With respect, I don't think the summary gave anything like enough information to tell us what's going on, not even enough to make an analogy.
What if it's not like any of this? What if it's like Linus writing the author of "APK tools for Lunix!" telling him to change his code to stop directly writing to the/etc/passwd and/etc/shadow files because he's bypassing the APIs and screwing up a lot of people's non-trivial PAM-configured systems?
There's pretty much no context given in the summary. Someone wrote someone else a letter asking them to refrain from doing something. We don't know what. We don't know why. We don't know if it was a technical or legal matter. We don't have any information to go on at all.
If people make bad investments then only they should suffer the consequences.
That's great in cloud cookoo Libertarand land, but in the real world, we live in a connected world. Things affect me that happen way out of my sphere of responsibility.
If I'm on a desert island, yeah, I'm responsible for most of what goes wrong (weather, etc, excepting.) But here?
- I can make a bad decision, and destroy my means of support.
- My boss can make a bad decision, and destroy my means of support.
- My employer as a whole can make a bad decision, and destroy my means of support.
- My employer's bank can make a bad decision, and destroy my means of support.
- The bank used by a major customer of my employer can make a bad decision, and destroy my means of support.
- The bank used by 10% of the customers of my employer can make a bad decision, and destroy my means of support
We try to regulate banks and businesses so that doesn't happen. Likewise we also regulate driving. Just because you drank the beer doesn't mean it'll be you that's hit by your SUV.
BTW, you might want to look up the history of corporations. For all intents and purposes, what we call "corporations" today originated, as an entity, in the early 1800s, with the railroads pioneering the concept. Before that, very, very, few businesses of any size existed that weren't essentially part of the government. This helps explain, for example, why the framers thought it would be a good idea to have the government run a post office, an oddly specific activity to have spelled out in the constitution of a government.
So, no, the framers probably didn't consider the issue of whether corporations, be they banks or anything else, should be bailed out. But they did consider that the government should have some flexibility to prevent disaster (the common welfare) and they also thought the Feds should regulate interstate commerce.
Moreover, it didn't resemble anything Keynes said or did. I swear half the right think the term is synonymous with the bastardized American definition of "socialism".
It's popular on the mobile side because it's cross-platform. That's it. JavaScript isn't...
You're missing the point.
JavaScript is immensely popular. It doesn't matter whether it's popular because the government has a group of hitmen out roaming the country shooting at anyone who programs in anything else (in PHP's case, of course, this would be a mercy killing), or because it's all unicorns and rainbows and JS is the bestest language there ever was.
Although, personally, and this is my personal opinion, I think it's pretty nice.
But anyway, the point is it's immensely popular. People know it. And the plethora of apps written in JS means that it's capable of being used to develop apps. (Oh, and BTW, as someone who's had to write that kind of thing, I can tell you that while I cursed a lot doing this kind of development, the language was never the problem. DOM, HTML, and inconsistent ways to access the native wrapper, yes. Language. No.)
If this were 1982, GNOME would be absolutely 100% right in picking Microsoft BASIC (no, not VB, I mean the:
10 PRINT "BASIC is the most popular, well known, programming language on Earth in 1982, just about everyone can program in it." 20 GOTO 10
type of BASIC), but it isn't, it's 2013, and the most popular scripting language on Earth is JavaScript.
Awesome, sexy, JavaScript.
Delicious, yummy, JavaScript.
It uses curly braces. Like God intended.
And it's a good modern programming language. And best of all, you already know it.
You know, Javascript is an excellent language, both for its power and its familiarity, but I have to say part of me wishes, after reading this thread and seeing how "not picking Python" has really riled up half of Slashdot, they'd picked PHP instead, just to really piss everyone off.
I wish it was Java. Java's the one that has an absolutely huge library... that turns out to actually be the same damned class implemented 200 different ways.
Because I want to open an TextReader of a Reader of a FileInputStream of an InputStream of a file of a...
Guile is an official GNU Project. So why not Guile?
Because nobody has ever used it, and hardly anyone has ever heard of it.
Javascript is the most ubiquitous scripting language on the planet. There are implementations for virtually every platform. It's fast, modern, and it uses curly braces. And virtually anyone who's ever done any programming outside of Excel macrowriting has encountered it. It's the number one language used for cross platform mobile apps. It's a first class language for Windows 8 development.
While today's story is full of whiners who think that their favorite language should have been picked, the fact is that on every objective level, by every objective criteria, the GNOME people could not have made a more sane and level headed decision.
It's very popular on the mobile side, and it's a tribute to Javascript's power, ease of use, and flexibility that people use it despite usually being required to use it in a sandbox where all user interaction has to be written in HTML and accessed via the DOM, two of the most ugly technologies ever designed.
Python... heh. COBOL meets perl, they have a baby, BOOM, Python. Awesome. You were joking right? Isn't the selling point of Python that it has so many libraries and so much stuff in them you don't even need to do any programming?
Re:They should have gone with Python
on
Gnome Goes JavaScript
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If only they'd picked ${my favorite language} instead of ${language I don't like} - all of Slashdot.
Keynesianism is barely being used anywhere at the moment. We're in the middle of a major recession and most countries are cutting back spending. Some are even deciding that now is the right time to pay back their debts.
In addition, Keynesianism is both a set of prescriptions and a general model for how the economy should behave. In the latter case, the model has, actually, done an astonishingly good job of predicting the behavior of the economy during this recession.
Many Slashdotters are giving advice of varying usefulness, but I suspect this isn't helpful, unfortunately.
GPRS was added to the GSM standard in the late nineties, it wasn't part of the original system. GSM's original data method was CSD, which was simply a way to make a data call instead of a voice call.
GPRS also doesn't constitute a way to mix voice and data. You can't make voice calls at the same time as using GPRS data. In fact, short of using VoIP (barely possible using EDGE, and close to impossible with GPRS), there's no way to combine the two for pre-3G GSM standards (the ability to make a call and use data at the same time is present in UMTS.)
And further, "mixing voice and data" is not, by itself, patentable. The patent will cover one particular way of mixing the two. Whether it applies to Wifi is questionable given what little I've read on it, but simply looking for cases where people were using voice and data over a single channel prior to 1993 isn't the same thing as looking for prior art to invalidate this particular method. MP3's patents are pretty solid, but there have been plenty of ways of encoding audio digitally prior to the MP3 patents being filed.
Now you're giving me an idea: some major Naval battle "simulator", where you spend the first three weeks swabbing the decks of the battleship, peeling potatoes, laundy, making your bunk bed...
I had a smartphone when Nokia had a monopoly on them. Even the almighty Ericsson wasn't able to make headway, albeit into what was a very small market. Palm then did relatively well, before doing its usual disappearing act, and then RIM took over.
The difference between then and now, of course, is that Smartphones are now a big thing, rather than something nerds appreciate (while being bizarrely ignored by the marketing geniuses at Nokia et al who insisted that only business people on the go would want these kinds of devices. No wonder they never went mainstream.)
The simple truth is we have Apple who popularized the concept, largely by concentrating on making the UI touch, rather than stylus or keyboard, friendly, and Google, who produced the first genuinely open mobile platform. While these are both awesome, the only degree to which people are tied to either platform beyond loyalty and brand recognition are apps, and given the numbers of people who do, indeed, switch back and forth from iOS to Android, I don't think it's the case that the app issue is that significant.
Sometime to look at, as an example, is Amazon's Android. For developers, it's the same operating system as Google's version. For end users though, it might as well be an entirely different system. Your collection of Google Play software just isn't going to run on it. And yet it's popular.
If Amazon can do that, then there's little reason to suppose that another company can't do the same thing. The major issue is that the companies that have, thus far, don't seem to be very good at it, and perhaps even are hampered by a very poor image. Blackberrys are what people used to use. Windows is that unreliable piece of crap we swear at every day. HP? Same problem. Nokia had a chance, as a very popular maker of phones that were even once admired for their design and innovation (OK, that was about 10-15 years ago) but bizarrely switched to Windows at precisely the point they had an OS ready to go.
So yes, there's an opening. The question is whether someone will bother to produce something sufficiently decent that phone makers will be willing to adopt. I haven't seen that yet.
It also requires that you actually want a light in whatever locations you plan to use this.
That might seem like a "But everyone wants light!" thing, but actually the entire concept of lighting an area is something that has a lot of aesthetic complications attached to it that also have to be worked around. Yes, you want light, but you want it from a particular direction, you want it at a particular level, you typically want to be able to turn off some lights at certain times of day and night and turn on other lights.
The entire advantage of radio is that it's invisible and doesn't otherwise impact a human being. Because it's invisible you can make it as strong as you need it and make it ubiquitous.
It's actually relatively easy to do these days if someone wants to with very little liability. You can use Google Talk to make outgoing calls, and you can configure an Asterisk server to use that with an appropriate phone jack to SIP adapter. The only potential issue is a lack of a 911 service, you'd have to figure out what you'd want it to do under such circumstances.
The question is why put yourself through all the hassle. A payphone might be a nice source of income (that would be an incentive) but do you really want people hanging around outside your home like that?
I fail to see why that would justify differing treatment.
Because they're different things. One, for example, has the provider incurring more costs if the service is used more by less people. The other, for example, has the provider incurring no additional costs if the product is used more by less people.
At the heart of this is the concept of "difference". When two things are different, that is, not the same in any way, and have little in common, then frequently other things are different about them too. As an example, a motor car becomes more reliable if you add motor oil, however if I wear a T-shirt, I can't use motor oil to make that T-shirt more reliable, because a T-shirt and a car, something for which motor oil does improve reliability, are different things. Indeed, pouring motor oil into a T-shirt would probably make it less reliable, causing it to fail much earlier than it would otherwise.
This concept of "difference" is quite extraordinary and eye opening. I, for example, can post comments for free to Slashdot, yet if I want a full page ad in the New York Times, I have to pay them money. Why? Because these things are different. A website incurs little in the way of costs if I post a comment and can use advertising to cover those costs, while the New York Times would quickly become unwieldy and prohibitively expensive to make if they published everything anyone wanted them to publish. Again, this is an example of "difference".
Now, in some cases, doing the same thing to two different things might have the same affect, but in order for this to happen, one or more of the following conditions must be met:
Either:
- The two things must be sufficiently similar (that is, not different) in one or more particularly relevent aspects, relevent to the thing being done, for the thing being done to have the same effect
or
- By co-incidence and happy chance, the two things may be affected the same way.
As an example of the former, a choo-choo train and a car both will accept motor oil, and their performance and reliability will improve, because they're both mechanical objects containing metal objects that slide against one another. As an example of the latter, the creator of a piece of music may impose conditions upon someone buying an MP3 from them just as an Internet provider might impose conditions of usage of the Internet connection they provide, but for different reasons that are merely co-incident.
I hope you find this enlightening and it helps you understand why a service and a physical product cannot generally be treated as similar when determining whether the provider of that service is within his or her rights to
Either your baby took it very well, or he or she is abnormally hysterical all the time and you should probably see a doctor. Or there's a real empathy problem on your part - I hope that's not the case.
My baby does not cry all the time. When she does, there's a world of difference between the "I'm hungry/sleepy/etc" cry, and the "I'm in abnormal pain" cry. The latter happens extremely rarely, is accompanied by real tears, by the baby going red, and with her being virtually inconsolable. One of the very, very, few times we've seen it is when the nurse jabs her with needles.
Love the response though, if you didn't outright claim otherwise I'd assume you weren't a parent. Virtually every parent I've met face to face and talked to about this has reported exactly the same experience, both in terms of understanding and seeing the difference between the "Want something" cry and "Please make it stop" cry, and the reaction an empathatic parent has to that crying.
Possibly, depends on whether their home country gave them a grant or not.
But, in any case, in most countries it's common practice for citizens to pay, grant/etc subsidized or not, a reduced, possibly subsidized rate for education, and for foreigners to be charged a much, much, higher rate that the institution makes an actual profit on. That appears to be the case in the US.
The fees foreign students pay subsidize education for Americans. They reduce the amount of money needed by taxpayers to pay to Universities to ensure those Universities can cover their costs. It's a win-win.
Genuine question but isn't Tor a two way deal? You have to provide outgoing connections for other Tor users if you want to use their outgoing connections?
If so, how does it help you if you merely swap one set of strangers using your IP address to conduct business with another group?
The proposers appear to have completely missed a few things:
- Ubiquitous 3G, available to all, even those on prepaid plans, makes this completely unnecessary.
- Traffic caps
- Shared bandwidth = less bandwidth for subscriber
- Freeloaders = less people actually paying for infrastructure = more expensive for those paying
- Security issues as partitioning off home network requires a certain amount of expertise
- Liability issues
This proposal may have made sense in 1993, when a high bandwidth connection to the Internet cost hundreds, or maybe thousands, of dollars a month, and Internet over cellular meant using a 300bps modem. But today?
I'm wondering when we use the term "shots" if we're confusing vaccines with needle stabs? I know my baby didn't get six stabs at 2 mos, I'd have remembered that, but I also know that some stabs combine multiple vaccines.
IIRC it was three stabs, plus something taken orally.
Slashdot Mirror
With respect, I don't think the summary gave anything like enough information to tell us what's going on, not even enough to make an analogy.
What if it's not like any of this? What if it's like Linus writing the author of "APK tools for Lunix!" telling him to change his code to stop directly writing to the /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow files because he's bypassing the APIs and screwing up a lot of people's non-trivial PAM-configured systems?
There's pretty much no context given in the summary. Someone wrote someone else a letter asking them to refrain from doing something. We don't know what. We don't know why. We don't know if it was a technical or legal matter. We don't have any information to go on at all.
As long as it's not " <?=$my_favorite_language?> instead of <?=$language_i_dont_like?> "...
That's great in cloud cookoo Libertarand land, but in the real world, we live in a connected world. Things affect me that happen way out of my sphere of responsibility.
If I'm on a desert island, yeah, I'm responsible for most of what goes wrong (weather, etc, excepting.) But here?
- I can make a bad decision, and destroy my means of support.
- My boss can make a bad decision, and destroy my means of support.
- My employer as a whole can make a bad decision, and destroy my means of support.
- My employer's bank can make a bad decision, and destroy my means of support.
- The bank used by a major customer of my employer can make a bad decision, and destroy my means of support.
- The bank used by 10% of the customers of my employer can make a bad decision, and destroy my means of support
We try to regulate banks and businesses so that doesn't happen. Likewise we also regulate driving. Just because you drank the beer doesn't mean it'll be you that's hit by your SUV.
Well apparently Obamacare counts as one because the LOOK OVER THERE! PRETTY COLORS!
Massive interstate banks don't affect interstate commerce? Really?
BTW, you might want to look up the history of corporations. For all intents and purposes, what we call "corporations" today originated, as an entity, in the early 1800s, with the railroads pioneering the concept. Before that, very, very, few businesses of any size existed that weren't essentially part of the government. This helps explain, for example, why the framers thought it would be a good idea to have the government run a post office, an oddly specific activity to have spelled out in the constitution of a government.
So, no, the framers probably didn't consider the issue of whether corporations, be they banks or anything else, should be bailed out. But they did consider that the government should have some flexibility to prevent disaster (the common welfare) and they also thought the Feds should regulate interstate commerce.
Moreover, it didn't resemble anything Keynes said or did. I swear half the right think the term is synonymous with the bastardized American definition of "socialism".
You're missing the point.
JavaScript is immensely popular. It doesn't matter whether it's popular because the government has a group of hitmen out roaming the country shooting at anyone who programs in anything else (in PHP's case, of course, this would be a mercy killing), or because it's all unicorns and rainbows and JS is the bestest language there ever was.
Although, personally, and this is my personal opinion, I think it's pretty nice.
But anyway, the point is it's immensely popular. People know it. And the plethora of apps written in JS means that it's capable of being used to develop apps. (Oh, and BTW, as someone who's had to write that kind of thing, I can tell you that while I cursed a lot doing this kind of development, the language was never the problem. DOM, HTML, and inconsistent ways to access the native wrapper, yes. Language. No.)
If this were 1982, GNOME would be absolutely 100% right in picking Microsoft BASIC (no, not VB, I mean the:
type of BASIC), but it isn't, it's 2013, and the most popular scripting language on Earth is JavaScript.
Awesome, sexy, JavaScript.
Delicious, yummy, JavaScript.
It uses curly braces. Like God intended.
And it's a good modern programming language. And best of all, you already know it.
You know, Javascript is an excellent language, both for its power and its familiarity, but I have to say part of me wishes, after reading this thread and seeing how "not picking Python" has really riled up half of Slashdot, they'd picked PHP instead, just to really piss everyone off.
I wish it was Java. Java's the one that has an absolutely huge library... that turns out to actually be the same damned class implemented 200 different ways.
Because I want to open an TextReader of a Reader of a FileInputStream of an InputStream of a file of a...
Because nobody has ever used it, and hardly anyone has ever heard of it.
Javascript is the most ubiquitous scripting language on the planet. There are implementations for virtually every platform. It's fast, modern, and it uses curly braces. And virtually anyone who's ever done any programming outside of Excel macrowriting has encountered it. It's the number one language used for cross platform mobile apps. It's a first class language for Windows 8 development.
While today's story is full of whiners who think that their favorite language should have been picked, the fact is that on every objective level, by every objective criteria, the GNOME people could not have made a more sane and level headed decision.
It's very popular on the mobile side, and it's a tribute to Javascript's power, ease of use, and flexibility that people use it despite usually being required to use it in a sandbox where all user interaction has to be written in HTML and accessed via the DOM, two of the most ugly technologies ever designed.
Python... heh. COBOL meets perl, they have a baby, BOOM, Python. Awesome. You were joking right? Isn't the selling point of Python that it has so many libraries and so much stuff in them you don't even need to do any programming?
If only they'd picked ${my favorite language} instead of ${language I don't like} - all of Slashdot.
I don't know, but I'm always amazed that the ancient Romans insisted on building their villas below 20th Century office blocks. I mean, what gives?
Keynesianism is barely being used anywhere at the moment. We're in the middle of a major recession and most countries are cutting back spending. Some are even deciding that now is the right time to pay back their debts.
In addition, Keynesianism is both a set of prescriptions and a general model for how the economy should behave. In the latter case, the model has, actually, done an astonishingly good job of predicting the behavior of the economy during this recession.
Many Slashdotters are giving advice of varying usefulness, but I suspect this isn't helpful, unfortunately.
GPRS was added to the GSM standard in the late nineties, it wasn't part of the original system. GSM's original data method was CSD, which was simply a way to make a data call instead of a voice call.
GPRS also doesn't constitute a way to mix voice and data. You can't make voice calls at the same time as using GPRS data. In fact, short of using VoIP (barely possible using EDGE, and close to impossible with GPRS), there's no way to combine the two for pre-3G GSM standards (the ability to make a call and use data at the same time is present in UMTS.)
And further, "mixing voice and data" is not, by itself, patentable. The patent will cover one particular way of mixing the two. Whether it applies to Wifi is questionable given what little I've read on it, but simply looking for cases where people were using voice and data over a single channel prior to 1993 isn't the same thing as looking for prior art to invalidate this particular method. MP3's patents are pretty solid, but there have been plenty of ways of encoding audio digitally prior to the MP3 patents being filed.
Now you're giving me an idea: some major Naval battle "simulator", where you spend the first three weeks swabbing the decks of the battleship, peeling potatoes, laundy, making your bunk bed...
I had a smartphone when Nokia had a monopoly on them. Even the almighty Ericsson wasn't able to make headway, albeit into what was a very small market. Palm then did relatively well, before doing its usual disappearing act, and then RIM took over.
The difference between then and now, of course, is that Smartphones are now a big thing, rather than something nerds appreciate (while being bizarrely ignored by the marketing geniuses at Nokia et al who insisted that only business people on the go would want these kinds of devices. No wonder they never went mainstream.)
The simple truth is we have Apple who popularized the concept, largely by concentrating on making the UI touch, rather than stylus or keyboard, friendly, and Google, who produced the first genuinely open mobile platform. While these are both awesome, the only degree to which people are tied to either platform beyond loyalty and brand recognition are apps, and given the numbers of people who do, indeed, switch back and forth from iOS to Android, I don't think it's the case that the app issue is that significant.
Sometime to look at, as an example, is Amazon's Android. For developers, it's the same operating system as Google's version. For end users though, it might as well be an entirely different system. Your collection of Google Play software just isn't going to run on it. And yet it's popular.
If Amazon can do that, then there's little reason to suppose that another company can't do the same thing. The major issue is that the companies that have, thus far, don't seem to be very good at it, and perhaps even are hampered by a very poor image. Blackberrys are what people used to use. Windows is that unreliable piece of crap we swear at every day. HP? Same problem. Nokia had a chance, as a very popular maker of phones that were even once admired for their design and innovation (OK, that was about 10-15 years ago) but bizarrely switched to Windows at precisely the point they had an OS ready to go.
So yes, there's an opening. The question is whether someone will bother to produce something sufficiently decent that phone makers will be willing to adopt. I haven't seen that yet.
It also requires that you actually want a light in whatever locations you plan to use this.
That might seem like a "But everyone wants light!" thing, but actually the entire concept of lighting an area is something that has a lot of aesthetic complications attached to it that also have to be worked around. Yes, you want light, but you want it from a particular direction, you want it at a particular level, you typically want to be able to turn off some lights at certain times of day and night and turn on other lights.
The entire advantage of radio is that it's invisible and doesn't otherwise impact a human being. Because it's invisible you can make it as strong as you need it and make it ubiquitous.
It's actually relatively easy to do these days if someone wants to with very little liability. You can use Google Talk to make outgoing calls, and you can configure an Asterisk server to use that with an appropriate phone jack to SIP adapter. The only potential issue is a lack of a 911 service, you'd have to figure out what you'd want it to do under such circumstances.
The question is why put yourself through all the hassle. A payphone might be a nice source of income (that would be an incentive) but do you really want people hanging around outside your home like that?
Because they're different things. One, for example, has the provider incurring more costs if the service is used more by less people. The other, for example, has the provider incurring no additional costs if the product is used more by less people.
At the heart of this is the concept of "difference". When two things are different, that is, not the same in any way, and have little in common, then frequently other things are different about them too. As an example, a motor car becomes more reliable if you add motor oil, however if I wear a T-shirt, I can't use motor oil to make that T-shirt more reliable, because a T-shirt and a car, something for which motor oil does improve reliability, are different things. Indeed, pouring motor oil into a T-shirt would probably make it less reliable, causing it to fail much earlier than it would otherwise.
This concept of "difference" is quite extraordinary and eye opening. I, for example, can post comments for free to Slashdot, yet if I want a full page ad in the New York Times, I have to pay them money. Why? Because these things are different. A website incurs little in the way of costs if I post a comment and can use advertising to cover those costs, while the New York Times would quickly become unwieldy and prohibitively expensive to make if they published everything anyone wanted them to publish. Again, this is an example of "difference".
Now, in some cases, doing the same thing to two different things might have the same affect, but in order for this to happen, one or more of the following conditions must be met:
Either:
- The two things must be sufficiently similar (that is, not different) in one or more particularly relevent aspects, relevent to the thing being done, for the thing being done to have the same effect
or - By co-incidence and happy chance, the two things may be affected the same way.
As an example of the former, a choo-choo train and a car both will accept motor oil, and their performance and reliability will improve, because they're both mechanical objects containing metal objects that slide against one another. As an example of the latter, the creator of a piece of music may impose conditions upon someone buying an MP3 from them just as an Internet provider might impose conditions of usage of the Internet connection they provide, but for different reasons that are merely co-incident.
I hope you find this enlightening and it helps you understand why a service and a physical product cannot generally be treated as similar when determining whether the provider of that service is within his or her rights to
Either your baby took it very well, or he or she is abnormally hysterical all the time and you should probably see a doctor. Or there's a real empathy problem on your part - I hope that's not the case.
My baby does not cry all the time. When she does, there's a world of difference between the "I'm hungry/sleepy/etc" cry, and the "I'm in abnormal pain" cry. The latter happens extremely rarely, is accompanied by real tears, by the baby going red, and with her being virtually inconsolable. One of the very, very, few times we've seen it is when the nurse jabs her with needles.
Love the response though, if you didn't outright claim otherwise I'd assume you weren't a parent. Virtually every parent I've met face to face and talked to about this has reported exactly the same experience, both in terms of understanding and seeing the difference between the "Want something" cry and "Please make it stop" cry, and the reaction an empathatic parent has to that crying.
Possibly, depends on whether their home country gave them a grant or not.
But, in any case, in most countries it's common practice for citizens to pay, grant/etc subsidized or not, a reduced, possibly subsidized rate for education, and for foreigners to be charged a much, much, higher rate that the institution makes an actual profit on. That appears to be the case in the US.
The fees foreign students pay subsidize education for Americans. They reduce the amount of money needed by taxpayers to pay to Universities to ensure those Universities can cover their costs. It's a win-win.
Genuine question but isn't Tor a two way deal? You have to provide outgoing connections for other Tor users if you want to use their outgoing connections?
If so, how does it help you if you merely swap one set of strangers using your IP address to conduct business with another group?
The proposers appear to have completely missed a few things:
- Ubiquitous 3G, available to all, even those on prepaid plans, makes this completely unnecessary.
- Traffic caps
- Shared bandwidth = less bandwidth for subscriber
- Freeloaders = less people actually paying for infrastructure = more expensive for those paying
- Security issues as partitioning off home network requires a certain amount of expertise
- Liability issues
This proposal may have made sense in 1993, when a high bandwidth connection to the Internet cost hundreds, or maybe thousands, of dollars a month, and Internet over cellular meant using a 300bps modem. But today?
I'm wondering when we use the term "shots" if we're confusing vaccines with needle stabs? I know my baby didn't get six stabs at 2 mos, I'd have remembered that, but I also know that some stabs combine multiple vaccines.
IIRC it was three stabs, plus something taken orally.