and anyone who requests it gets their copy from the nearest node to already have it. I think you might find a shared-store CAN a most useful feature to add. Plain old IP(/v6) for communication, CAN for dissemination.
You might want to study Freenet. Setting aside the justifiable paranoia designed into their network, they have solved much the same problem: Communicating on a mesh (logical, not physical) topology when nodes are prone to go down suddenly and inter-node links are of very limited capacity.
Might work better as a smartphone app. Very hard to triangulate when the target is mobile. Make sure to spoof the MAC too.
I think you missed the point. Yes, they are the same species, just as my two examples are both vehicles. But one is a machine adapted to survive, endure and perform to it's limits, and the other is a toy.
I'd think that even the meddlings of doctors who barely understand should be superior to relying on blind chance with no understanding at all.
The wolf is to the household dog as an eighteen-wheeler is to the pull-along wagon.
First, perfect treatment and preventative measures for malaria. Then commence elimination of the gene via selection. Problem solved.
I've seen worse. There's a certain group I know of that dabbles in high-energy experiments. Capacitor bank and such. But when you see their group shot... http://birds-are-nice.me/explodium/mk7.html
But you need a license to operate them right now, otherwise the FCC will eventually notice. If you want to prepare for the collapse of civilisation, it's not enough to just have the radio: You also need experience operating it, and contacts with others in range. If you already know each other it is much easier to coordinate.
It lets me more easily manage all those terminal windows. Also, it's where Thunderbird runs.
I use it for number crunching and things-that-need-automating. Windows scripting sucks.
Eventually, but by the time linux has caught up there is new hardware out. It's a miracle the community manages as well as they do - most hardware manufacturers are just uninterested. Upwards of 90% of desktop customers run windows, so there is no business incentive to support anything else.
I run windows on (non-retina) MBP for the same reason. It'd run linux, except that I have no need to: Linux runs on my two (atom) servers, and one of the windows always open is a VNC session to one of those.
I think perhaps they are, but the reporting doesn't describe exactly what was infected. Not all of the computers at any large organisation are used for ultra-high-security work - there's also a lot of office staff with desktops for routine administrative things which become a lot easier if they have email and web access to do research and communicate with the outside world.
The target is an arm of the Saudi state. The same state which makes it a criminal offense to try to preach any faith other than Islam, or for women to leave the house without their male owner in escort. This attack is just a big game of Dicks vs Assholes, and right now I'm cheering for the Dicks.
Would that be 'The Message' bible? That piece of crap doesn't even deserve to be called a 'translation.' I'm an atheist, and even I find it offensive that someone had so little respect for the historical text as to produce The Message. Some people try to defend it by calling it a 'paraphrase' instead, but that is simply excusing the terrible inaccuracies and even entire verses outright rewritten.
It's easy to go without chick-fil-a. A minor inconvenience at most. Going without oil, though, is a major problem. Especially so in the US.
For a related example, look at all those people who boycott genetically-modified foods, but would suddenly find their objections disappear upon diagnosis of diabeties. The best treatment involves insulin produced by transgenic bacteria. Or the fuss last year when it was emerged that some of the flavorings used in coke-cola and a few other products were tested on human embryonic stem cells - there were a lot of boycotts over that one, but always of food. No-one called for a boycott of drugs, even though practically every medication developed in the last thirty years was developed and tested using the same cell line, HEK 293.
If you're trying to be a creationist troll, it helps if you avoid making your references so obscure only a seasoned internet debater would even recognise a reference is being made.
They might have changed, but when I got my MBP back in 2011, it defaulted to one-button-only. It does support a two-finger-rightclick, but only if you enable it in system preferences first.
Until someone realised that the commerce clause could be used as one hell of a loophole.