>Or maybe: some people sometimes say dumb-ass things? You know, like the guy that the Democrats chose to be their presidential candidate implying that only dumb people become soldiers, and taking two days to find a way to spin an apology?
Kerry's statement was not thoughtful nor thought-out. However, it's a false argument to state that he implied that *only* dumb people become soldiers. What he said: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
This statement does imply that he believes that if you don't apply yourself and don't finish school that you may find military service a more attractive career move than if you did. This doesn't logically exclude that people making this choice aren't also weighing other factors, like patriotism or interest in doing good, in their decision. Nor does it suggest that people with education don't also choose the military.
His statement does come close to touching on some issues that are generally believed to be true, but for some reason nobody will dare say them out loud. The less education someone has, the more likely they will find military service as an attractive career opportunity. There are/were plenty of people in the reserves, if not in the active military, that saw service as a way of bettering themselves, paying for education, learning trade skills, traveling, and possibly helping others, that never thought there was a chance that they would get sent to a WWII-length repeat committment to a real hell-hole. Neither of these statements need diminish anyone's choice for joining the armed forces. This logic is the path to Kerry warning students to apply themselves so that they don't limit their choices in the future, now that we live in a reality where military service appears to be more life-threatening than it was 15 years ago. Does anyone doubt that armed forces recruitment is down?
I am not a downloader. But, it used to be you could hear something on the radio that interested you enough that you'd take the gamble buying the CD in hopes of discovering more songs that you'd like. What has changed is that the consumer is finding better bets than buying the CD. If you make the would-be consumer spend more of their own time and energy finding the songs they like (through active Internet activity and downloading) then this might lead to a sense of entitlement once the songs are aquired. I'm not saying it is a tenable position, but the previous habit of plunking down money for the CD was partially paying for the consumer's trading of their time for discovery.
Well, the way people are exposed to music has changed during the time period in question. Consolidation in the radio industry has led to terrible choice for the consumer. The perceived suckage isn't so much that good music isn't getting made, but it's harder for the non-aficionado to discover the signal in all that noise.
So, now we have the Internet to discover the good stuff, along with satellite radio. The Internet user downloads what he discovers at time of discovery, so no need to purchase a CD. I think the average satellite subscriber probably does buy CDs based on what they hear. However, when you have channels giving you the variety that you crave and you are already paying for it, why would you need to recreate that library when you are paying to have it on tap?
So, we have driven the discriminating listener to actively pursue their musical interests, which is probably lowering the frequency that they bother to explore, and they are possibly already paying for that privilege. All of this leads to decreased likelihood of follow-on CD sales.
The notion that an album needs to exist as a whole seems to be a casualty of this change as well.
Has there ever been a successful exploitation of a buffer overflow demonstrated on a PPC Mac? I know it's theoretically possible, but difficult. I do not believe it has ever happened -- as in it's really hard.
>Okay, wise guy. Just relax and take it easy. Paramount is not "raping your childhood", or even improving the effects. (Much.) All they're doing is resampling the film for HD broadcasts. Unfortunately, a lot of the effects shots and audio will stand out as REALLY bad in High Definition, so they're recreating much of it.
All I want to know is, will Mariett Hartley get two belly buttons?
>This effect - if it exists at all on such a scale, which I doubt (any references?) - could be easily mitigated by longer delay between keepalive messages.
Empirically I would expect increased needs for neartime delivery of information to have an effect near the consumer end of the tubes, where oversubsription is the norm and so far, seemingly necessarilly so. When it becomes common that the customer expects 32 kbps - 64kbs lag-less (VOIP realtime and one or two other neartime apps) one could predict that it will present a problem on even lightly loaded pipes (analyzed from a bursty model). Yeah, there are ways to deal with it, but they are not perfect, and I would expect voice degradation and lagging apps. It's not clear to me that end-to-end solutions are going to work on public networks because priority queuing would be gamed.
Back in the day when I flew in a MMOG called Air Warrior, we called people with realtime packet delivery problems "warpers" because once packets caught up after a delay their plane would defy physics briefly (usually when you were just about to blow them out of the sky). Yes, this was in the age of modems, but the bandwidth requirements were miniscule (but the temporal needs were not).
>A laggy end user experience with a VNC-like remote UI... ok, that's a valid point. But of course, it does not need to be solely pixel based and it does not need to transfer every mouse click.
Yeah, that would be the extreme example. But is responsive apps with dynamic content updating from a distant host not a logical conclusion for where this is all headed? Maybe that's Web 2.5 or Web 3.0.
>I just think that some simple, low bandwidth standard for 'fullscreen remote applications' would be a better idea than the extension of HTTP+HTML with a lot of heavy APIs and many layers of software.
Makes sense. Twas just trying to point out that getting away from HTTP doesn't necessarily solve the neartime delivery issue.
>There are cross-platform thin-client network solutions like VNC or Nomachine's NX.
It's a blessing and a curse that http connections are mostly ephemoral. Web 1.0 applications have built-in assumptions that the user at the other end can go away without so much as a by-your-leave. Just ask a terminal service or Citrix admin if s/he wants to see Web 2.0 implemented on persistent TCP connections. Yes, you can resume a disconnected session, but this raises the compentency requirement of the user. Also, it doesn't matter that VNC-like connections can run in small amounts of bandwidth, it's the consistent need for bandwidth that is the problem. When you introduce a certain amount of low bandwidth, low latency traffic (VOIP and terminal service traffic are similar in this regard) on the peaky Internets, you get a shaping and priority problem that requires some sort of end-to-end solution that we don't have today outside of institional will.
Like the noun fish. The plural of fish is fish. Yet there are many kinds of fishes.
If little Timmy took all the fish out of the tank and had them flopping around on the floor, you could exclaim, "put the fish back into the tank!" If it was a community tank that was disturbed, you could also calmly order Timmy to "put those fishes back into the tank."
No fish were imaginarily harmed when writing this.
"That's just it, the application is still "local" in the "AJAX Office" world, and the data is still "somewhere else." The whole point of AJAX is to pawn off a lot of work to the client. By the time you're done downloading all the javascript, HTML, and CSS to run the behemoth, you're no better off than you were when you were running the application from teh "Start" menu of your operating system. And in many ways you are worse off because now you have network dependencies. No offline work. Why add network dependencies to something that isn't essentially network oriented? Not to mention the fact that there is currently no good way to build a robust application such as an Office suite inside a browser. Whatever technology you are talking about just doesn't exist."
Is current-day Web mail a "local" application or a server application? It's server-based. When you put an Ajax face on it, you get a more responsive, "local feeling" application, but it is still a server application. Do the same thing with the office suite.
"Who needs to use an office suite "from anywhere?" Do you find yourself in Internet cafes just dying to open up Excel so you can go over your employer's sales figures? Guess what? The kind of people who need to do this sort of thing already have laptops with MS Office installed. And If, for some reason, they can't afford MS Office, there is OpenOffice."
Network based applications are locally connected to the data the user needs. Therefore the user doesn't have to access the data over "slow links", suffer latency issues, or even need a conventional VPN to reach the data. No need to deal with check-out/check-in, or the need to remember to check out before you left the office. It means that even when you are in the office (and not traveling) you can be accessing the same data as someone in another part of the world -- the same solution that terminal services provide (or problematic syncing/caching/distributed file systems almost solve). Also like terminal services, you can return to the state you left the application in when you were last connected to The Network.
It may be the stuff of the future, but it does solve some problems eloquently. Having the application locally and the data somewhere else is just so old. Terminal service like feature set without vendor lock-in, to applications that small companies can tailor for themselves, and also hand off all the back-end administration of backup, archive, redundancy, and availability... Sounds like a business plan.
You make good points. There have been, and there are likely to be collateral benefits in future space research. These alone are poor reasons to do space research, but they do serve to offset the costs. Collateral benefits do need to be on the table when discussing any expensive endeavor. You are coorect in that they shouldn't be the primary argument.
Governments can fund projects that aren't cost justified. Some would argue that this occurs daily.
I agree with gr8_phk here, one cannot look at the level 7 and above stuff here, because no carrier knows the endpoints of that stuff "really" even when you throw out all the NAT and SSH technical issues. (Hell, I've printed out email only to fax it to the recipient the sender was trying to reach!) One can only reasonably look at the proposed legislation at the network level, NAT does not in any way obfuscate what the endpoints are on the carrier's network. Neither does SSH tunneling or VPNs or firewalls. However, forging source addresses seems to be caught in this trap. I got no problem with that!
Slashdot Mirror
I'll admit I was thnking of "schadenfreude".
It will keep me from dwelling on my problem projects for short awhile.
Why stop at contacts; let's see all subscribers on a map!
"I solemnly swear that I am up to no good."
>Or maybe: some people sometimes say dumb-ass things? You know, like the guy that the Democrats chose to be their presidential candidate implying that only dumb people become soldiers, and taking two days to find a way to spin an apology?
Kerry's statement was not thoughtful nor thought-out. However, it's a false argument to state that he implied that *only* dumb people become soldiers. What he said:
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
This statement does imply that he believes that if you don't apply yourself and don't finish school that you may find military service a more attractive career move than if you did. This doesn't logically exclude that people making this choice aren't also weighing other factors, like patriotism or interest in doing good, in their decision. Nor does it suggest that people with education don't also choose the military.
His statement does come close to touching on some issues that are generally believed to be true, but for some reason nobody will dare say them out loud. The less education someone has, the more likely they will find military service as an attractive career opportunity. There are/were plenty of people in the reserves, if not in the active military, that saw service as a way of bettering themselves, paying for education, learning trade skills, traveling, and possibly helping others, that never thought there was a chance that they would get sent to a WWII-length repeat committment to a real hell-hole. Neither of these statements need diminish anyone's choice for joining the armed forces. This logic is the path to Kerry warning students to apply themselves so that they don't limit their choices in the future, now that we live in a reality where military service appears to be more life-threatening than it was 15 years ago. Does anyone doubt that armed forces recruitment is down?
[I thought your flame-bait mod was unfair.]
I am not a downloader. But, it used to be you could hear something on the radio that interested you enough that you'd take the gamble buying the CD in hopes of discovering more songs that you'd like. What has changed is that the consumer is finding better bets than buying the CD. If you make the would-be consumer spend more of their own time and energy finding the songs they like (through active Internet activity and downloading) then this might lead to a sense of entitlement once the songs are aquired. I'm not saying it is a tenable position, but the previous habit of plunking down money for the CD was partially paying for the consumer's trading of their time for discovery.
Well, the way people are exposed to music has changed during the time period in question. Consolidation in the radio industry has led to terrible choice for the consumer. The perceived suckage isn't so much that good music isn't getting made, but it's harder for the non-aficionado to discover the signal in all that noise.
So, now we have the Internet to discover the good stuff, along with satellite radio. The Internet user downloads what he discovers at time of discovery, so no need to purchase a CD. I think the average satellite subscriber probably does buy CDs based on what they hear. However, when you have channels giving you the variety that you crave and you are already paying for it, why would you need to recreate that library when you are paying to have it on tap?
So, we have driven the discriminating listener to actively pursue their musical interests, which is probably lowering the frequency that they bother to explore, and they are possibly already paying for that privilege. All of this leads to decreased likelihood of follow-on CD sales.
The notion that an album needs to exist as a whole seems to be a casualty of this change as well.
>There is no known exploit for this issue.
Has there ever been a successful exploitation of a buffer overflow demonstrated on a PPC Mac? I know it's theoretically possible, but difficult. I do not believe it has ever happened -- as in it's really hard.
>Okay, wise guy. Just relax and take it easy. Paramount is not "raping your childhood", or even improving the effects. (Much.) All they're doing is resampling the film for HD broadcasts. Unfortunately, a lot of the effects shots and audio will stand out as REALLY bad in High Definition, so they're recreating much of it.
All I want to know is, will Mariett Hartley get two belly buttons?
>This effect - if it exists at all on such a scale, which I doubt (any references?) - could be easily mitigated by longer delay between keepalive messages.
Empirically I would expect increased needs for neartime delivery of information to have an effect near the consumer end of the tubes, where oversubsription is the norm and so far, seemingly necessarilly so. When it becomes common that the customer expects 32 kbps - 64kbs lag-less (VOIP realtime and one or two other neartime apps) one could predict that it will present a problem on even lightly loaded pipes (analyzed from a bursty model). Yeah, there are ways to deal with it, but they are not perfect, and I would expect voice degradation and lagging apps. It's not clear to me that end-to-end solutions are going to work on public networks because priority queuing would be gamed.
Back in the day when I flew in a MMOG called Air Warrior, we called people with realtime packet delivery problems "warpers" because once packets caught up after a delay their plane would defy physics briefly (usually when you were just about to blow them out of the sky). Yes, this was in the age of modems, but the bandwidth requirements were miniscule (but the temporal needs were not).
>A laggy end user experience with a VNC-like remote UI... ok, that's a valid point. But of course, it does not need to be solely pixel based and it does not need to transfer every mouse click.
Yeah, that would be the extreme example. But is responsive apps with dynamic content updating from a distant host not a logical conclusion for where this is all headed? Maybe that's Web 2.5 or Web 3.0.
>I just think that some simple, low bandwidth standard for 'fullscreen remote applications' would be a better idea than the extension of HTTP+HTML with a lot of heavy APIs and many layers of software.
Makes sense. Twas just trying to point out that getting away from HTTP doesn't necessarily solve the neartime delivery issue.
>There are cross-platform thin-client network solutions like VNC or Nomachine's NX.
It's a blessing and a curse that http connections are mostly ephemoral. Web 1.0 applications have built-in assumptions that the user at the other end can go away without so much as a by-your-leave. Just ask a terminal service or Citrix admin if s/he wants to see Web 2.0 implemented on persistent TCP connections. Yes, you can resume a disconnected session, but this raises the compentency requirement of the user. Also, it doesn't matter that VNC-like connections can run in small amounts of bandwidth, it's the consistent need for bandwidth that is the problem. When you introduce a certain amount of low bandwidth, low latency traffic (VOIP and terminal service traffic are similar in this regard) on the peaky Internets, you get a shaping and priority problem that requires some sort of end-to-end solution that we don't have today outside of institional will.
>I'm sure a lot of people are concerned about this being the next "atomic bomb" technology. Where we "drop" black holes on enemies.
Nah, Wile E. Coyote couldn't catch Roadrunner with them, so I doubt that they'd make effective weapons.
I tried to join the Lifeboat Foundation's black hole list but none of the messages got through...
A US Presidential candidate insults one by calling it by the genus name of the other.
Like the noun fish. The plural of fish is fish. Yet there are many kinds of fishes.
If little Timmy took all the fish out of the tank and had them flopping around on the floor, you could exclaim, "put the fish back into the tank!" If it was a community tank that was disturbed, you could also calmly order Timmy to "put those fishes back into the tank."
No fish were imaginarily harmed when writing this.
It's a sure sine that you are reading Slashdot when the offtopic tangent is geometry puns.
No, but "Snape's on a plane" is. http://www.savagechickens.com/blog/2006/07/long-fl ight.html
Alexis de Tocqueville
http://www.tocqueville.org/chap1.htm
"That's just it, the application is still "local" in the "AJAX Office" world, and the data is still "somewhere else." The whole point of AJAX is to pawn off a lot of work to the client. By the time you're done downloading all the javascript, HTML, and CSS to run the behemoth, you're no better off than you were when you were running the application from teh "Start" menu of your operating system. And in many ways you are worse off because now you have network dependencies. No offline work. Why add network dependencies to something that isn't essentially network oriented? Not to mention the fact that there is currently no good way to build a robust application such as an Office suite inside a browser. Whatever technology you are talking about just doesn't exist."
Is current-day Web mail a "local" application or a server application? It's server-based. When you put an Ajax face on it, you get a more responsive, "local feeling" application, but it is still a server application. Do the same thing with the office suite.
-Bull SR
"Who needs to use an office suite "from anywhere?" Do you find yourself in Internet cafes just dying to open up Excel so you can go over your employer's sales figures? Guess what? The kind of people who need to do this sort of thing already have laptops with MS Office installed. And If, for some reason, they can't afford MS Office, there is OpenOffice."
Network based applications are locally connected to the data the user needs. Therefore the user doesn't have to access the data over "slow links", suffer latency issues, or even need a conventional VPN to reach the data. No need to deal with check-out/check-in, or the need to remember to check out before you left the office. It means that even when you are in the office (and not traveling) you can be accessing the same data as someone in another part of the world -- the same solution that terminal services provide (or problematic syncing/caching/distributed file systems almost solve). Also like terminal services, you can return to the state you left the application in when you were last connected to The Network.
It may be the stuff of the future, but it does solve some problems eloquently. Having the application locally and the data somewhere else is just so old. Terminal service like feature set without vendor lock-in, to applications that small companies can tailor for themselves, and also hand off all the back-end administration of backup, archive, redundancy, and availability... Sounds like a business plan.
-Bull
You make good points. There have been, and there are likely to be collateral benefits in future space research. These alone are poor reasons to do space research, but they do serve to offset the costs. Collateral benefits do need to be on the table when discussing any expensive endeavor. You are coorect in that they shouldn't be the primary argument.
Governments can fund projects that aren't cost justified. Some would argue that this occurs daily.
I agree with gr8_phk here, one cannot look at the level 7 and above stuff here, because no carrier knows the endpoints of that stuff "really" even when you throw out all the NAT and SSH technical issues. (Hell, I've printed out email only to fax it to the recipient the sender was trying to reach!) One can only reasonably look at the proposed legislation at the network level, NAT does not in any way obfuscate what the endpoints are on the carrier's network. Neither does SSH tunneling or VPNs or firewalls. However, forging source addresses seems to be caught in this trap. I got no problem with that!