Small Towns, and Yes I've Heard of Glasgow
on
Broadband Obstacles
·
· Score: 1
Yes, small towns seem to be doing much better at broadband than most, which is rather ironic but not too wild of a turnout. Where I'm at is really not that small of a town, but it's small enough. We had TCI, bought by AT&T, which was @Home, and now ATTBI. A while before this whole mess, a local company in the next town over called TC3net started offering DSL. And I'm not sure about ISDN or DSL from the local telco, but I'm sure if it's not here, it will be soon.
And yes, I have heard of Glasgow, even before we decided to move to KY, then again...I have Scottish ancestors, go figure. (-: Anyway, we're moving to Morton's Gap in 5mo or so, looking for broadband providers and such. We're considering DSL given hassles we've had with cable (not the medium itself, but the company fools ruling over it).
That's one problem with various broadband providers, they feel the need to shtick the customer with whatever they can't (or won't) handle, just because they all feel like being lazy. The economy sucks right now, and people are this lazy...gee, I wonder why the economy sucks so much. Everyone and their boss is sleeping their asses off and we wonder why the economy sucks.
It's really affected the broadband community way before anything happened. People were lazy, people were stupid, and those people were hired to do technical jobs. And tech support, oh your god tech support people are amazingly unamazing. No one bothers to read or listen these days to anyone, and insist that someone else is responsible. I imagine most people have heard about the nightmarrish tech support stories and such, and I don't blame them if that's why they're still on dial-up.
DU is simple, and easy to use. Phone number, phone line. That's all there is to it; nothing else has to be setup by the consumer. Many cable companies have tried to emulate this behavior and have failed miserably.
Rates are indeed insane elsewhere. Here, being a not so small town, it's $40/mo for 1.5mb down, 128kb up. The speed is reasonable, but not for the price. And ATTBI uses the excuse that they don't want to overload their network. Yeah, right; and I'm an idiot. Cable can withstand much more (ab)use than dial-up networks, provided you manage them decently. Of course, stupid people are still in America's workforce; whatcha gonna do?
Now this is something I take very seriously. Liability has gotten in the way too many times. @Home has no liability. It does, however, have a responsibility toward its userbase. Users of @Home doing such illegal activies have, no doubt, been taken care of since the ISP came into existance.
So why is this such a big deal now? The cable ISP has absolutely no responsibility for what someone else posts, whether or not they impose some sort of editorial actions on their own users or not. In fact, those "editorial actions" everyone is referring to are not true editorial actions. Yes, @Home can pick and choose which newsgroups they want to host and which ones they don't. Now, if an ISP's users detest to choices made, then the ISP better recognize that or they will loose users. This is one of the foundations of our economy. An ISP should have set policies for handling this type of situation. @Home has such a policy. Its users are prohibited from illegal activity according to the @Home AUP. Why is @Home getting so much criticism for following their policies?
And, if I recall correctly, the DMCA was more for "circumvention devices" and other infringement techniques. Relaying messages posted by other people on USENET is not an infringement technique, it is common courtesy provided it is within the charter (if there is one) of the newsgroup.
An ISP should not be responsible for content posted that is beyond their control. An ISP should, at most, be responsible for the actions of their own users, not of users from other ISPs. There is already a hierarchy of responsibility within the law, and there has always been such a hierarchy amongst our society. The hierarchy worked fine then, and it is certainly the correct approach now. It may not work well given the lightning fast technologies we have today, but sometimes a goverment must make sacrifices for the private sector. Certainly, the private sector should sacrifice for the government, unless the leading body of the government requests it (in the USA, that would be the people).
The majority of people I know who understand it are against the DMCA. Some of congress is against it, too. Why are we sitting here dead in the water? We have plenty of feul; start the fucking engine already. If you're going to complain, the least you could do is complain to the right people and actually do something.
The market will reward and/or punish their actions accordingly.
No it won't; people who use cable internet don't go only to view porn, they go online to add to their pr0n collection. It doesn't matter, now, everything's already been leached.
You know I have an idea. I wonder if we can give Microsoft the death penalty and break them up. After all they murdered other people like Mr. Netscape, and Mr. Wordperfect.
That's an absolutely wonderful idea; I was thinking the same thing.
I'm sorry, but a company has absolutely no right whatsoever to contact me unless I say so. The same goes for any human being, and this has been through legalise too; phone harassament for instance. If I were called, and I don't want to be called by a specific individual, regardless, that is my complete right. The same should be (and to me, is) true about a company, if not moreso. A company is not entitled to the rights of any natural person.
Opting-out, however, is a real problem. Personally, I believe opting-out should be the way, but it has been far too abused by companies and individuals. Opting-in is quite useful, on the otherhand. Yahoo!, for example, has an opt-in policy for POP accounts and mail forwarding. I think this is an excellent idea. You're using Yahoo!'s mail service; they can do with it whatever they want. This makes sense. Opt-out doesn't.
Spam is indeed a form of advertisement, and quite frankly I'm sick of it. If the Senator thinks companies have the right to contact him regarding spam-issues, then by all means, contact him! Phone, mail, email,...
IPv6 causes very few problems (if any, in most cases) with existing IPv4 networks. Applications can handle both IPv6 and v4 nets even if the application only supports v6. v4 addresses can be mapped to v6 using the 0:0:0:0:0:ffff::/96 prefix. Many IPv6 clients take this into account when doing a DNS lookup and only a v4 address is returned.
You can also go the other way (map v6 into v4 space). Trumpet Winsock does this in Windows. You can use any v4 app in Windows (with *very* few exceptions; even IE works:)) on a completely v6 network, if you wanted to. You can use both v4 and v6 very nicely.
The most basic factors you need to consider are operating systems, and their implementations. Applications are lower on the chain. Although, the firewall would be a very high priority too; if it doesn't allow protocol 41, IPv6 is dead.
The reason it's so hard to allocate 256 IPv6 addresses is because the smallest USEFUL subnet is 64 bits. Of course, if you really wanted to allocate 265 IPv6 addresses, you can do that. But it you'd screw yourself into more work. With 64bits, you can autoconfigure according to your MAC address (assuming you use an interface with a MAC address), which takes up the other 64 bits quite nicely.
And, I do remember reading at least in a work-in-progress policy doc that IPv6 address space and traffic would (should?) be free. I imagine with the plethora of IPv6 addresses avail, this would carry on into the commercial sector, or else you'd go outta biz. So, they'll have to come up with something else cool to make money off of. Interesting.
... Windows can support IPv6 with Trumpet's Winsock, and also proxy for non-IPv6 apps (actually, there aren't any IPv6 apps in Windows 9x anyway, so it's a bit required). Granted, Trumpet isn't Microsoft, nor does Trumpet work with, say, MS File sharing (which sucks anyway), but since it sucks there's no problem.
And I very much doubt.Net supports IPv6. MSR supports the NT 4 and up line (inc. 2K). Microsoft isn't taking a very large interest in IPv6 except in the "fun, no one cares but us" area. It's sad, too; IPv6 is fun.
Well, depends on the lease. Admins can (and should, IMO) keep track of leases. My ISP (@Home) does. Good for them. Granted, I use static addresses (with DHCP, go figure). Logs aren't rotated very often with my ISP, for example. A smaller ISP may have limited space, but keeping track of leases doesn't take up that much for a smaller ISP.
And when IPv6 finally gets big attention and implementation, it's probably going to be when dial-up is archaic, or at least relatively a small percentage of Internet users. Hopefully, by then, we'll have decent broadband in the avg. home.
Hm. Forgive me, but which IPv6 policy is this from? There are plenty. Most of them are still being worked upon. Haven't heard of this one. Although, I can say that it'd be quite simple to change someone's IPv6 prefix; in ISP-ville, they just send a message to the router, and it does everything necessary without human intervention (gotta love machines taking all our jobs and performing them better than us, eh?). Now, I don't quite think this'd work very fast over all of Japan, nor do I think anyone would reassign Japan's entire IPv6 prefixes...
Anyway, in all my rambling, I still wanna know which spec this is from.
Face it, IPv4 sucks. NAT sucks too. You like using ICQ with NAT? Like using any kind of servers (yes, ICQ counts) with NAT? No. Why? NAT isn't made for servers. NAT is made for mindless twits that no nothing about the Internet except http://.
NAT sucks with FTP too. You know it. Sure, you can configure it all nice and fancy and interesting and it works. For a while. Eventually, it will break. ftp:// don't work no more.
And Europe. The US has an insane monopoly on not only names, but IPv4 addresses as well. Europe has shortages in IPv4 addresses.
Frankly, I'm sick of attitudes like yours. IPv6 is an awesome technology. And yes, you can tunnel IPv6 over IPv4. It's not probably what early adopters are going to have to do, it's what early adopters have already done. No one wants to tunnel IPv6 over an IPv6 network. It's messy; it's slow. It's feasible, but it sucks.
No, we do not have loads of IPv4 space left. We have loads of IPv4 space kind of left for a while maybe. Who knows? Who cares? Try getting a public IP address for your cell phone so someone can call using VoIP. Imagine Japan, the US... All those business people with cell phones. They want IP addies too. Oops, we ran out, sorry.
Now. You think IPv6 work is going to be difficult? IPv6 is autoconfigurable. Windows users will love it. They never have to configure anything. And for the advanced IP gurus out there, IPv6 has a lot to offer, whether your IPv6 ISP sucks or not.
Tons of addresses isn't what the Internet's about. Tons of addresses is part of what IPv6 is about. The Internet is about communication. Who wants restricted communications? Who wants to wait for an IP address somewhere in Cannes to publish his leet collection of french porn? Who wants to waste time trying to figure out how to configure the network, subnetting, sub-subnetting, DNS reverse delegations with not-so-DNS-friendly subnets, waiting for an application to go through to get a block of IP addresses?
So, need an IP address? How about 18,446,744,073,709,551,616?
Actually, the copywrite/trademark laws allow you to violate them for criticism. So in either case, there is no case, IIRC. Ford's just being bitchy and wants publicity. We all know it. They probably like the domain name and think it's cute and want to snatch it up for themselves.
I'm guessing you didn't see the post about 3 minutes before yours, but it is the first legit use in existance that I've seen so far...haven't read those below yours, but there are plenty.
Perhaps not all is bad regarding non-anonymity. But on the other hand, you have the tremendous good that comes from it. The ability to speak freely without fear of persecution.
Trampling on one's rights to anonymity in the event of a crime is indeed another story, but it intersects with the other. Take Carnivore, and the like. There is always the risk that other, non-criminal activity will be tracked as well, and there is always the possiblity of corruption. And more often than not, possibility becomes a reality.
So, what does the government do? It's between a rock and a hard place. Ultimately, I think the people (which in this country happen to be the government as well) should wisen up a bit. If there is a buyer, there is a seller. If a crime can happen, it will. So, let's stop trying to make it more difficult for a crime to take place, let's stop the crime altogether. Of course, that'll never happen either.
The only "privacy" that is lost, is the same kind of privacy that walking around with a sheet on and a pillow case over your head affords - and, like in real life, that's neither the normal state of affairs, nor one very many people intentionally seek out.
How exactly would this prohibit BSD-licensed softare? The whole point of the BSD license is that you can do whatever you want with software released under it provided you give proper credit to the author. The the BSD license does, in fact, gaurentee free distribution, does it not? So free, in fact, you can choose not to distribute it at all (can we say Microsoft?).
This doesn't make any sense. From what I've read so far, it seems as if the Argentine government wants all rights to the software, regardless, in addition to the right to take away rights and further distribute it. If this is so, it completely fails to recognize the purpose of free (libre) software. The purpose isn't so it is libre y gratis to some third party, which can in turn sell it or give it away with fewer liberties; in fact, the purpose is the exact opposite. However, it seems (from the wording at least, in both Spanish and English) that this is exactly what would happen were this law to be passed.
Secondly, what makes Argentina think it can take something not theirs and release it under the GPL, a license which would most obviously be different than the license chosen by the author. Let's not forget that the author wrote the software, and should have control over the software he wrote. Giving the government the right to distribute software as it sees fit is a load of crap, unless it was written by the government.
Now, if I wrong, please feel free to correct me. And I'd certainly be glad to be wrong in this case.
Yes, I know the BSDs have exactly "0 UNIX code". I never said the BSDs currently HAVE any UNIX code in them. At once, they did. This is where Linux and BSD differ as far as why Linux isn't a UNIX operating system.
And as for cross-compiled-from-whatever, the source I'm using in saying that Linux was based on Minix is directly from a Linux distribution itself (granted, an old one, but all the better). And if I could find the damn book, I'd quote from it. In fact, I'd quote the quote of the Usenet article from Linus. I'm almost positive it said based on Minix.
Nodes of thought, conversation and data-sharing...are more lateral and anonymous.
So peer-to-peer is being championed as...a revolutionary new means of empowering people and protecting their civil liberties and sense of individualism.
How, exactly, can you be anonymous while protecting individualism? I can see how pseudonymous can work with individualism, but P2P isn't quite pseudonoymous, now, is it? I'll go along with protecting civil liberties of the society, but I'd hardly say anonymity protects individualism.
It seems, to me, that peer-to-peer technology is more communistic than anything, in that it treats the individual the same, regardless. How do this make P2P so great? I'd rather not lose my individuality in some pool of anonymously published information. If I say something, I want whoever is listening to know that I said it.
What P2P does seem to be good for, however, is trading filez, mp3z, warez, and whatever else that is (often) illegal. Of course, p2p things (especially Napster) do promote new artists legally, which is fine. However, it's a bit cliche that what works in one area may not work in another. This, I think is one of those cases.
Of course, the doesn't mean P2P isn't the next great thing to hit the 'net. And I hope people start realizing the next great thing doesn't mean the only next thing. P2P can, and does, exist with many other models, and it most likely will in the future, for a while at least. Things come and go on the net quite often, and coexist all the time. P2P is not the next Internet by any means, it is simply a layer on top of it that works for quite a few applications.
Just because P2P works great for a few applications doesn't mean P2P is going to take over everything. And I'm glad it won't take over everything. There's a lot of technology out there that is still in use, and works quite well. Now (actually, for a while), we can just add P2P to that list.
Oddly enough, the server-only mentatily wasn't started by those using it as a server, but by those who misunderstood it. FreeBSD does make a great server; but those who don't understand, think a server will only be a server, nothing more. It's only when someone like you, or the submitter of the story starts asking questions that they find anything out (and this is a good thing, very good).
You've asked another good question too; it would be great if the FreeBSD community made awareness about itself, but at the same time, many would perceive FreeBSD as a Linux wannabe, when in fact, that's not the case. To be honest, most of the FreeBSD community I've spoken with, both in person and on the net, don't really care if FreeBSD ``takes off'' with the general population, or with anyone else but themselves. Most *BSD users use what they use because it works, they're familiar with it, and they have access to it.
I think part of it also has to do with the background of many BSD users. A lot of them found BSD because they were looking for something for themselves, not something that could make them rich and famous. They seem to recognize more that what works for one person might not work for someone else. They also seem to believe that because it doesn't work for everyone, if it works for something, they'll eventually find it.
I found out about FreeBSD a long time ago, but I had no idea what it was so I didn't use it. I just kept thinking ``what the hell?''. It was only later when I found out about things like UNIX, that I knew what FreeBSD was. I imagine this is the same reason why BSDs aren't too popular; they've found things like Linux first, partly because it was shoved in their faces by the media or what not.
At the same token, BSD fans are often the ones to point out that Linux isn't really UNIX; this could drive people away, bursting their bubbles, or it might not...who knows? Either way, they end up leaving the conversation and going somewhere else, and never finding out what FreeBSD is, or what it can do.
It's not anyone's fault all-together that Linux is more popular than FreeBSD, or anything in particular. It's really just the fact that the two communities have different backgrounds, are taking different directions.
If we're lucky enough (BSD people) somebody will port it from Linux to FreeBSD, but that rarely happens quickly. So Linux is a much more viable operating system as a go-between because even the most benevolent software designers who see the potential of open-source software rarely go deeper than Linux.
A ton of software is readily available because poeple have taken the time to port it; and people have taken the time to port it because other people want it. Besides, and decent software developer that can write software for Linux will write good software (and often do) that can be easily to FreeBSD or another POSIX operating system. Source for Linux programs (good Linux programs) can be compiled with the same ease on a BSD system.
FreeBSD is a fantastic operating system, but it hasn't been able to overcome the "Linux Craze"...
There's a reason for that; most BSD fans don't care if BSD overcomes Linux. Sure, it'd be cool, but at the same time, it's not necessary. BSD is widely used, but no one knows, just like people don't know you're using Linux until it comes up in the conversation often. Sure, there are websites that put "runs on Linux" or "runs on FreeBSD" banners up, but the majority of fans don't. Just like Linux is getting popular because it's popular, FreeBSD is getting popular because it's stable. A lot of folks are using it today; especially educational institutes (high schools, for example). I know a lot of schools here in Michigan, in the SCNC program; FreeBSD seems to be an operating system of choice for their servers; and because their servers run on a desktop system, it's also a desktop operating system for them too; it doesn't need any power to make it's own power. It built well, and it shows.
Moral of the story is, we should be careful in trying to push BSD to the desktop (open) market.
I agree completely; albeit for slightly different reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you mean RTFM?
Yes, small towns seem to be doing much better at broadband than most, which is rather ironic but not too wild of a turnout. Where I'm at is really not that small of a town, but it's small enough. We had TCI, bought by AT&T, which was @Home, and now ATTBI. A while before this whole mess, a local company in the next town over called TC3net started offering DSL. And I'm not sure about ISDN or DSL from the local telco, but I'm sure if it's not here, it will be soon.
And yes, I have heard of Glasgow, even before we decided to move to KY, then again...I have Scottish ancestors, go figure. (-: Anyway, we're moving to Morton's Gap in 5mo or so, looking for broadband providers and such. We're considering DSL given hassles we've had with cable (not the medium itself, but the company fools ruling over it).
That's one problem with various broadband providers, they feel the need to shtick the customer with whatever they can't (or won't) handle, just because they all feel like being lazy. The economy sucks right now, and people are this lazy...gee, I wonder why the economy sucks so much. Everyone and their boss is sleeping their asses off and we wonder why the economy sucks.
It's really affected the broadband community way before anything happened. People were lazy, people were stupid, and those people were hired to do technical jobs. And tech support, oh your god tech support people are amazingly unamazing. No one bothers to read or listen these days to anyone, and insist that someone else is responsible. I imagine most people have heard about the nightmarrish tech support stories and such, and I don't blame them if that's why they're still on dial-up.
DU is simple, and easy to use. Phone number, phone line. That's all there is to it; nothing else has to be setup by the consumer. Many cable companies have tried to emulate this behavior and have failed miserably.
Rates are indeed insane elsewhere. Here, being a not so small town, it's $40/mo for 1.5mb down, 128kb up. The speed is reasonable, but not for the price. And ATTBI uses the excuse that they don't want to overload their network. Yeah, right; and I'm an idiot. Cable can withstand much more (ab)use than dial-up networks, provided you manage them decently. Of course, stupid people are still in America's workforce; whatcha gonna do?
Now this is something I take very seriously. Liability has gotten in the way too many times. @Home has no liability. It does, however, have a responsibility toward its userbase. Users of @Home doing such illegal activies have, no doubt, been taken care of since the ISP came into existance.
So why is this such a big deal now? The cable ISP has absolutely no responsibility for what someone else posts, whether or not they impose some sort of editorial actions on their own users or not. In fact, those "editorial actions" everyone is referring to are not true editorial actions. Yes, @Home can pick and choose which newsgroups they want to host and which ones they don't. Now, if an ISP's users detest to choices made, then the ISP better recognize that or they will loose users. This is one of the foundations of our economy. An ISP should have set policies for handling this type of situation. @Home has such a policy. Its users are prohibited from illegal activity according to the @Home AUP. Why is @Home getting so much criticism for following their policies?
And, if I recall correctly, the DMCA was more for "circumvention devices" and other infringement techniques. Relaying messages posted by other people on USENET is not an infringement technique, it is common courtesy provided it is within the charter (if there is one) of the newsgroup.
An ISP should not be responsible for content posted that is beyond their control. An ISP should, at most, be responsible for the actions of their own users, not of users from other ISPs. There is already a hierarchy of responsibility within the law, and there has always been such a hierarchy amongst our society. The hierarchy worked fine then, and it is certainly the correct approach now. It may not work well given the lightning fast technologies we have today, but sometimes a goverment must make sacrifices for the private sector. Certainly, the private sector should sacrifice for the government, unless the leading body of the government requests it (in the USA, that would be the people).
The majority of people I know who understand it are against the DMCA. Some of congress is against it, too. Why are we sitting here dead in the water? We have plenty of feul; start the fucking engine already. If you're going to complain, the least you could do is complain to the right people and actually do something.
Wtf? This gets a score of three? Damn you moderators are screwed.
The market will reward and/or punish their actions accordingly.
No it won't; people who use cable internet don't go only to view porn, they go online to add to their pr0n collection. It doesn't matter, now, everything's already been leached.
You know I have an idea. I wonder if we can give Microsoft the death penalty and break them up. After all they murdered other people like Mr. Netscape, and Mr. Wordperfect.
That's an absolutely wonderful idea; I was thinking the same thing.
I'm sorry, but a company has absolutely no right whatsoever to contact me unless I say so. The same goes for any human being, and this has been through legalise too; phone harassament for instance. If I were called, and I don't want to be called by a specific individual, regardless, that is my complete right. The same should be (and to me, is) true about a company, if not moreso. A company is not entitled to the rights of any natural person.
Opting-out, however, is a real problem. Personally, I believe opting-out should be the way, but it has been far too abused by companies and individuals. Opting-in is quite useful, on the otherhand. Yahoo!, for example, has an opt-in policy for POP accounts and mail forwarding. I think this is an excellent idea. You're using Yahoo!'s mail service; they can do with it whatever they want. This makes sense. Opt-out doesn't.
Spam is indeed a form of advertisement, and quite frankly I'm sick of it. If the Senator thinks companies have the right to contact him regarding spam-issues, then by all means, contact him! Phone, mail, email, ...
Yes, yes, that's shown again by Matt...Tsk tsk, Windows users are a bit strange.
"If it needs to be recompiled, it's not really compatible, right?"
What a shame...
IPv6 causes very few problems (if any, in most cases) with existing IPv4 networks. Applications can handle both IPv6 and v4 nets even if the application only supports v6. v4 addresses can be mapped to v6 using the 0:0:0:0:0:ffff::/96 prefix. Many IPv6 clients take this into account when doing a DNS lookup and only a v4 address is returned.
You can also go the other way (map v6 into v4 space). Trumpet Winsock does this in Windows. You can use any v4 app in Windows (with *very* few exceptions; even IE works:)) on a completely v6 network, if you wanted to. You can use both v4 and v6 very nicely.
The most basic factors you need to consider are operating systems, and their implementations. Applications are lower on the chain. Although, the firewall would be a very high priority too; if it doesn't allow protocol 41, IPv6 is dead.
The reason it's so hard to allocate 256 IPv6 addresses is because the smallest USEFUL subnet is 64 bits. Of course, if you really wanted to allocate 265 IPv6 addresses, you can do that. But it you'd screw yourself into more work. With 64bits, you can autoconfigure according to your MAC address (assuming you use an interface with a MAC address), which takes up the other 64 bits quite nicely.
And, I do remember reading at least in a work-in-progress policy doc that IPv6 address space and traffic would (should?) be free. I imagine with the plethora of IPv6 addresses avail, this would carry on into the commercial sector, or else you'd go outta biz. So, they'll have to come up with something else cool to make money off of. Interesting.
... Windows can support IPv6 with Trumpet's Winsock, and also proxy for non-IPv6 apps (actually, there aren't any IPv6 apps in Windows 9x anyway, so it's a bit required). Granted, Trumpet isn't Microsoft, nor does Trumpet work with, say, MS File sharing (which sucks anyway), but since it sucks there's no problem.
And I very much doubt .Net supports IPv6. MSR supports the NT 4 and up line (inc. 2K). Microsoft isn't taking a very large interest in IPv6 except in the "fun, no one cares but us" area. It's sad, too; IPv6 is fun.
Well, depends on the lease. Admins can (and should, IMO) keep track of leases. My ISP (@Home) does. Good for them. Granted, I use static addresses (with DHCP, go figure). Logs aren't rotated very often with my ISP, for example. A smaller ISP may have limited space, but keeping track of leases doesn't take up that much for a smaller ISP.
And when IPv6 finally gets big attention and implementation, it's probably going to be when dial-up is archaic, or at least relatively a small percentage of Internet users. Hopefully, by then, we'll have decent broadband in the avg. home.
Hm. Forgive me, but which IPv6 policy is this from? There are plenty. Most of them are still being worked upon. Haven't heard of this one. Although, I can say that it'd be quite simple to change someone's IPv6 prefix; in ISP-ville, they just send a message to the router, and it does everything necessary without human intervention (gotta love machines taking all our jobs and performing them better than us, eh?). Now, I don't quite think this'd work very fast over all of Japan, nor do I think anyone would reassign Japan's entire IPv6 prefixes...
Anyway, in all my rambling, I still wanna know which spec this is from.
Face it, IPv4 sucks. NAT sucks too. You like using ICQ with NAT? Like using any kind of servers (yes, ICQ counts) with NAT? No. Why? NAT isn't made for servers. NAT is made for mindless twits that no nothing about the Internet except http://.
NAT sucks with FTP too. You know it. Sure, you can configure it all nice and fancy and interesting and it works. For a while. Eventually, it will break. ftp:// don't work no more.
And Europe. The US has an insane monopoly on not only names, but IPv4 addresses as well. Europe has shortages in IPv4 addresses.
Frankly, I'm sick of attitudes like yours. IPv6 is an awesome technology. And yes, you can tunnel IPv6 over IPv4. It's not probably what early adopters are going to have to do, it's what early adopters have already done. No one wants to tunnel IPv6 over an IPv6 network. It's messy; it's slow. It's feasible, but it sucks.
No, we do not have loads of IPv4 space left. We have loads of IPv4 space kind of left for a while maybe. Who knows? Who cares? Try getting a public IP address for your cell phone so someone can call using VoIP. Imagine Japan, the US... All those business people with cell phones. They want IP addies too. Oops, we ran out, sorry.
Now. You think IPv6 work is going to be difficult? IPv6 is autoconfigurable. Windows users will love it. They never have to configure anything. And for the advanced IP gurus out there, IPv6 has a lot to offer, whether your IPv6 ISP sucks or not.
Tons of addresses isn't what the Internet's about. Tons of addresses is part of what IPv6 is about. The Internet is about communication. Who wants restricted communications? Who wants to wait for an IP address somewhere in Cannes to publish his leet collection of french porn? Who wants to waste time trying to figure out how to configure the network, subnetting, sub-subnetting, DNS reverse delegations with not-so-DNS-friendly subnets, waiting for an application to go through to get a block of IP addresses?
So, need an IP address? How about 18,446,744,073,709,551,616?
Actually, the copywrite/trademark laws allow you to violate them for criticism. So in either case, there is no case, IIRC. Ford's just being bitchy and wants publicity. We all know it. They probably like the domain name and think it's cute and want to snatch it up for themselves.
I'm guessing you didn't see the post about 3 minutes before yours, but it is the first legit use in existance that I've seen so far...haven't read those below yours, but there are plenty.
Perhaps not all is bad regarding non-anonymity. But on the other hand, you have the tremendous good that comes from it. The ability to speak freely without fear of persecution.
Trampling on one's rights to anonymity in the event of a crime is indeed another story, but it intersects with the other. Take Carnivore, and the like. There is always the risk that other, non-criminal activity will be tracked as well, and there is always the possiblity of corruption. And more often than not, possibility becomes a reality.
So, what does the government do? It's between a rock and a hard place. Ultimately, I think the people (which in this country happen to be the government as well) should wisen up a bit. If there is a buyer, there is a seller. If a crime can happen, it will. So, let's stop trying to make it more difficult for a crime to take place, let's stop the crime altogether. Of course, that'll never happen either.
The only "privacy" that is lost, is the same kind of privacy that walking around with a sheet on and a pillow case over your head affords - and, like in real life, that's neither the normal state of affairs, nor one very many people intentionally seek out.
That gives me an idea...
No, it's not the same concept. Clones are not genetically altered. That's the point of the clone.
How exactly would this prohibit BSD-licensed softare? The whole point of the BSD license is that you can do whatever you want with software released under it provided you give proper credit to the author. The the BSD license does, in fact, gaurentee free distribution, does it not? So free, in fact, you can choose not to distribute it at all (can we say Microsoft?).
This doesn't make any sense. From what I've read so far, it seems as if the Argentine government wants all rights to the software, regardless, in addition to the right to take away rights and further distribute it. If this is so, it completely fails to recognize the purpose of free (libre) software. The purpose isn't so it is libre y gratis to some third party, which can in turn sell it or give it away with fewer liberties; in fact, the purpose is the exact opposite. However, it seems (from the wording at least, in both Spanish and English) that this is exactly what would happen were this law to be passed.
Secondly, what makes Argentina think it can take something not theirs and release it under the GPL, a license which would most obviously be different than the license chosen by the author. Let's not forget that the author wrote the software, and should have control over the software he wrote. Giving the government the right to distribute software as it sees fit is a load of crap, unless it was written by the government.
Now, if I wrong, please feel free to correct me. And I'd certainly be glad to be wrong in this case.
Take a high school Chem class; glass is a liquid. It poors. Granted, there has been modern improvision.
Yes, I know the BSDs have exactly "0 UNIX code". I never said the BSDs currently HAVE any UNIX code in them. At once, they did. This is where Linux and BSD differ as far as why Linux isn't a UNIX operating system.
And as for cross-compiled-from-whatever, the source I'm using in saying that Linux was based on Minix is directly from a Linux distribution itself (granted, an old one, but all the better). And if I could find the damn book, I'd quote from it. In fact, I'd quote the quote of the Usenet article from Linus. I'm almost positive it said based on Minix.
Nodes of thought, conversation and data-sharing...are more lateral and anonymous.
So peer-to-peer is being championed as...a revolutionary new means of empowering people and protecting their civil liberties and sense of individualism.
How, exactly, can you be anonymous while protecting individualism? I can see how pseudonymous can work with individualism, but P2P isn't quite pseudonoymous, now, is it? I'll go along with protecting civil liberties of the society, but I'd hardly say anonymity protects individualism.
It seems, to me, that peer-to-peer technology is more communistic than anything, in that it treats the individual the same, regardless. How do this make P2P so great? I'd rather not lose my individuality in some pool of anonymously published information. If I say something, I want whoever is listening to know that I said it.
What P2P does seem to be good for, however, is trading filez, mp3z, warez, and whatever else that is (often) illegal. Of course, p2p things (especially Napster) do promote new artists legally, which is fine. However, it's a bit cliche that what works in one area may not work in another. This, I think is one of those cases.
Of course, the doesn't mean P2P isn't the next great thing to hit the 'net. And I hope people start realizing the next great thing doesn't mean the only next thing. P2P can, and does, exist with many other models, and it most likely will in the future, for a while at least. Things come and go on the net quite often, and coexist all the time. P2P is not the next Internet by any means, it is simply a layer on top of it that works for quite a few applications.
Just because P2P works great for a few applications doesn't mean P2P is going to take over everything. And I'm glad it won't take over everything. There's a lot of technology out there that is still in use, and works quite well. Now (actually, for a while), we can just add P2P to that list.
Oddly enough, the server-only mentatily wasn't started by those using it as a server, but by those who misunderstood it. FreeBSD does make a great server; but those who don't understand, think a server will only be a server, nothing more. It's only when someone like you, or the submitter of the story starts asking questions that they find anything out (and this is a good thing, very good).
You've asked another good question too; it would be great if the FreeBSD community made awareness about itself, but at the same time, many would perceive FreeBSD as a Linux wannabe, when in fact, that's not the case. To be honest, most of the FreeBSD community I've spoken with, both in person and on the net, don't really care if FreeBSD ``takes off'' with the general population, or with anyone else but themselves. Most *BSD users use what they use because it works, they're familiar with it, and they have access to it.
I think part of it also has to do with the background of many BSD users. A lot of them found BSD because they were looking for something for themselves, not something that could make them rich and famous. They seem to recognize more that what works for one person might not work for someone else. They also seem to believe that because it doesn't work for everyone, if it works for something, they'll eventually find it.
I found out about FreeBSD a long time ago, but I had no idea what it was so I didn't use it. I just kept thinking ``what the hell?''. It was only later when I found out about things like UNIX, that I knew what FreeBSD was. I imagine this is the same reason why BSDs aren't too popular; they've found things like Linux first, partly because it was shoved in their faces by the media or what not.
At the same token, BSD fans are often the ones to point out that Linux isn't really UNIX; this could drive people away, bursting their bubbles, or it might not...who knows? Either way, they end up leaving the conversation and going somewhere else, and never finding out what FreeBSD is, or what it can do.
It's not anyone's fault all-together that Linux is more popular than FreeBSD, or anything in particular. It's really just the fact that the two communities have different backgrounds, are taking different directions.
If we're lucky enough (BSD people) somebody will port it from Linux to FreeBSD, but that rarely happens quickly. So Linux is a much more viable operating system as a go-between because even the most benevolent software designers who see the potential of open-source software rarely go deeper than Linux.
A ton of software is readily available because poeple have taken the time to port it; and people have taken the time to port it because other people want it. Besides, and decent software developer that can write software for Linux will write good software (and often do) that can be easily to FreeBSD or another POSIX operating system. Source for Linux programs (good Linux programs) can be compiled with the same ease on a BSD system.
FreeBSD is a fantastic operating system, but it hasn't been able to overcome the "Linux Craze" ...
There's a reason for that; most BSD fans don't care if BSD overcomes Linux. Sure, it'd be cool, but at the same time, it's not necessary. BSD is widely used, but no one knows, just like people don't know you're using Linux until it comes up in the conversation often. Sure, there are websites that put "runs on Linux" or "runs on FreeBSD" banners up, but the majority of fans don't. Just like Linux is getting popular because it's popular, FreeBSD is getting popular because it's stable. A lot of folks are using it today; especially educational institutes (high schools, for example). I know a lot of schools here in Michigan, in the SCNC program; FreeBSD seems to be an operating system of choice for their servers; and because their servers run on a desktop system, it's also a desktop operating system for them too; it doesn't need any power to make it's own power. It built well, and it shows.
Moral of the story is, we should be careful in trying to push BSD to the desktop (open) market.
I agree completely; albeit for slightly different reasons.