I wasn't "backing up his argument," I was expanding on it. He got it half right (in my opinion, of course). I agree with the idea that all trackers should degrade equally. I take that a step further by saying all traffic should degrade equally. You seem to be saying that discriminating based on the nature of the traffic is somehow less bad than discriminating based on the origin or destination. I think they are the same thing.
I also said in my last post "So I guess I really don't agree with his entire point, or maybe his point of view is too narrow," so I'm not sure what else I can say on the matter that will make you feel better about it.
And, for the record, the fact that I don't agree with you has no bearing on how well I think you stated your position.
his point was that Net Neutrality was not about preventing discrimination of protocols, but of parties
Really. I thought his point was the part about "ensuring that BT can connect to all trackers with equally degraded quality"
My point, which I apparently didn't state very clearly the first time, is that it doesn't really matter whether ISPs are discriminating different types of traffic based on the protocol used, or the destination, it's all the same. I pay for my bandwidth. Google pays for theirs. How either of us use it is nobody's business. It doesn't matter whether providers are attempting to restrict the use of something like skype, which which may compete with services they offer; or to throttle bittorrent, which may cause the customer to actually utilize the capacity the provider oversold them; or to extort money from other, successful, businesses. The network should be "dumb," to quote someone much smarter than me who said it. It should treat all traffic the same.
So I guess I really don't agree with his entire point, or maybe his point of view is too narrow. But I do agree that, if QOS degrades due to an abundance of traffic, all traffic - regardless of its origin, destination or nature - should degrade equally.
Well said. Sell me bandwidth, and let me decide how to use it. If I exceed my allotment, it doesn't matter whether it is due to bit torrent, streaming media or me refreshing slashdot every second so I can get a frist post; bill me per whatever rate structure I agreed to when I signed up for the service and mind your own business.
Apparently, the dupe detection software was written in south korea and uses activex to authenticate
This isn't a "dupe." The article you linked to was about South Koreans being advised to avoid Vista because their infrastructure is closely tied to Active X. The blog posting we are currently commenting on describes how the South Koreans found themselves in this situation.
Family visit to Disneyland or Knotts Berry Farm. And I'm pretty sure we were told at the time it was illegal to do that to a penny, but the vendors were getting away with it somehow. Looking at what they're worth now, I guess I should have hung on to the one I had.
for those of you who haven't noticed, Microsoft has been using numbers in their Get the Facts campaign, and empirically speaking, Windows appears to be more secure than Linux.
Wow.
So the multi-billion-dollar monopolist has finally matched the efforts of a rag-tag team of hackers who just wanted to play nethack on their pee-see.
the subject line is ridiculous. These are not "Open Source Computers" for crying out loud.
Guess you didn't read the "article." The product page the summary links to is headlined "Open Source Customers" and goes on to say "Are you looking for a desktop on which you can run Linux® or other open-source operating systems? Look no further!"
I suppose that's where the "Open Source Computer" part came from. Maybe submitter mistook the word "Customer" for "Computer."
That would be nice. My favorite music station is Radio Paradise, a listener-supported station out of Paradise California. It is my great pleasure to support them for all the enjoyment I get from listening to commercial-free music at work and at home. They are also responsible for the majority of my music purchases (hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars per year), which makes things like the PERRORM Act particularly offensive.
(Universal Studios and Walt Disney Compnay) therefore opted to sue Sony and its distributors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in 1976, alleging that because Sony was manufacturing a device that could potentially be used for copyright infringement, they were thus liable for any infringement that was committed by its purchasers.
They lost that one. I have a feeling we won't be so lucky this time.
"Apple therefore demands that you remove this screenshot from your website and refrain from facilitating the further dissemination of Apple's copyrighted material by removing the link to http://forum.xda-developers.com/ where said icons and screenshot are being distributed."
Sounds pretty threatening to me. The article didn't post the complete text of the letter, but these types of letters are typically worded to scare bloggers (or more likely their ISPs) in to removing the content in question. And we all know simply linking to something can get you in to legal troubles these days.
I found the parts about the election and his son a little awkward, too. I guess the point was to show us what motivated him to travel around giving the slideshow, and to make the movie, and I think that is valid. But it diluted the message somewhat and gave fodder to the Global Warming Deniers.
This is a seven+ year old product, so lets not pretend this is absurd.
You got me there; in today's "disposable society," seven years is like a lifetime! Would it surprise you to learn my parents are still using the television they bought 20+ years ago?
Theyre choosing not to invest time and money into testing this patch for all their flavors of 2000
Who are they, Baskin Robbins? How much time and money would it take to test a patch they've already developed against their own code, regardless of how many flavours they have? Contrast that against how much good will is lost telling customers "Sure we have a patch that will prevent the time from being changed on the wrong date, but you'll need to purchase an extended support contract to get access to it."
Theyre most likely getting vista with their next PC.
Well, no, if they end up with another PC it will be one I assembled for them and I'm pretty sure I will not be putting Vista on it, but I get your point. And you're sort of making my point: if we make it a pain in the ass to continue to use what you've already paid for (and are probably still happy with) maybe you'll trash that and buy something new.
We better hurry up and colonize the moon - we're going to need it for a landfill.
Neither is making a patch you already have available to everyone on your update site.
My parents are not going to run tzedit.exe no matter how easy it is. They could probably change the date and time on their computer manually, but will be frustrated when the OS changes it again on the wrong day because it doesn't know any better.
I'm sure someone in marketing at Microsoft thinks frustrating their less technically inclined customers is a good way to encourage them to "upgrade" to Vista. I'm thinking it's a good way to encourage people to upgrade to something else.
And we don't complain to Microsoft for not providing us a fix for it.
The thing is, Microsoft has provided a fix, but only to customers with Extended Support.
I don't know if there is some technical reason why Microsoft is unable to simply make it available to everyone on the Windows Update website, but I suspect this is simply another opportunity for them to keep the old forced-upgrade treadmill running.
I wasn't going to even watch that SNL because I wasn't too excited about JT as host and musical guest. Glad I did, it was one of the funniest shows I've seen in a while, and Dick in a box was hilarious!
Same reason some people have been decrying the release of the Saddam Hussein cel phone execution video, I guess. More worried about losing control of the message than the taunting and jeering that took place as he was put to death. Now a teacher gets a widow broken so we have to censor the Internet. Yeah, that'll work!
Too bad the actual article merely (mis-?)used the word "hacker" in a "security professional" sort of sense
That's funny. I was impressed with the fact that e-week didn't (mis-?)use the word "hacker" in a "criminal whose crime is in some way (or possibly not) related to technology" sort of sense.
-WinFS (or its sucessor) will replace NTFS. No more drives, or files/folders location to worry about. File Management will be done through applications, which will automaticlly index and sort the files they support.`
Great. All the better to control our access to the data on our computers.
After the blogger kept it, it is his property, correct?
Exactly. You can not attach strings to a gift. Once given, the person receiving the gift may do as he pleases with it.
Even if the original letter had spelled out conditions such as the laptop may not be auctioned off to raise money for the EFF, unless the blogger specfically agreed to those conditions prior to receiving the laptop, I would say Microsoft can pound salt. They may never send that blogger anything again, which is their perogative, but the laptop is his and they are in no position to attempt to attach conditions to it now.
A while back, a pan handler I had given my pocket change to moments earlier passed by me in the liquor store. He was buying beer with the money I and others had given him. Would I have felt better had I observed him buying food with that money? Sure. But once I had given him the money, it was his to do with as he pleased. I had no claim over it or how he disposed of it. I could choose to never give that pan handler money again, but the money I had given him was his and what he did with it later was none of my business.
While one could probably save the most by dimming the 'Brightness' setting on his monitor, I strongly suspect the greatest savings will be realized by emphasizing energy saving technologies in the personal computer.
Apparently, shutting off lights and using the dryer less would be more effective.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't "backing up his argument," I was expanding on it. He got it half right (in my opinion, of course). I agree with the idea that all trackers should degrade equally. I take that a step further by saying all traffic should degrade equally. You seem to be saying that discriminating based on the nature of the traffic is somehow less bad than discriminating based on the origin or destination. I think they are the same thing.
I also said in my last post "So I guess I really don't agree with his entire point, or maybe his point of view is too narrow," so I'm not sure what else I can say on the matter that will make you feel better about it.
And, for the record, the fact that I don't agree with you has no bearing on how well I think you stated your position.
My point, which I apparently didn't state very clearly the first time, is that it doesn't really matter whether ISPs are discriminating different types of traffic based on the protocol used, or the destination, it's all the same. I pay for my bandwidth. Google pays for theirs. How either of us use it is nobody's business. It doesn't matter whether providers are attempting to restrict the use of something like skype, which which may compete with services they offer; or to throttle bittorrent, which may cause the customer to actually utilize the capacity the provider oversold them; or to extort money from other, successful, businesses. The network should be "dumb," to quote someone much smarter than me who said it. It should treat all traffic the same.
So I guess I really don't agree with his entire point, or maybe his point of view is too narrow. But I do agree that, if QOS degrades due to an abundance of traffic, all traffic - regardless of its origin, destination or nature - should degrade equally.
Well said. Sell me bandwidth, and let me decide how to use it. If I exceed my allotment, it doesn't matter whether it is due to bit torrent, streaming media or me refreshing slashdot every second so I can get a frist post; bill me per whatever rate structure I agreed to when I signed up for the service and mind your own business.
Here's a link you might find interesting.
I remember those!
Family visit to Disneyland or Knotts Berry Farm. And I'm pretty sure we were told at the time it was illegal to do that to a penny, but the vendors were getting away with it somehow. Looking at what they're worth now, I guess I should have hung on to the one I had.
Sheesh.
Some mod needs his coffee.
+1 Funny
So the multi-billion-dollar monopolist has finally matched the efforts of a rag-tag team of hackers who just wanted to play nethack on their pee-see.
Yaaaay, Microsoft!
Guess you didn't read the "article." The product page the summary links to is headlined "Open Source Customers" and goes on to say "Are you looking for a desktop on which you can run Linux® or other open-source operating systems? Look no further!"
I suppose that's where the "Open Source Computer" part came from. Maybe submitter mistook the word "Customer" for "Computer."
Try Muslix
If you are referring to this, he hasn't been sentenced yet:
That would be nice. My favorite music station is Radio Paradise, a listener-supported station out of Paradise California. It is my great pleasure to support them for all the enjoyment I get from listening to commercial-free music at work and at home. They are also responsible for the majority of my music purchases (hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars per year), which makes things like the PERRORM Act particularly offensive.
They already have, sort of.
They lost that one. I have a feeling we won't be so lucky this time.
Sounds pretty threatening to me. The article didn't post the complete text of the letter, but these types of letters are typically worded to scare bloggers (or more likely their ISPs) in to removing the content in question. And we all know simply linking to something can get you in to legal troubles these days.
I found the parts about the election and his son a little awkward, too. I guess the point was to show us what motivated him to travel around giving the slideshow, and to make the movie, and I think that is valid. But it diluted the message somewhat and gave fodder to the Global Warming Deniers.
Apparently
You got me there; in today's "disposable society," seven years is like a lifetime! Would it surprise you to learn my parents are still using the television they bought 20+ years ago?
Who are they, Baskin Robbins? How much time and money would it take to test a patch they've already developed against their own code, regardless of how many flavours they have? Contrast that against how much good will is lost telling customers "Sure we have a patch that will prevent the time from being changed on the wrong date, but you'll need to purchase an extended support contract to get access to it."
Well, no, if they end up with another PC it will be one I assembled for them and I'm pretty sure I will not be putting Vista on it, but I get your point. And you're sort of making my point: if we make it a pain in the ass to continue to use what you've already paid for (and are probably still happy with) maybe you'll trash that and buy something new.
We better hurry up and colonize the moon - we're going to need it for a landfill.
Neither is making a patch you already have available to everyone on your update site.
My parents are not going to run tzedit.exe no matter how easy it is. They could probably change the date and time on their computer manually, but will be frustrated when the OS changes it again on the wrong day because it doesn't know any better.
I'm sure someone in marketing at Microsoft thinks frustrating their less technically inclined customers is a good way to encourage them to "upgrade" to Vista. I'm thinking it's a good way to encourage people to upgrade to something else.
The thing is, Microsoft has provided a fix, but only to customers with Extended Support.
I don't know if there is some technical reason why Microsoft is unable to simply make it available to everyone on the Windows Update website, but I suspect this is simply another opportunity for them to keep the old forced-upgrade treadmill running.
I wasn't going to even watch that SNL because I wasn't too excited about JT as host and musical guest. Glad I did, it was one of the funniest shows I've seen in a while, and Dick in a box was hilarious!
Around the same time "liberal" or "left-wing" came to mean "bleeding heart" I suppose.
Same reason some people have been decrying the release of the Saddam Hussein cel phone execution video, I guess. More worried about losing control of the message than the taunting and jeering that took place as he was put to death. Now a teacher gets a widow broken so we have to censor the Internet. Yeah, that'll work!
That's funny. I was impressed with the fact that e-week didn't (mis-?)use the word "hacker" in a "criminal whose crime is in some way (or possibly not) related to technology" sort of sense.
C'mon, mods. Follow the links and read before moderating.
This part makes me shudder:
Great. All the better to control our access to the data on our computers.
Exactly. You can not attach strings to a gift. Once given, the person receiving the gift may do as he pleases with it.
Even if the original letter had spelled out conditions such as the laptop may not be auctioned off to raise money for the EFF, unless the blogger specfically agreed to those conditions prior to receiving the laptop, I would say Microsoft can pound salt. They may never send that blogger anything again, which is their perogative, but the laptop is his and they are in no position to attempt to attach conditions to it now.
A while back, a pan handler I had given my pocket change to moments earlier passed by me in the liquor store. He was buying beer with the money I and others had given him. Would I have felt better had I observed him buying food with that money? Sure. But once I had given him the money, it was his to do with as he pleased. I had no claim over it or how he disposed of it. I could choose to never give that pan handler money again, but the money I had given him was his and what he did with it later was none of my business.
Apparently, shutting off lights and using the dryer less would be more effective.