Why the US guys always act like they are the governor of the world? Even when we lost our families or friends in the disaster, we still need a party to prove that we are free? Bull shit. Grow up, where did anybody say that you should be having a "party."
I'm really getting sick of all these newly registered Chinese Government shills. You criticize people for not doing solidarity-related things, and you sit on your butt and post to slashdot? How laughable.
This is not a free speech issue, not today. And what about tomorrow? And the week after? And when something else bad happens and the Government shuts people down again. You're kidding yourself.
There is nothing wrong or creepy about an entire country working in concert to do something good. I wish the US could pull together like this from time to time. Thank God the US government CAN'T shut down our freedom of information.
I personally think enforced mourning cheapens the meaning of it, but that's really irrelevant.
The little village in Sichuan has lost 50K lives and had 200K injured and millions of lives affected and all you hypocrites know is how China is "shutting down" entertainment websites. Please try to be rational here. The US has already given money and flown flights to help China. Nobody is minimizing the horrificness of the loss of life. If you believe otherwise, prove it.
People ARE, and rightfully so, criticizing the Chinese Communist Government for cracking down on websites yet again. A number of slashdot posters have confirmed this.
Do you understand the word "hypocrite" -- how is anybody being hypocritical?
Some evil forces in the West want to destabilize your country, split it into manageable chunks again, using for it any opportunity. Including pseudo-democratic rhetorics. Lol... Do you honestly believe that bit of insanity?
the irrational China-haters have gotten less real issues to bash China, and the bias and absurdity is finally surfacing Can you give me some examples of this? I'm very curious as to what exactly you consider irrational, China-hating, and bashing?
They can't accept the fact that the situation in China is improving Who has ever said anything like that? Please, if you're going to make ludicrous arguments, back it up. That's one of the bonuses of having freedom of information!
I note with interest, over the past 6 months, the noticiable uninformed anti chinese bias of the articles on Slashdot. As the old joke goes, maybe the reality of the situation has a an anti-Chinese government slant.
It seems that you really just don't get the cultural differences and you don't understand the inter-realtionship between responsibile reporting and control.
You flap about over freedom of the press, and yet appear to have no understanding of what that is or what it means. Sir, with all due respect, it's you who has no understanding of what freedom is. It's not cultural, it's not racial, and it's not what you think it is.
China is made up of 56 different ethnics groups, 800 million of which are on less than $2 a day. You want to throw into that the irresponsible, almost unaccountable, sensationalist press we have in the West? What's the worse thing that happens? People learn to think for themselves? I can see how that would be scary for the Chinese Communist Party and its supporters and shills--those people who derive power, wealth, and prestige from being at the top. This is the reason communism and far left states always become corrupt.
A truely free press is a dangerous thing. It allows everyone to peddle whatever truth the desire and to encourage others to believe it. See previous paragraph, a free press is only dangerous to those people for whom the truth and freedom is dangerous. Those invested in a corrupt system.
Push a negative story a little, someone starts a rumor, and you have a blood bath on your hands. That would seem to be an argument FOR freedom of information. It's only countries like China, much of the Middle East, etc, where there are restrictions on information that mass rumor hysteria is a problem.
In the UK many kinds of story are not covered here by agreement between the press and Government. There is a code of practice for journalist and editors covering what should be reported. Do you truly fail to see the difference between an individual making a personal decision to cover or not cover an issue, vice a government ORDERING sites shutdown, etc? You're not even close to the issue here.
But in the west we don't have anything like the same kind of ethnic tensions that they have other countries. Yes, China's it's 90%+ Han population must really be quaking in its boots. Are you really attempting to justify crackdowns on the fact that ~5% of the population might get angry? Your arguments don't even begin to make sense!
The very reason you come online and use a site like Slashdot is that you want to be able to shout back at those stories. I also like arguing with Chinese government shills.
Only problem is that on the internet there is no code of ehtical practice. So everyone says what they want and we end up with some really nasty hate being shifted around the world fueling people prejudices. And in China there is no racism? No hate? Because you seem to for one thing be laying a lot of the blame on China's ethnic minorities..
The idea of a totally free press is a noble idea which totally does not take into account human nature. BS.
I hadn't heard Shivaji referred to as a saint before, somewhat interesting usage of the term.
Shivaji is an interesting character. Perhaps best known for killing one of his Mughal enemies with a concealed weapon called a tiger's claw. Also well known as a defender of Hinduism who fought long and hard against the Muslim-ruled Mughal empire.
But no.. I actually don't know that I have bad karma. I don't care enough to check. So let me get this straight... you brag about your allegedly bad karma in your signature on every post. And you brag about not caring about it (yet you replied to someone talking about it).
I've never understood that kind of behavior? If you truly didn't care about your karma, you wouldn't brag about your karma level, you wouldn't reply to posts about it, you probably wouldn't even talk about it at all! It seems disingenuous!
By and large I agree with your post, but any psychologist/sociologist will tell you that other peoples' opinions have a lot to do with enjoyment (in a really substantive way). I suppose you're right at that. Seems a shame though--I think a lot of people would be a lot happier if we could just like what we liked and disliked what we disliked--regardless of other people.
You make a good point, though I do believe there's a huge difference between a broadcaster selectively choosing not to broadcast some songs (as well as many, many sites such as Penny Arcade doing something "different") from the government forcing it to happen.
First posts huh? A shill for the Chinese government? I didn't realize they were so desperate...
Anywhere, your attempted argument is nonsense, it's got nothing to do with "culture shock." You actually defeat your own argument--if "few people" would even think of seeking entertainment now, why does the Communist Party have to crack down? That doesn't make any sense, you need to consider motives when actions don't make sense based on your assumptions. Mourning is good and solidarity is good. Is enforced mourning meaningful?
The question is, what kind of free society can exist when the Government ORDERS (not "suggests" as you incorrectly type) mandatory shutdowns of websites. (If you have any evidence to the contrary, please post it!)
Imagine if you will if the US government had ordered all websites and TV channels off for 3 days after 9/11. Despite it's flaws, the US is a free society, and people would have been PISSED. Same for Europe, and many other countries.
The conclusion is, despite strides the people have made in China against the yoke of their government, they remain unfree. Let us hope for their sake this can one day be remedied.
Turn in your fanboy card. I was all ready to write a longer reply, until I realize I had just replied to you already:-)
Calm down buddy--so somebody else doesn't like a cartoon movie you like--big deal! We get that you're a fan boy, and somebody else commenting on how they didn't like an aspect of the movie hardly deserves their being called a "moron" (and you also seem to think they are a fanboy too? I'm confused). I highly doubt you'd talk to someone in real life like that, so you might consider the same thing online!
Wow, unless you're one of the writers, you really don't need to take it personally! I'm not the gp, but I more or less agree with him. I did enjoy Bender's Big Score, and I bought it, but I've only watched it 1.5 times. I've seen most of the episodes several more times.
It has nothing to do with the fact that the movie "played like 3 episodes" -- and you throwing that out there is a complete red herring as the GP said nothing about that. In my opinion, it just wasn't quite as snappy. Had some individually really good parts, but the whole thing just didn't seem as seemless. And no, to be clear, I'm not complaining about the episodic nature of the film--I'm talking about individual scene changes.
Seriously, I don't understand your reply at all. I mean, I understand fanboyism on the Internet and all, but why be so invested in whether other people like a movie or TV show you like? Other people liking or not liking it shouldn't diminish your enjoyment of it at all!
The break from BSD is in regards to code resemblance. The code of DragonFly has changed enough that it doesn't resemble BSD so much anymore. You might have been able to say something was "BSD" even 5 years ago, but I think you would have a lot more trouble saying that now. The family is more philosophical than architectural now. How close are the kernels between OpenBSD and FreeBSD for instance? My guess is if you looked back to FreeBSD4, they would be far more similar than now. Likewise, if you just look at the Dragonfly change logs, they frequently import code directly from the other BSDs--I believe the ATA code is one recent example.
Dragonfly is just the latest branch of development of a codebase with decades of history!
On the other point (which I wasn't disputing or answer)--about the giant lock, I don't know much about the linux internals, but it sounds like the bsd GIANT is the same as the linux BKL. FreeBSD is in something like its 6th year of removing giant!
(the BSD could be dropped at this time - as its only relevant to history line) Oh really? Dragonfly isn't BSD licensed anymore? Dragonfly doesn't regularly sync parts of the source tree from Free/Net/OpenBSDs? Matt Dillon himself didn't go to school at the B in BSD?
I think Dragonflys links to the BSD world are slightly more than you seem to!
Well, there was one scholarship writing competition for African Americans. A white guy won it, but they wouldn't give him the scholarship, even though he moved to the US from South Africa and was therefor a true African American (probably the only one in the competition)! Heh, I went to college with a guy who got some kind of African American scholarship--his dad was Egyptian and his mom British, with the end result he looked like your average caucasian American/European. One of the conditions of the scholarship was that he be a member in the BSA--Black Student Alliance. I understand he got some odd looks there when he showed up...
If Microsoft really cared about education so much, why wouldn't they just give Windows to the OLPC project for free? I wonder if Microsoft could get in monopoly trouble for doing that? I don't know...
There is no "BitTorrent allotment". They always block or interfere with BitTorrent, whether you're using it a little or a lot. Meanwhile, someone else can do the same transfers with FTP, IRC, rsync, or any other program, and they don't get hassled. Where's the sense in that? What ISPs are we talking about? I asked in my last post, not sure if you didn't see that. I also quite clearly mentioned how Cox very much had a limit on the amount of data I could upload and throttled my connection when I hit that amount or rate--so there WAS a data allotment. To tell you the truth, I have no idea if Cox was measuring bittorrent bandwidth or everything else--I imagine it was everything else.
The thing I think you're not getting is that it does not matter if it's FTP or email or Bittorrent or whatever that is using the bandwidth--you're absolutely right about that. The difference is that the totally vast majority of big bandwidth users are using bittorrent. Additionally, I'm not so sure that ISPs that throttle or cap bandwidth DON'T monitor other usages.
No, they are A) enforcing an UNPUBLISHED bandwidth cap, What ISPs have unpublished bandwidth caps? As I noted in a previous post, I ran into some throttling with Cox, but that was their policy after talking to them. Who are the tricky ones to avoid?
and B) discriminating against a particular protocol instead of considering bandwidth alone. I'm not sure I really see the distinction? Assuming (and it IS an assumption) that the ISPs reserve the right to throttle or cap, what does it matter if its one protocol or the whole connection? Heck, I'd RATHER it be one protocol, so if I exceed my bittorrent allotment, at least web/email/etc are still snappy.
Or am I misunderstanding what we're talking about...?
In a "realistic workload", probably not. But you could certainly put your email client in offline mode, queue up a few thousand emails with big attachments, and then send them all at once. Presto: you're now using up as much bandwidth as you possibly can, at least until the queue is emptied. Actually I really doubt that IMAP/POP would manage to saturate any connection. You might be able to fill a slow upload speed, but my guess is server latencies would significantly limit what you can do. Not to mention in your scenario, your download amount is not going to be that substantial.
In a "realistic workload", probably not. But you could certainly put your email client in offline mode, queue up a few thousand emails with big attachments, and then send them all at once. Presto: you're now using up as much bandwidth as you possibly can, at least until the queue is emptied. More like clearing the 18 wheeler trucks off the main road to relieve traffic congestion. This is something that happens in the real world.
It's stupid for a few reasons. One reason is that it puts the cart before the horse: the network is there to serve users, not the other way around. The public works department needs to adapt to the fact that drivers want to go to the beach, and ISPs need to adapt to the fact that their customers want to share files. I don't disagree with you. Getting limited is annoying. Actually that happened once with Cox--I accidentally left bittorrent running over night and uploaded several gigabytes, so they capped my max bandwidth to nothing for like 12 hours. Actually seemed pretty fair. I was using way more bandwidth than probably 50 normal users and degrading the experience for others in my building. ~shrug~ I was always sure to cap my upload speed after that.
Another reason is that it's just not a very effective solution. Filtering one specific application is more difficult and costly than imposing an overall bandwidth cap, and it sets off an arms race as new versions of the application evade the filters, and new versions of the filters detect the application again. And if the filter ever becomes 100% effective against one application, people will just switch to another one, starting the whole cycle over. Sounds like what Cox did. Worked, though I didnt love feeling like I was on a modem again, even if only for awhile.
I would also very much dispute that ISP filtering isn't effective. I have no data to back this up, but would ISPs really be doing it if it wasn't to their advantage?
If people are using too much bandwidth, then restrict their bandwidth usage or charge them for it. It's just that simple. The only reason ISPs are wasting their time with these filters is so they can keep advertising an impossibly high level of service, knowing that none of their customers will actually be able to use it. Paying for bandwidth would be great (in theory at least--I think most slashdot users would be paying the bulk of bandwidth surcharge!).
BitTorrent only "hogs" as much bandwidth as the human user causes it to. It's no different in that sense from any other application: other P2P systems, YouTube, email, whatever. If you want to spend all day uploading email attachments at full speed, you can do that, and you'll use just as much bandwidth as if you were seeding torrents at full speed. You know, you might be theoretically right here, but I honestly don't think you could (and certainly not in any remotely realistic workload) max out any DSL/Cable/+ connection doing email. BitTorrent does manage to EASILY complete max out your upload and download speeds. Don't forget that many bittorrent clients automatically (by default!) adjust their upload and download rates to maximize their rates, and maximize their bandwidth usage.
On the other hand, you can set a low rate limit in your torrent client, and/or set it to stop seeding once it reaches a certain share ratio, and you'll only use a moderate amount of bandwidth.
There's absolutely no need to treat BitTorrent differently from any other application. You don't need to use "filtering"; just limit bandwidth. If a customer is using too much bandwidth, charge him for the overage or lower his cap. It doesn't matter whether he's running BitTorrent, LimeWire, or just sending a lot of emails: all that matters is his total usage. The difference is that it's exceedingly rare--virtually impossible even!--for someone to use up as much bandwidth as they regularly do using BitTorrent/P2P. Thus, the ISPs target the most popular p2p algorithm, bittorrent. Look it's not just techies and good network citizens who run bittorrent--idiots too do too!
You say companies should charge for bandwidth usage or lower their caps--isn't that what many companies are doing when they throttle bittorrent?
The last bit in your post made me think...so prepare for a little ramble... Is today's society really any different than in the past? Corporate sponsorship of such things as stadiums is relatively new, but every time I read an old newspaper (I'm talking Wild West to Great Depression) I am fascinated by the blatant advertising for snake oil remedies and get-rich-quick gold rush schemes You make a really excellent point, and you're exactly right! The poster you replied to just doesn't get it!
I would actually go beyond what you said--you said that for instance, corporate sponsorship of stadiums is a new thing. Maybe corporate, but in years past it would have been an individual. Think of in the US have many buildings (universities, etc) are named after people who gave money to build them--Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc.
Going back even farther in history, Pompeii gives countless examples of graffiti that showed politics then was no different than today--slanderous and brutal! Same for advertisements, they were everywhere.
My understanding is that people in public should have no expectations of privacy. Or is that just a U.S. thing? Actually, in the rest of the more civilized world, you're not allowed to look at people without their permission. Just one more way in which the US is lagging behind!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm really getting sick of all these newly registered Chinese Government shills. You criticize people for not doing solidarity-related things, and you sit on your butt and post to slashdot? How laughable.
I personally think enforced mourning cheapens the meaning of it, but that's really irrelevant.
People ARE, and rightfully so, criticizing the Chinese Communist Government for cracking down on websites yet again. A number of slashdot posters have confirmed this.
Do you understand the word "hypocrite" -- how is anybody being hypocritical?
Freedom isn't cultural.
You flap about over freedom of the press, and yet appear to have no understanding of what that is or what it means. Sir, with all due respect, it's you who has no understanding of what freedom is. It's not cultural, it's not racial, and it's not what you think it is. China is made up of 56 different ethnics groups, 800 million of which are on less than $2 a day. You want to throw into that the irresponsible, almost unaccountable, sensationalist press we have in the West? What's the worse thing that happens? People learn to think for themselves? I can see how that would be scary for the Chinese Communist Party and its supporters and shills--those people who derive power, wealth, and prestige from being at the top. This is the reason communism and far left states always become corrupt. A truely free press is a dangerous thing. It allows everyone to peddle whatever truth the desire and to encourage others to believe it. See previous paragraph, a free press is only dangerous to those people for whom the truth and freedom is dangerous. Those invested in a corrupt system. Push a negative story a little, someone starts a rumor, and you have a blood bath on your hands. That would seem to be an argument FOR freedom of information. It's only countries like China, much of the Middle East, etc, where there are restrictions on information that mass rumor hysteria is a problem. In the UK many kinds of story are not covered here by agreement between the press and Government. There is a code of practice for journalist and editors covering what should be reported. Do you truly fail to see the difference between an individual making a personal decision to cover or not cover an issue, vice a government ORDERING sites shutdown, etc? You're not even close to the issue here. But in the west we don't have anything like the same kind of ethnic tensions that they have other countries. Yes, China's it's 90%+ Han population must really be quaking in its boots. Are you really attempting to justify crackdowns on the fact that ~5% of the population might get angry? Your arguments don't even begin to make sense! The very reason you come online and use a site like Slashdot is that you want to be able to shout back at those stories. I also like arguing with Chinese government shills. Only problem is that on the internet there is no code of ehtical practice. So everyone says what they want and we end up with some really nasty hate being shifted around the world fueling people prejudices. And in China there is no racism? No hate? Because you seem to for one thing be laying a lot of the blame on China's ethnic minorities.. The idea of a totally free press is a noble idea which totally does not take into account human nature. BS.
I hadn't heard Shivaji referred to as a saint before, somewhat interesting usage of the term.
Shivaji is an interesting character. Perhaps best known for killing one of his Mughal enemies with a concealed weapon called a tiger's claw. Also well known as a defender of Hinduism who fought long and hard against the Muslim-ruled Mughal empire.
I've never understood that kind of behavior? If you truly didn't care about your karma, you wouldn't brag about your karma level, you wouldn't reply to posts about it, you probably wouldn't even talk about it at all! It seems disingenuous!
You make a good point, though I do believe there's a huge difference between a broadcaster selectively choosing not to broadcast some songs (as well as many, many sites such as Penny Arcade doing something "different") from the government forcing it to happen.
First posts huh? A shill for the Chinese government? I didn't realize they were so desperate...
Anywhere, your attempted argument is nonsense, it's got nothing to do with "culture shock." You actually defeat your own argument--if "few people" would even think of seeking entertainment now, why does the Communist Party have to crack down? That doesn't make any sense, you need to consider motives when actions don't make sense based on your assumptions. Mourning is good and solidarity is good. Is enforced mourning meaningful?
The question is, what kind of free society can exist when the Government ORDERS (not "suggests" as you incorrectly type) mandatory shutdowns of websites. (If you have any evidence to the contrary, please post it!)
Imagine if you will if the US government had ordered all websites and TV channels off for 3 days after 9/11. Despite it's flaws, the US is a free society, and people would have been PISSED. Same for Europe, and many other countries.
The conclusion is, despite strides the people have made in China against the yoke of their government, they remain unfree. Let us hope for their sake this can one day be remedied.
Calm down buddy--so somebody else doesn't like a cartoon movie you like--big deal! We get that you're a fan boy, and somebody else commenting on how they didn't like an aspect of the movie hardly deserves their being called a "moron" (and you also seem to think they are a fanboy too? I'm confused). I highly doubt you'd talk to someone in real life like that, so you might consider the same thing online!
Wow, unless you're one of the writers, you really don't need to take it personally! I'm not the gp, but I more or less agree with him. I did enjoy Bender's Big Score, and I bought it, but I've only watched it 1.5 times. I've seen most of the episodes several more times.
It has nothing to do with the fact that the movie "played like 3 episodes" -- and you throwing that out there is a complete red herring as the GP said nothing about that. In my opinion, it just wasn't quite as snappy. Had some individually really good parts, but the whole thing just didn't seem as seemless. And no, to be clear, I'm not complaining about the episodic nature of the film--I'm talking about individual scene changes.
Seriously, I don't understand your reply at all. I mean, I understand fanboyism on the Internet and all, but why be so invested in whether other people like a movie or TV show you like? Other people liking or not liking it shouldn't diminish your enjoyment of it at all!
Dragonfly is just the latest branch of development of a codebase with decades of history!
On the other point (which I wasn't disputing or answer)--about the giant lock, I don't know much about the linux internals, but it sounds like the bsd GIANT is the same as the linux BKL. FreeBSD is in something like its 6th year of removing giant!
I think Dragonflys links to the BSD world are slightly more than you seem to!
Yes, because as we all know, Microsoft has faced no competition in the server or desktop markets for years now.
See: Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc, see also OS X
Microsoft may be running scared, but it's not because of OLPC or mini-notebooks, but one word--Vista.
The thing I think you're not getting is that it does not matter if it's FTP or email or Bittorrent or whatever that is using the bandwidth--you're absolutely right about that. The difference is that the totally vast majority of big bandwidth users are using bittorrent. Additionally, I'm not so sure that ISPs that throttle or cap bandwidth DON'T monitor other usages.
Or am I misunderstanding what we're talking about
I would also very much dispute that ISP filtering isn't effective. I have no data to back this up, but would ISPs really be doing it if it wasn't to their advantage? If people are using too much bandwidth, then restrict their bandwidth usage or charge them for it. It's just that simple. The only reason ISPs are wasting their time with these filters is so they can keep advertising an impossibly high level of service, knowing that none of their customers will actually be able to use it. Paying for bandwidth would be great (in theory at least--I think most slashdot users would be paying the bulk of bandwidth surcharge!).
There's absolutely no need to treat BitTorrent differently from any other application. You don't need to use "filtering"; just limit bandwidth. If a customer is using too much bandwidth, charge him for the overage or lower his cap. It doesn't matter whether he's running BitTorrent, LimeWire, or just sending a lot of emails: all that matters is his total usage. The difference is that it's exceedingly rare--virtually impossible even!--for someone to use up as much bandwidth as they regularly do using BitTorrent/P2P. Thus, the ISPs target the most popular p2p algorithm, bittorrent. Look it's not just techies and good network citizens who run bittorrent--idiots too do too!
You say companies should charge for bandwidth usage or lower their caps--isn't that what many companies are doing when they throttle bittorrent?
I would actually go beyond what you said--you said that for instance, corporate sponsorship of stadiums is a new thing. Maybe corporate, but in years past it would have been an individual. Think of in the US have many buildings (universities, etc) are named after people who gave money to build them--Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc.
Going back even farther in history, Pompeii gives countless examples of graffiti that showed politics then was no different than today--slanderous and brutal! Same for advertisements, they were everywhere.