It is remarkably simple, uses iptables and has a TON of versatility.
I get scanned multiple times a day, tons of "Did not receive identification string from..." looking for a prompt so they can try and identify my host OS.
Set it up so that when I get one of those, the ip is banned for a day.
Failed login attempts on SSH bans for 24 hours after three failures.
I have a third rule which monitors the fail2ban log and if an ip shows up more than once in a month its banned for 6.
Bans are global on all ports.
There is not a ton of active development on it but the reality is that its a mature product and works well. Setting up the filters and "jails" can be daunting but the configuration can cover anything you could possibly think of. Supports Regex, exclusion lists, and can be set up for any service or log files.
I am not going to get into an argument over whether or not person A can tell the difference between format 1 and format 2 nor or am I going to debate the merits of one format over another because this move has nothing to do with providing a better product and only has to do with figuring out a way to charge you (the sucker) more to sell you the same thing they sold you two years ago.
Sure there are empirical ways to prove that one format has more dynamic range than another, just like you can prove 1080 via HDMI is better than 1080 via component, HOWEVER in practice, unless you are an elitist erudite prick who "can't stand to not watch or listen to the BEST" the reality is that most of us won't care.
And for the record its got nothing to do with not knowing any better or being ignorant of the quality difference.
It has to do with biology.
Take that wrist watch, if you were aware of it ALL THE TIME it would drive you crazy, but our nervous system has automatic processes which filter out continuous stimuli, like the watch or the hiss of a low quality recording.
Now I get annoyed when I can hear compression artifacts, but since I switched to high quality VBR, I rarely hear them and that's the point.
For 90% of the music out there, this is adequate for most listening environments.
There will always be a market for people like those audi commercials...."this cuestick is clad in the leather from a pigmy albino hossenpheffer's nutsack and is so rare that there are only three made each year"....whatever.
I am all about the minimum effective dose because once you get above a certain point you are just lining pockets that don't belong to you. Some might consider this aspirations of mediocrity, but I disagree and prefer instead to think in terms of efficiencies. Why spend more when what I have is perfectly adequate for any and all of my requirements?
Look, we have had Internet access to residential customers priced at a market-building level for around 15 years now. Low, low prices especially for DSL access - sometimes as low as $15 a month. This has been great for the consumer.
Citation Needed I personally don't know anyone that can get broadband for 15 bucks a month. The cheapest plan I can find locally is 19.99 for 6 months and then 59.99 every month thereafter, and that 19.99 is closer to 30 bucks after the taxes are taken out....oh and some of those taxes are there to support infrastructure.
While we're on the subject of infrastructure and costs, don't forget that the federal government (that's yours and mine tax dollars) helped to fund and continues to fund the buildout of those networks through the Universal Service Fund.
Unfortunately for the consumer the market-building phase is ending. Just about everyone that can afford the $15 a month has the Internet now in their home and the are unlikely to give up easy access to free music, movies, heavily biased blogs and shopping at Amazon. But if the prices go up people are going to complain and perhaps set off a war between providers.
So the answer is to charge the heck out of the folks really making money on the Internet. Why would anyone complain about Google getting dinged instead of the guy living in a trailer with a 384K DSL connection? Oh, wait. That might affect access to those heavily biased blogs that consume 0.0001% of the bandwidth.
Communications infrastructure occupies a unique position in the market. It connects consumers to multiple third parties who are all individually paying for their own access to the communication network. Now don't get me wrong, I see what your point is, but its wrong. What you are suggesting is that as the phone company, not only should I be allowed to charge my customers for phone service, but I should also be able to charge any businesses they call because I facilitated that exchange EVEN THOUGH the business is paying for the phone line in. How about this, where do you draw the line? I host my own website, should all the ISPs in the world be able to bill me when their customers connect to my site? Personal sites don't make any money, okay what about if it links to my Etsy store?
Anymore, data service to your home or business is more of a utility than a service. The difference is that the utility provider thinks they deserve a cut of a third parties profits when one of their customers does business with them and I take serious issue with that. Bits are bits and don't cost any more to deliver to amazon than they do to deliver to grandmas blog.
Let's get real here. The issue is going to be a war between big bandwidth consumers. The structure of the Internet access in the US isn't going to allow for real, dedicated bandwidth over 300K to every home with an Internet connection. So when IPTV moves beyond the nerdy early-adopter stage there are going to be some major issues. It isn't going to be the cable provider vs. Netflix because the cable provider has dedicated bandwidth to the consumers. Netflix doesn't. Hulu doesn't. The bandwidth competition will be between Netflix and Hulu, for example. Amazon's video service vs. Apple vs. Google TV. Anybody out there trying to get bits to the consumer in large quantities.
The thing you are missing is that Netflix, Hulu, Google, et al already pay to put those bits on the network. They spend TONS of money each month to maintain their connectivity to the net. So you're saying in addition to that, they should pay a tariff to every ISP when one of the ISP's subscribers uses their service?
What happens when they don't pay? It certainly isn't Google that suffers.
There is already competition between the big bandwidth consumers. Its not over the last mile connection to the actual customer of
The reality is that Net Neutrality has nothing to do with neutrality and everything to do with carriers wanting to enjoy common carrier protections without having to provide common carrier openess.
Companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T want to be able to not only charge their customers for internet access, but also charge the companies like Google, Amazon, and Netflix for the traffic that their customers generate when accessing those sites. Look at the recent move Comcast made against Level3, "Hey guys, nice work on getting that Netflix account, oh by the way we're going to charge you more to connect to us because you are supplying connectivity for a company which competes with our OnDemand services, thank you for choosing Comcast". What would have happened if Level3 said "meh....I don't think so" and turned off peering to Comcast. Who would have suffered? Mostly us, the consumers. Awesome.
It's also about being allowed to prioritize network traffic for hosted services over competing third party services, although beating voip providers on price (ala bundling) has pretty much destroyed most of the third party VOIP providers. Being able to provide a better quality hosted product is real easy when you de-prioritize competing services traffic on your network. A few months of poor performance and customers will be switching to hosted services in droves. I think we can all agree that this would fall into the "anti-competitive practices" category. The thing is, they might be doing this already, except that its technically not illegal, or at least its difficult enough to prove that plausible deniability plays a significant role and there is no legal precedent set to file suit on.
Net Neutrality laws would make this illegal and at the very least require them to disclose that they are doing it.
Anyone can see that charging Google or Microsoft money whenever a customer accesses the site is wrong. Somehow they have twisted this into them getting a free ride on their network. Nevermind that the customer is paying for access to the internet and that the site being accessed is also paying to be connected to the internet.
I am all for traffic shaping based on volume to ensure equal access to all traffic, but if you are using public funds to prop up your infrastructure, you better have full disclosure available.
THIS is what they are really talking about and it has nothing to do with the government "taking over" the internet. Of course they tend to screw up most things they touch so I have very little faith that even if they do try to regulate things, that they will do a decent job.
On a side note, many people on both "sides" like to blame de-regulation for the banking problems we have had, and then argue against any other forms of regulation on the basis that regulation is bad and against the free market.
First off lets get one thing straight, there is no such thing as a free market. Whether by government hands or private hands, someone will ALWAYS be manipulating the rules in their favor. We are not free, but merely have the illusion of freedom so long as we don't piss the wrong person off.
Youre trying to prevent people from making bad decisions by removing those decisions. That doesnt work. Education may, but telling them the problem is "HFCS" rather than "garbage in your diet" isnt helping matters.
My main point is that HFCS IS the "garbage in your diet" and that HFCS is handled differently by your body.
The issue its convoluted by special interest, however, I do believe HFCS is not a healthy product, and here is my argument.
You point out that surcrose breaks down to about the same thing that is in HFCS, but what you fail to take into consideration that there is an energy cost associated with the body doing the work vs having both products readily available to your body. The net result is that while on paper they seem to be equivalent and the gross calories in similar quantities are close enough to not seem different, the reality is that HFCS is ready for rapid absorption and and use by your body, while straight up sucrose takes some work to prepare which to some degree lowers the net caloric intake for sugar over HFCS.
Check out the wikipedia article on fructose and check out the metabolism section.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose
The whole argument that HFCS is the same as sugar and no different to your body is complete horseshit.
The fact that HFCS is usually a 1:1 ratio of glucose and fructose may even exacerbate the issue since there have been some recent studies which indicate increased uptake and absorption when fructose and glucose are administered this way.
There are other factors as well, since HFCS is cheaper (due to subsidies) and has a longer shelf life than sucrose, and sweeter than sucrose, food manufacturers looking to make a palatable shelf stable product turn to HFCS because its cheaper, sweeter(thus less is needed), and easier to deal with. Sweet is a flavor humans are biologically predisposed to and makes things taste better, but somethings shouldn't be sweet, so they have to add sodium to offset this sweetness and maintain palatability while "tasting" better than other products. This has led to an arms race in the food industry that has been increasing sugar and sodium content in prepared foods over the last 25 years.
Don't believe me? Compare similar products in the store, I will bet you that the products using HFCS have more salt and sugar than a similar product that uses sucrose.
So yes, I think HFCS is not healthy because it adds easy to process calories and it is in so much of the food that people can afford to eat and while it may not be single handedly causing the obesity issues in the USA and to a lesser degree the world, but its inclusion into high caloric, shelf stable, cheap, unfilling food leads to consumption of unhealthy amounts. Its difficult to moderate intake when its in everything that you can afford to eat.
What you propose is a working solution, however, most displays will not allow the full bandwidth audio to be passed through the monitor.
Case in point, My inlaws have a brand new (manufactured may 2010) Panasonic LCD tv.
It has an optical out, however it only outputs PCM and will not allow Dolby Digital or DTS signals to be passed from bluray player via HDMI to the receiver.
Unfortunately most people won't notice and can't tell the difference so it will never get fixed.
Granted I recognize that this is a problem with DRM implementations and not necessarily with the spec(although I can't verify that since I can't look at the spec, and even if I could I am joe consumer and really have no teeth when it comes to getting the corporations to fix the problem, which really is the root of the issue.)
Ideally in a free market, the consumers would have the power to decide what they want, when the corporations conspire through closed standards, we ultimately lose the ability to tell them we don't approve with our dollars.
This is the real problem with closed standards that become the "defacto" standard.
Along the same lines, it has been my experience that people who believe everyone else in the world is out to screw them or "get" them generally feel that way because that is their attitude towards the world.
This particular issue is a double edged sword.
Proponents of transparency use the argument of "stand up for what you believe in. if you aren't afraid to write your name then you shouldn't be afraid to admit you signed it"
However one does have to ask what purpose other than harassment one would have with that list of names and addresses?
Even though the publisher of that data isn't harassing someone, it provides the means for others to do so.
Harassment has many forms both minor and major. It could be as simple as name calling or as horrendous as arson, assault or murder.
Personally I say love who you want, it's none of my business.
However the issue of making public supporters and detractors isn't a simple matter.
I see little positive return on transparency of this sort as history has shown, but I also don't necessarily disagree with how SCOTUS ruled.
I bought one from them about 6 months ago for the price of two sets of cartridges for my epson.
if I want archival pigment based inks, I buy 100ml bottles for about ten bucks each.
the dye ink that I got with the kit does the job and comparing prints from epson carts using the same paper and image, there is no difference that I could see.
The real reason is that they subsidize the cost of the printers through small, quickly used, expensive carts that have a finite lifespan that is not related to the number of pages printed or the amount of ink left in them.
Personally I would rather pay an appropriate price for the hardware, and a reasonable price for the consumables.
As consumers we need to stop supporting planned obsolescence and overpriced proprietary consumables.
For example, the fastest way to make people shape up in their use of intoxicants is to pass a law that says "no state of intoxication brought on by willing consumption or or exposure to intoxicating substances shall be a mitigating factor in the assessment of guilt for any felony offense or be used as a basis for reducing the sentence upon conviction.".
I love that your solution is to pass another law....not only another law but a completely pointless and redundant one at that.
I am not aware of ANY state in the US or any COUNTRY in the world where "I drank/smoked/ate too much and was fucked up" is a viable defense. Infact I believe that certain prescription drugs can run you afoul of DUI laws despite being prescribed.
The reality is that there is no way for someone to MAKE another person do something like take responsibility and learn their limit.
No amount of law or regulation will ever change that.
Is taxation a solution....I don't particularly think so, but it does seem socially acceptable, and if taxing is what it takes to "legalize" it then so be it.
Another thought is how does Vegas and Atlantic City feel about this? They want people to come to Vegas....so yeah online gambling is a threat to their revenue streams. Just something else to consider.
Shareholders are, for the most part these days, automated trading computers and mutual funds. Shareholders come and go like the wind. Furthermore, every shareholder goes in with the understanding that there may not be a profit. If you treat your customers poorly just so you can show a profit to the shareholders, then you will lose your customers, your profit, and your shareholders. However, if your primary obligation is to the customer, then you will generate more profit, and please the shareholders.
This is a good point about the reality of what "shareholders" mean in today's economy. While probably true for the majority of shareholders, it is probably not true about the majority shareholders. That said there seems to have been a shift in business ethics in the last 20 years.
Now I am not saying that everything has gone to hell in a hand basket for this or that reason nor am I looking on our past with rose colored glasses.
With recent and not so recent scandals, time and time again we hear a company line about making profit for our shareholders is our goal while still providing a product(or service) we believe in. This is the problem. It should be Providing a quality product/service we believe in while maintaining profitability for our shareholders.
They really aren't putting the customers and products first and consumers are starting to see that.
Regardless of whether shareholders are people banging down the door when things are going bad, its more about decisions being made about which drugs get funding based not on effectiveness but rather on marketability.
Consider that the attitude of many large companies is profitability first. This is what happens when you have a board made up of people who were not the founders. Once a company outlives the life of the individuals who started it, its direction naturally shifts towards maintaining profitability and growth. Decisions are made based on profit margins and costs which drives efforts towards markets that are producing profit. No longer is the company's vision that of an individual but rather its a formula of corporate survival. Its not necessarily a malevolent drive, but it does tend to be devoid of empathy and accountability. So instead of one mans drive to improve the world or whatever, its about growing the brand. New treatments mean new profits. New cures mean that ultimately that product will no longer be needed which, when you consider the costs of bringing a new drug to market and the R&D costs and if the ailment being cured is sufficiently rare enough, even if they have a 100% cure, it won't get funding because on paper, there's no profit in it. For the people suffering from that ailment it definitely looks like the drug companies don't "care about a cure"
What it really boils down to is that we aren't really learning anything, we're just inventing new bandaids. Once we're sufficiently knowledgeable in genetics and understanding just how our metabolism works, I have a feeling that drug companies may not be needed for much outside of pain management and other transient problems where manipulating cellular tissue wouldn't help.
The fact that someone found a naturally occurring substance that happens to work for a particular problem but didn't want to test further for whatever reason isn't really the point though is it?
Its a question of the millions of dollars in donations going to cancer research, if this sort of thing ISN'T what those charities are about, then where is the money going?
Its part of a larger "Awakening" that I think is happening where people snap out of it and start asking for some sort of accountability for charities and companies. Take some responsibility and take some pride in your business. I think people should ask themselves, "what would my mother say if she knew I made this decision?"or"would I be embarrassed if this decision made the front page?". Too often it seems the answer is, well if I don't get caught it won't matter and the odds are that I won't get caught since nobody is looking.
I can concede your point, however, hermits by definition don't interact with anyone in any way. (Hermit-like I know I know, I would have said recluse but that's just me)
There will always be people who choose to remove themselves from the social structure of the society in which they live, is Facebook a direct contributor? Perhaps but its not really a question that can be answered with generalizations.
I would argue that any interaction with another person is better than none.
I am not just talking about people who have "issues" though. I am talking about the mixing of social castes and exposure to outside ideas that seems to come with the internet.
I am getting a little off topic here, but consider this, the internet is the only truely democratic social group in existence on this planet. No single entity can control or monitor it and I would argue that what is found on the internet is the true nature of man. The fact that FB causes so much drama and provides so much insight into humankind as a whole is no surprise.
Murdoch knows he is sitting on a goldmine of data. FB and twitter and the like can be used to predict how successful that which affects our culture will be. As a data nerd myself I have wet dreams about mining the data on facebook, learning how personal tastes vary by region. I think that's one reason we have so much controversy in the world because opinions and values are highly dependent upon geographic location. You might be saying "DUH" at this point but I don't think many other people are. I think that the average FB user may have considered this but really has no idea what it means. If I could get my hands on it with names, email addresses, phone numbers and mailing addresses removed, I think it would be compelling to say the least....especially to a company looking to sell a product.
The word lucrative doesn't even begin to explain it.
It might even be better for networks. Fox said they make more money from Hulu on Simpsons episodes than they do from airing them on TV.
Yes...so the content "owner" makes money by squeezing hulu, but how much does Hulu make airing said episode? I imagine simpsons episodes are relatively popular and probably garner higher ad-prices as well as viewership but it will be interesting to see how this plays out and also how net neutrality figures into this.
All its going to take is an ISP throttling bandwidth passing from Hulu because it is causing "Network Congestion" before its a lawsuit. Personally, I think its going to be a hell of a show when it happens.
I agree that FB communication is a poor surrogate for face to face in person communication, however speaking from an American societal view, allowing people to communicate freely without some of the awkwardness or judgment based on physical appearances may allow people to "connect" with others and exchange ideas more freely.
Group social interaction and the sharing of ideas is what drives our society and civilization. To imply that the only way to do that is via "facetime" is not only naive, but its a little ignorant.
Yes body language can account for a significant amount of "communication" but it can also impede the sharing of ideas.
Personally I see FB as the next logical evolution to online disucssion forums and IRC chatrooms. The body language issue is largely negated through the use of "emoticons" and other memes, not to mention things like skype which I can tell you from experience, is an EXCELLENT alternative to face to face communication.
Ultimately FB allows more communication easier which will naturally lead to more physical interactions. The idea that just because you met someone on the internet discounts the possibility of being "friends" in real life is foolish. It's really no different than meeting someone on the train or in the grocery store. They are just as likely to be an axe murderer as the person you met online. The only difference is the method by which you were initially introduced. The same social rules and personal safety habits still apply and I think THAT is the larger issue. The internet has invaded every part of our lives at all levels. As a species we are still adjusting and evolving to take advantage of the new tools and communication avenues that have recently been created.
Slashdot Mirror
I second Fail2Ban
I used to run DenyHosts but switched to fail2ban.
It is remarkably simple, uses iptables and has a TON of versatility.
I get scanned multiple times a day, tons of "Did not receive identification string from..." looking for a prompt so they can try and identify my host OS. Set it up so that when I get one of those, the ip is banned for a day. Failed login attempts on SSH bans for 24 hours after three failures.
I have a third rule which monitors the fail2ban log and if an ip shows up more than once in a month its banned for 6. Bans are global on all ports.
There is not a ton of active development on it but the reality is that its a mature product and works well. Setting up the filters and "jails" can be daunting but the configuration can cover anything you could possibly think of. Supports Regex, exclusion lists, and can be set up for any service or log files.
Fail2Ban its your friend.
Sure there are empirical ways to prove that one format has more dynamic range than another, just like you can prove 1080 via HDMI is better than 1080 via component, HOWEVER in practice, unless you are an elitist erudite prick who "can't stand to not watch or listen to the BEST" the reality is that most of us won't care.
And for the record its got nothing to do with not knowing any better or being ignorant of the quality difference.
It has to do with biology.
Take that wrist watch, if you were aware of it ALL THE TIME it would drive you crazy, but our nervous system has automatic processes which filter out continuous stimuli, like the watch or the hiss of a low quality recording.
Now I get annoyed when I can hear compression artifacts, but since I switched to high quality VBR, I rarely hear them and that's the point.
For 90% of the music out there, this is adequate for most listening environments.
There will always be a market for people like those audi commercials...."this cuestick is clad in the leather from a pigmy albino hossenpheffer's nutsack and is so rare that there are only three made each year"....whatever.
I am all about the minimum effective dose because once you get above a certain point you are just lining pockets that don't belong to you. Some might consider this aspirations of mediocrity, but I disagree and prefer instead to think in terms of efficiencies.
Why spend more when what I have is perfectly adequate for any and all of my requirements?
I don't know about anyone else, but it looked more like a hellraiser puzzle box than a rubiks cube.
Look, we have had Internet access to residential customers priced at a market-building level for around 15 years now. Low, low prices especially for DSL access - sometimes as low as $15 a month. This has been great for the consumer.
Citation Needed I personally don't know anyone that can get broadband for 15 bucks a month. The cheapest plan I can find locally is 19.99 for 6 months and then 59.99 every month thereafter, and that 19.99 is closer to 30 bucks after the taxes are taken out....oh and some of those taxes are there to support infrastructure.
While we're on the subject of infrastructure and costs, don't forget that the federal government (that's yours and mine tax dollars) helped to fund and continues to fund the buildout of those networks through the Universal Service Fund.
Unfortunately for the consumer the market-building phase is ending. Just about everyone that can afford the $15 a month has the Internet now in their home and the are unlikely to give up easy access to free music, movies, heavily biased blogs and shopping at Amazon. But if the prices go up people are going to complain and perhaps set off a war between providers.
So the answer is to charge the heck out of the folks really making money on the Internet. Why would anyone complain about Google getting dinged instead of the guy living in a trailer with a 384K DSL connection? Oh, wait. That might affect access to those heavily biased blogs that consume 0.0001% of the bandwidth.
Communications infrastructure occupies a unique position in the market. It connects consumers to multiple third parties who are all individually paying for their own access to the communication network. Now don't get me wrong, I see what your point is, but its wrong. What you are suggesting is that as the phone company, not only should I be allowed to charge my customers for phone service, but I should also be able to charge any businesses they call because I facilitated that exchange EVEN THOUGH the business is paying for the phone line in. How about this, where do you draw the line? I host my own website, should all the ISPs in the world be able to bill me when their customers connect to my site? Personal sites don't make any money, okay what about if it links to my Etsy store?
Anymore, data service to your home or business is more of a utility than a service. The difference is that the utility provider thinks they deserve a cut of a third parties profits when one of their customers does business with them and I take serious issue with that. Bits are bits and don't cost any more to deliver to amazon than they do to deliver to grandmas blog.
Let's get real here. The issue is going to be a war between big bandwidth consumers. The structure of the Internet access in the US isn't going to allow for real, dedicated bandwidth over 300K to every home with an Internet connection. So when IPTV moves beyond the nerdy early-adopter stage there are going to be some major issues. It isn't going to be the cable provider vs. Netflix because the cable provider has dedicated bandwidth to the consumers. Netflix doesn't. Hulu doesn't. The bandwidth competition will be between Netflix and Hulu, for example. Amazon's video service vs. Apple vs. Google TV. Anybody out there trying to get bits to the consumer in large quantities.
The thing you are missing is that Netflix, Hulu, Google, et al already pay to put those bits on the network. They spend TONS of money each month to maintain their connectivity to the net. So you're saying in addition to that, they should pay a tariff to every ISP when one of the ISP's subscribers uses their service?
What happens when they don't pay?
It certainly isn't Google that suffers.
There is already competition between the big bandwidth consumers. Its not over the last mile connection to the actual customer of
Companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T want to be able to not only charge their customers for internet access, but also charge the companies like Google, Amazon, and Netflix for the traffic that their customers generate when accessing those sites. Look at the recent move Comcast made against Level3, "Hey guys, nice work on getting that Netflix account, oh by the way we're going to charge you more to connect to us because you are supplying connectivity for a company which competes with our OnDemand services, thank you for choosing Comcast". What would have happened if Level3 said "meh....I don't think so" and turned off peering to Comcast. Who would have suffered? Mostly us, the consumers. Awesome.
It's also about being allowed to prioritize network traffic for hosted services over competing third party services, although beating voip providers on price (ala bundling) has pretty much destroyed most of the third party VOIP providers. Being able to provide a better quality hosted product is real easy when you de-prioritize competing services traffic on your network. A few months of poor performance and customers will be switching to hosted services in droves. I think we can all agree that this would fall into the "anti-competitive practices" category. The thing is, they might be doing this already, except that its technically not illegal, or at least its difficult enough to prove that plausible deniability plays a significant role and there is no legal precedent set to file suit on. Net Neutrality laws would make this illegal and at the very least require them to disclose that they are doing it.
Anyone can see that charging Google or Microsoft money whenever a customer accesses the site is wrong. Somehow they have twisted this into them getting a free ride on their network. Nevermind that the customer is paying for access to the internet and that the site being accessed is also paying to be connected to the internet.
I am all for traffic shaping based on volume to ensure equal access to all traffic, but if you are using public funds to prop up your infrastructure, you better have full disclosure available.
THIS is what they are really talking about and it has nothing to do with the government "taking over" the internet. Of course they tend to screw up most things they touch so I have very little faith that even if they do try to regulate things, that they will do a decent job.
On a side note, many people on both "sides" like to blame de-regulation for the banking problems we have had, and then argue against any other forms of regulation on the basis that regulation is bad and against the free market.
First off lets get one thing straight, there is no such thing as a free market. Whether by government hands or private hands, someone will ALWAYS be manipulating the rules in their favor. We are not free, but merely have the illusion of freedom so long as we don't piss the wrong person off.
Youre trying to prevent people from making bad decisions by removing those decisions. That doesnt work. Education may, but telling them the problem is "HFCS" rather than "garbage in your diet" isnt helping matters.
My main point is that HFCS IS the "garbage in your diet" and that HFCS is handled differently by your body.
The issue its convoluted by special interest, however, I do believe HFCS is not a healthy product, and here is my argument.
You point out that surcrose breaks down to about the same thing that is in HFCS, but what you fail to take into consideration that there is an energy cost associated with the body doing the work vs having both products readily available to your body.
The net result is that while on paper they seem to be equivalent and the gross calories in similar quantities are close enough to not seem different, the reality is that HFCS is ready for rapid absorption and and use by your body, while straight up sucrose takes some work to prepare which to some degree lowers the net caloric intake for sugar over HFCS.
Check out the wikipedia article on fructose and check out the metabolism section.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose
The whole argument that HFCS is the same as sugar and no different to your body is complete horseshit.
The fact that HFCS is usually a 1:1 ratio of glucose and fructose may even exacerbate the issue since there have been some recent studies which indicate increased uptake and absorption when fructose and glucose are administered this way.
There are other factors as well, since HFCS is cheaper (due to subsidies) and has a longer shelf life than sucrose, and sweeter than sucrose, food manufacturers looking to make a palatable shelf stable product turn to HFCS because its cheaper, sweeter(thus less is needed), and easier to deal with. Sweet is a flavor humans are biologically predisposed to and makes things taste better, but somethings shouldn't be sweet, so they have to add sodium to offset this sweetness and maintain palatability while "tasting" better than other products. This has led to an arms race in the food industry that has been increasing sugar and sodium content in prepared foods over the last 25 years.
Don't believe me? Compare similar products in the store, I will bet you that the products using HFCS have more salt and sugar than a similar product that uses sucrose.
So yes, I think HFCS is not healthy because it adds easy to process calories and it is in so much of the food that people can afford to eat and while it may not be single handedly causing the obesity issues in the USA and to a lesser degree the world, but its inclusion into high caloric, shelf stable, cheap, unfilling food leads to consumption of unhealthy amounts. Its difficult to moderate intake when its in everything that you can afford to eat.
of course the 101010 = 42 thing was accidental which makes it even better.....
Like Mondays?
There....Fixed that for you.
Based on my lat/lon, my magnetic lattitude is 53.2
Which basically means that anything less than 6 probably isn't worth my while to go outside for.
Case in point, My inlaws have a brand new (manufactured may 2010) Panasonic LCD tv.
It has an optical out, however it only outputs PCM and will not allow Dolby Digital or DTS signals to be passed from bluray player via HDMI to the receiver.
Unfortunately most people won't notice and can't tell the difference so it will never get fixed.
Granted I recognize that this is a problem with DRM implementations and not necessarily with the spec(although I can't verify that since I can't look at the spec, and even if I could I am joe consumer and really have no teeth when it comes to getting the corporations to fix the problem, which really is the root of the issue.)
Ideally in a free market, the consumers would have the power to decide what they want, when the corporations conspire through closed standards, we ultimately lose the ability to tell them we don't approve with our dollars.
This is the real problem with closed standards that become the "defacto" standard.
Its friday and I am in a food coma from the pork adobo lunch.
Thanks!
It looks like he wrote a bunch of patents regarding wireless data communications.
He isn't even alive anymore which is funny that they mention his name and getting recognition
I don't expect apple et.al to take this sitting down.
the other thing to consider is that if step two involves lawyers, it doesn't matter how many steps follow, there will never be Profit!!
Along the same lines, it has been my experience that people who believe everyone else in the world is out to screw them or "get" them generally feel that way because that is their attitude towards the world.
This particular issue is a double edged sword.
Proponents of transparency use the argument of "stand up for what you believe in. if you aren't afraid to write your name then you shouldn't be afraid to admit you signed it"
However one does have to ask what purpose other than harassment one would have with that list of names and addresses?
Even though the publisher of that data isn't harassing someone, it provides the means for others to do so.
Harassment has many forms both minor and major. It could be as simple as name calling or as horrendous as arson, assault or murder.
Personally I say love who you want, it's none of my business.
However the issue of making public supporters and detractors isn't a simple matter.
I see little positive return on transparency of this sort as history has shown, but I also don't necessarily disagree with how SCOTUS ruled.
Ba dum dum!
and if your player is like mine, hitting it more than once makes it go faster.
A "preview" at 20X is practically like hitting the next chapter button.
www.inkrepublic.com
I bought one from them about 6 months ago for the price of two sets of cartridges for my epson.
if I want archival pigment based inks, I buy 100ml bottles for about ten bucks each.
the dye ink that I got with the kit does the job and comparing prints from epson carts using the same paper and image, there is no difference that I could see.
The real reason is that they subsidize the cost of the printers through small, quickly used, expensive carts that have a finite lifespan that is not related to the number of pages printed or the amount of ink left in them.
Personally I would rather pay an appropriate price for the hardware, and a reasonable price for the consumables.
As consumers we need to stop supporting planned obsolescence and overpriced proprietary consumables.
For example, the fastest way to make people shape up in their use of intoxicants is to pass a law that says "no state of intoxication brought on by willing consumption or or exposure to intoxicating substances shall be a mitigating factor in the assessment of guilt for any felony offense or be used as a basis for reducing the sentence upon conviction." .
I love that your solution is to pass another law....not only another law but a completely pointless and redundant one at that.
I am not aware of ANY state in the US or any COUNTRY in the world where "I drank/smoked/ate too much and was fucked up" is a viable defense. Infact I believe that certain prescription drugs can run you afoul of DUI laws despite being prescribed.
The reality is that there is no way for someone to MAKE another person do something like take responsibility and learn their limit.
No amount of law or regulation will ever change that.
Is taxation a solution....I don't particularly think so, but it does seem socially acceptable, and if taxing is what it takes to "legalize" it then so be it.
Another thought is how does Vegas and Atlantic City feel about this? They want people to come to Vegas....so yeah online gambling is a threat to their revenue streams. Just something else to consider.
Shareholders are, for the most part these days, automated trading computers and mutual funds. Shareholders come and go like the wind. Furthermore, every shareholder goes in with the understanding that there may not be a profit. If you treat your customers poorly just so you can show a profit to the shareholders, then you will lose your customers, your profit, and your shareholders. However, if your primary obligation is to the customer, then you will generate more profit, and please the shareholders.
This is a good point about the reality of what "shareholders" mean in today's economy. While probably true for the majority of shareholders, it is probably not true about the majority shareholders. That said there seems to have been a shift in business ethics in the last 20 years.
Now I am not saying that everything has gone to hell in a hand basket for this or that reason nor am I looking on our past with rose colored glasses.
With recent and not so recent scandals, time and time again we hear a company line about making profit for our shareholders is our goal while still providing a product(or service) we believe in.
This is the problem.
It should be Providing a quality product/service we believe in while maintaining profitability for our shareholders.
They really aren't putting the customers and products first and consumers are starting to see that.
Regardless of whether shareholders are people banging down the door when things are going bad, its more about decisions being made about which drugs get funding based not on effectiveness but rather on marketability.
Consider that the attitude of many large companies is profitability first. This is what happens when you have a board made up of people who were not the founders. Once a company outlives the life of the individuals who started it, its direction naturally shifts towards maintaining profitability and growth.
Decisions are made based on profit margins and costs which drives efforts towards markets that are producing profit. No longer is the company's vision that of an individual but rather its a formula of corporate survival. Its not necessarily a malevolent drive, but it does tend to be devoid of empathy and accountability. So instead of one mans drive to improve the world or whatever, its about growing the brand.
New treatments mean new profits.
New cures mean that ultimately that product will no longer be needed which, when you consider the costs of bringing a new drug to market and the R&D costs and if the ailment being cured is sufficiently rare enough, even if they have a 100% cure, it won't get funding because on paper, there's no profit in it. For the people suffering from that ailment it definitely looks like the drug companies don't "care about a cure"
What it really boils down to is that we aren't really learning anything, we're just inventing new bandaids. Once we're sufficiently knowledgeable in genetics and understanding just how our metabolism works, I have a feeling that drug companies may not be needed for much outside of pain management and other transient problems where manipulating cellular tissue wouldn't help.
The fact that someone found a naturally occurring substance that happens to work for a particular problem but didn't want to test further for whatever reason isn't really the point though is it?
Its a question of the millions of dollars in donations going to cancer research, if this sort of thing ISN'T what those charities are about, then where is the money going?
Its part of a larger "Awakening" that I think is happening where people snap out of it and start asking for some sort of accountability for charities and companies. Take some responsibility and take some pride in your business. I think people should ask themselves, "what would my mother say if she knew I made this decision?"or"would I be embarrassed if this decision made the front page?". Too often it seems the answer is, well if I don't get caught it won't matter and the odds are that I won't get caught since nobody is looking.
Identical meaning everything down to the create date and last modified date.
There will always be people who choose to remove themselves from the social structure of the society in which they live, is Facebook a direct contributor? Perhaps but its not really a question that can be answered with generalizations.
I would argue that any interaction with another person is better than none.
I am not just talking about people who have "issues" though. I am talking about the mixing of social castes and exposure to outside ideas that seems to come with the internet.
I am getting a little off topic here, but consider this, the internet is the only truely democratic social group in existence on this planet. No single entity can control or monitor it and I would argue that what is found on the internet is the true nature of man. The fact that FB causes so much drama and provides so much insight into humankind as a whole is no surprise.
Murdoch knows he is sitting on a goldmine of data. FB and twitter and the like can be used to predict how successful that which affects our culture will be. As a data nerd myself I have wet dreams about mining the data on facebook, learning how personal tastes vary by region. I think that's one reason we have so much controversy in the world because opinions and values are highly dependent upon geographic location. You might be saying "DUH" at this point but I don't think many other people are. I think that the average FB user may have considered this but really has no idea what it means. If I could get my hands on it with names, email addresses, phone numbers and mailing addresses removed, I think it would be compelling to say the least....especially to a company looking to sell a product.
The word lucrative doesn't even begin to explain it.
It might even be better for networks. Fox said they make more money from Hulu on Simpsons episodes than they do from airing them on TV.
Yes...so the content "owner" makes money by squeezing hulu, but how much does Hulu make airing said episode? I imagine simpsons episodes are relatively popular and probably garner higher ad-prices as well as viewership but it will be interesting to see how this plays out and also how net neutrality figures into this.
All its going to take is an ISP throttling bandwidth passing from Hulu because it is causing "Network Congestion" before its a lawsuit. Personally, I think its going to be a hell of a show when it happens.
I agree that FB communication is a poor surrogate for face to face in person communication, however speaking from an American societal view, allowing people to communicate freely without some of the awkwardness or judgment based on physical appearances may allow people to "connect" with others and exchange ideas more freely.
Group social interaction and the sharing of ideas is what drives our society and civilization. To imply that the only way to do that is via "facetime" is not only naive, but its a little ignorant.
Yes body language can account for a significant amount of "communication" but it can also impede the sharing of ideas.
Personally I see FB as the next logical evolution to online disucssion forums and IRC chatrooms. The body language issue is largely negated through the use of "emoticons" and other memes, not to mention things like skype which I can tell you from experience, is an EXCELLENT alternative to face to face communication.
Ultimately FB allows more communication easier which will naturally lead to more physical interactions. The idea that just because you met someone on the internet discounts the possibility of being "friends" in real life is foolish. It's really no different than meeting someone on the train or in the grocery store. They are just as likely to be an axe murderer as the person you met online. The only difference is the method by which you were initially introduced. The same social rules and personal safety habits still apply and I think THAT is the larger issue. The internet has invaded every part of our lives at all levels. As a species we are still adjusting and evolving to take advantage of the new tools and communication avenues that have recently been created.
Turn off the computer and use the force.....