That's the postmodernist claim anyway - science is just another narrative that is the result of it's context (male, western, capitalist, etc.) and it is no more valid than any other such narrative. Science is just an expression of the culture that spawned it.
Other belief systems (alternative medicine, for example) embrace this viewpoint. Science after all is based on inductive reasoning rather than rigorous proof of truth.
The concept of this article is that science must be relative to political necessity. This is in line with the view of science as just another narrative. The problem is that this has been a miserable failure whenever attempted - Lysenkoism, Creationism, etc. are sad examples of this, and it is fair to say that the correctness of a scientific theory can only be influenced by politics for a short period of time before the error is revealed.
Global warming seems to be a fact out to a ridiculous level of statistical certainty. Some effects are predictable to a high degree of certainty. The impact of human endeavors is less ceertain, BUT the potential consequences of ignoring that impact are astronomical. Any prudent person would act to avoid of those consequences.
When government leaders are resisting that action you know that these leaders are not serving their people, but rather other interests.
Did you read my posting? Or are you just an idiot? I specifically stated that the license change was for a later version. And unfortunately sometimes you need the later version to get a security fix, support for newer hardware or a bug fix.
Open Source is full of booby traps. If you are going to use it in a commercial environment you better have a plan on how to replace it if it becomes necessary.
It was a very stupid example that won't do much except annoy the reader to the point where he loses interest in the premise.
Micropayments for the right to spam are a pretty good idea. At least they will cut out the really large scale mass mailings like stock pump and dumps, body part enlargement offers, etc.. Yes, somebody will make money in the process, but that doesn't mean that they won't have a positive effect. Of course the implementation has to be sound, otherwise it won't work.
I've had experiences where code under one license that was fine for use in my commercial projects moved to a different license in a later version i.e. LGPL to GPL making it impossible for me to use. As a result of this experience I am now working to get rid of all LGPL code from my application.
Before deciding to use a particular piece of code in your project take a look at what the overall options are, and consider the possibility that what you are using may go to a different license in the future. Have a fallback position. If two libraries are available pick the one with the more liberal license all else being equal. And as always whenever using a 3rd party library encapsulate calls to it so that changing to a different library or replacing it with your own code is not painful.
I think tiered pricing is the way to go. Why should I have to pay the same as P2P bandwidth hogs? I've seen numbers like 85% of internet traffic is P2P, and 5% of users use 60% of the bandwidth.
The big thing to realize is that technologies change. Don't build in a specific cabling system, rather build in wireways that allow you to pull new wires when the technology changes.
The same applies for building things into the walls. Building speakers into the walls is a mistake on multiple levels. Home theater tech is evolving relatively rapidly. People's tastes in speakers change with time, as does the music they like to listen to. Speaker choices for in-walls are for more limited than for freestanding speakers and finally getting good speaker perfomance usually means trying to decouple the speaker from the room acoustics. Building the speaker into the wall does the reverse.
A fundamental concept of packet switching is that there will be a statistical use pattern that allows more efficient use of available bandwidth than a dedicated circuit switched network would provide. If you actually want to force the allocation of dedicated bandwidth to each subscriber you need a circuit switched network or some equivalent over IP like the old PSTN. Costs and scalability of this sort of service would be far less attractive than packet switched networks.
Use of p2p 24x7 continuously by a customer has to be traffic shaped for the economics of packet switching to work. If you want guaranteed bandwidth for your p2p use you had better be prepared to pay a lot more for your service.
This is one thing I don't get about IPTV - the economics of this sort of service over packet switching don't make a lot of sense unless it is not a large fraction of the total traffic. That doesn't appear to be true.
Not sure what you mean by HD ready? Do you actually get HD channels?
I pay $109 per month for 30 Mbps down - 5 Mbps up IP service. All ports unlocked so I can and do run servers. TV is 331 channels including about 20 HD channels (4 are first run movie channels), and VOIP service. So while it is more expensive I do get some added features. It is definitely not close to an order of magnitude more expensive - if you consider taxes etc. I'd bet more like 2x, but with better features.
You know the single molecular layer stuff with infinite strength that is used to encapsulate CDs, or the thicker and even stronger stuff that small electronic devices like CF drives come in. I once broke a pair of scissors trying to cut one of those open. I am surprised some smart lawyer doesn't do a class action lawsuit against the manufacturers of that sort of packaging - there must be lost of people who have injured themselves trying open these packages.
No, the problem is that most people have jobs that pay well enough to pay rent, buy beer and have a car. Given that it's obvious politics is a boring waste of time and I'd rather have another beer.
I had occasion to work with Dr. Dusan Prevorsek, the original inventor of ultra-high strength polyethylene fibers on a different project. The original patents on this material date to the early 1980's.
Since it's commercialization it has been in wide use throughout the world, and has had performance advantages over aramid fibers like Kevlar. In addition to great performance it is also significatly less expensive, and the manufacturing process has much lower environmental impact.
And Xerox didn't sue even though they owned the patents. Whatever angst Xerox has is due to bungling on their own part. Xerox PARC was the top computer software center in the world for years with fabulous innovations pouring out the windows. Xerox itself totally blew it's opportunity to become a Microsoft or Apple because they didn't know what the hell to do with it.
Xerox: 1. Build R&D Center 2. Invent like hell 3. ?????
Sending a cease and desist like that is a dangerous game if you are swimming with the big boys. You could find yourself getting sued for all sorts of reasons, some of them actually good.
One of the things that has me intrigued is Cablevision's Ultra service which current;y can provide 50 mbps symmetrical switched ethernet using out of band signalling on HFC networks. The potential to go higher, perhaps 100 Mbps is there as well.
Ultimately the question is whether or not MSO HFC's fiber to the pole model will have to be replaced with fiber to the premises.
In any case right now I am pretty happy with Ccablevision Boost because of auxilary considerations - port 80 in particular, which are not offered by FIOS.
If you guys get your act together and offer static IPs that are identifyable by spam blacklisting software as non-dynamic that would be great too.
The important point here is that the acts were crimes in both Australia and the US. As such it would have been perfectly ok for Australia to prosecute. They declined and decided to extradite instead, possibly because of an understanding that the prosecution should take place where the law in question was most egregiously violated.
In the case of sharia laws, or any laws where there is no agreement as to what is a crime extradition is very unlikely to occur.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen claims of 500%, and that it is worse than driving with the legal limit of alcohol in the blood. Here is a Forbes article on the topic:
o ut/2006/06/29/hscout533489.html
http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hsc
It is illegal in the state of New Jersey, where I live. Unfortunately from what I have seen it is not enforced enough.
http://javassh.org/space/start
That's the postmodernist claim anyway - science is just another narrative that is the result of it's context (male, western, capitalist, etc.) and it is no more valid than any other such narrative. Science is just an expression of the culture that spawned it.
Other belief systems (alternative medicine, for example) embrace this viewpoint. Science after all is based on inductive reasoning rather than rigorous proof of truth.
The concept of this article is that science must be relative to political necessity. This is in line with the view of science as just another narrative. The problem is that this has been a miserable failure whenever attempted - Lysenkoism, Creationism, etc. are sad examples of this, and it is fair to say that the correctness of a scientific theory can only be influenced by politics for a short period of time before the error is revealed.
Global warming seems to be a fact out to a ridiculous level of statistical certainty. Some effects are predictable to a high degree of certainty. The impact of human endeavors is less ceertain, BUT the potential consequences of ignoring that impact are astronomical. Any prudent person would act to avoid of those consequences.
When government leaders are resisting that action you know that these leaders are not serving their people, but rather other interests.
It's the same so long as they don't catch you. If they do, well it's been nice knowing you.
Did you read my posting? Or are you just an idiot? I specifically stated that the license change was for a later version. And unfortunately sometimes you need the later version to get a security fix, support for newer hardware or a bug fix.
Open Source is full of booby traps. If you are going to use it in a commercial environment you better have a plan on how to replace it if it becomes necessary.
It was a very stupid example that won't do much except annoy the reader to the point where he loses interest in the premise.
Micropayments for the right to spam are a pretty good idea. At least they will cut out the really large scale mass mailings like stock pump and dumps, body part enlargement offers, etc.. Yes, somebody will make money in the process, but that doesn't mean that they won't have a positive effect. Of course the implementation has to be sound, otherwise it won't work.
I've had experiences where code under one license that was fine for use in my commercial projects moved to a different license in a later version i.e. LGPL to GPL making it impossible for me to use. As a result of this experience I am now working to get rid of all LGPL code from my application.
Before deciding to use a particular piece of code in your project take a look at what the overall options are, and consider the possibility that what you are using may go to a different license in the future. Have a fallback position. If two libraries are available pick the one with the more liberal license all else being equal. And as always whenever using a 3rd party library encapsulate calls to it so that changing to a different library or replacing it with your own code is not painful.
It really was guaranteed delivery using a transactional scheme with software that supported it. This could be something actually worthwhile.
I think tiered pricing is the way to go. Why should I have to pay the same as P2P bandwidth hogs? I've seen numbers like 85% of internet traffic is P2P, and 5% of users use 60% of the bandwidth.
The big thing to realize is that technologies change. Don't build in a specific cabling system, rather build in wireways that allow you to pull new wires when the technology changes.
The same applies for building things into the walls. Building speakers into the walls is a mistake on multiple levels. Home theater tech is evolving relatively rapidly. People's tastes in speakers change with time, as does the music they like to listen to. Speaker choices for in-walls are for more limited than for freestanding speakers and finally getting good speaker perfomance usually means trying to decouple the speaker from the room acoustics. Building the speaker into the wall does the reverse.
A fundamental concept of packet switching is that there will be a statistical use pattern that allows more efficient use of available bandwidth than a dedicated circuit switched network would provide. If you actually want to force the allocation of dedicated bandwidth to each subscriber you need a circuit switched network or some equivalent over IP like the old PSTN. Costs and scalability of this sort of service would be far less attractive than packet switched networks.
Use of p2p 24x7 continuously by a customer has to be traffic shaped for the economics of packet switching to work. If you want guaranteed bandwidth for your p2p use you had better be prepared to pay a lot more for your service.
This is one thing I don't get about IPTV - the economics of this sort of service over packet switching don't make a lot of sense unless it is not a large fraction of the total traffic. That doesn't appear to be true.
New Jersey.
Not sure what you mean by HD ready? Do you actually get HD channels?
I pay $109 per month for 30 Mbps down - 5 Mbps up IP service. All ports unlocked so I can and do run servers. TV is 331 channels including about 20 HD channels (4 are first run movie channels), and VOIP service. So while it is more expensive I do get some added features. It is definitely not close to an order of magnitude more expensive - if you consider taxes etc. I'd bet more like 2x, but with better features.
You know the single molecular layer stuff with infinite strength that is used to encapsulate CDs, or the thicker and even stronger stuff that small electronic devices like CF drives come in. I once broke a pair of scissors trying to cut one of those open. I am surprised some smart lawyer doesn't do a class action lawsuit against the manufacturers of that sort of packaging - there must be lost of people who have injured themselves trying open these packages.
Good. I'd hate to think I was doing anything legal.
No, the problem is that most people have jobs that pay well enough to pay rent, buy beer and have a car. Given that it's obvious politics is a boring waste of time and I'd rather have another beer.
Since when are there only two candidates? I usually see several like the Natural Law guys, Greens, Libertarians in addition to the two major parties.
I had occasion to work with Dr. Dusan Prevorsek, the original inventor of ultra-high strength polyethylene fibers on a different project. The original patents on this material date to the early 1980's.
Since it's commercialization it has been in wide use throughout the world, and has had performance advantages over aramid fibers like Kevlar. In addition to great performance it is also significatly less expensive, and the manufacturing process has much lower environmental impact.
And Xerox didn't sue even though they owned the patents. Whatever angst Xerox has is due to bungling on their own part. Xerox PARC was the top computer software center in the world for years with fabulous innovations pouring out the windows. Xerox itself totally blew it's opportunity to become a Microsoft or Apple because they didn't know what the hell to do with it.
Xerox:
1. Build R&D Center
2. Invent like hell
3. ?????
So I wonder how many IBM patents Microsoft is violating. Betcha at least 235.
Yes, it happens all the time.
Sending a cease and desist like that is a dangerous game if you are swimming with the big boys. You could find yourself getting sued for all sorts of reasons, some of them actually good.
One of the things that has me intrigued is Cablevision's Ultra service which current;y can provide 50 mbps symmetrical switched ethernet using out of band signalling on HFC networks. The potential to go higher, perhaps 100 Mbps is there as well.
Ultimately the question is whether or not MSO HFC's fiber to the pole model will have to be replaced with fiber to the premises.
In any case right now I am pretty happy with Ccablevision Boost because of auxilary considerations - port 80 in particular, which are not offered by FIOS.
If you guys get your act together and offer static IPs that are identifyable by spam blacklisting software as non-dynamic that would be great too.
We are making our military hardware compatible with theirs
That is just sound economics for efficient part inventory management and economics of production scale.
The important point here is that the acts were crimes in both Australia and the US. As such it would have been perfectly ok for Australia to prosecute. They declined and decided to extradite instead, possibly because of an understanding that the prosecution should take place where the law in question was most egregiously violated.
In the case of sharia laws, or any laws where there is no agreement as to what is a crime extradition is very unlikely to occur.