Something like 20 people have real sealand passports
I think you meant to say "nobody has a real Sealand passport", as in, nobody has a Sealand passport that they could use as ID to get into a bar, let alone to cross a border.
We might as well argue about who has real passports for my treehouse.
"Who can believe that a country that has such an open attitude towards women, minorities, religions, and the press would object to the Internet?"
Who can believe that someone with such an arrogant and narrow perspective would have such a closed perspective on other cultures?
How about learning about other cultures, talking to some Islamic people, and perhaps thinking that maybe the way you were brought and conditioned doesn't have to be better than the way others were brought up?
Don't be a knee-jerk cultural relativist. It's people like you who give liberals a bad name.
You'd have to look under an awful lot of rocks before you found a Muslim who supported the Taliban or wanted to live in Afghanistan.
Taliban is also made up of ethnic Pashtunies, which are a minority group in Afghanistan
This is disingenuous as written. The Pashtun are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan (i.e., a plurality); there is no group with 50% or more of the population.
Maybe I'm talking out the wrong end of my anatomy here, but if there is any buffering, there should be a number of race conditions going on. I would guess that the system is better behaved if the bottleneck is closer to the client than the server. If the bottleneck is closer to the server, it is likely to be committed to keep plugging away at something that is already destined for the bit bucket.
TCP doesn't really work this way, since a node will not continue sending packets if earlier ones have not been acknowledged. It's not like the machine just fills the pipe up until it starts backing up and flooding the basement. And even if it were, it's not clear to me how this would have any impact except perhaps at the very tail end of a buffer-pluggingly-large transmission.
Nah, that's the job of the United States/Nations, with the crippling sanctions they are imposing.
Some pretty impressive sanctions they've got, stopping the Afghans from conducting the same agriculture that's fed them for centuries prior to the Taliban's advent. Did UNESCO go in and salt their soil or something?
This is not like Iraq, where the economy had developed to the point where critical efficiencies came from imports and exports.
What's happening here is that a huge number of people have been withdrawn from the labor pool. (A) Women, and (B) All the men who used to do actual productive things and now sit around growing beards and whacking at each other with sticks. This is all very disruptive in the short term, and to some degree debilitating in the long term. Plus the climate of fear results in resources being withdrawn from circulation as people save money under their mattresses to sneak into Pakistan or to build thicker walls so the noise of the TV can't be heard from the street.
Wa ana kabir rajul, tathkur; fathalika afham 'alam al bilaadi fi asia janub wal sharq il awsat.
In Islam, effort must be made to ensure that people do not have access to the content that is considered forbidden.
Says who? You insult Muslims everywhere with your intimation that they are so weak-willed that just seeing something contrary to their beliefs will cause their faith to falter.
I commend this move, and hopefully they will soon be able to reintroduce it under the guidelines they perceive as proper and in accordance with the laws that rule their state.
You have got to be kidding me. The "laws that rule their state" are (A) destroying their state, and (B) the laughingstock of the world, including the Islamic world. If I take over a country and pass a law that says all children must be kicked in the head thrice daily, can I count on your support?
I'm assuming if you don't colocate, you'll share a server. So if you share with four other people, you're taking up 1/5 the space you would with having your own box. So costs per share should be lower. The overhead is still there, and the same per server, but less per share of the server.
If the 5 people don't know and trust one another, then there is the very real cost of protecting them from each other. That means administrative time and hassle to monitor logs, worry about a wider range of security updates, and when necessary, play referee. All that human power don't come cheap.
What I meant by this was that the amount of available bandwidth, be it dialup, 1.5mbps, 10mbps, etc. seems to have a greater improvement on the connection, when the increase is at the server side.
That's what I thought you meant. It doesn't make any sense.
The observable characteristics of an end-to-end link are latency, bandwidth, and (if not handled by protocol) data loss.
It is not possible to determine, in band (i.e., leaving aside out-of-band tricks like traceroute and pathchar), at which end these characteristics are being affected.
So what you say is pretty close to impossible.
Perhaps what you're observing is the 33Kb ceiling on upstream traffic with 56Kb modems on analog POTS lines.
Protocol overhead? BS. It's the routing overhead that gets you. Your 2400 was a direct connection.
Every character your type in a telnet session gets packaged up in a TCP packet inside an IP packet inside a PPP packet, ballooning it to a dozen or more bytes.
Every character you type when modemmed directly to a BBS gets sent as exactly one byte (okay, yeah, except for escape sequences).
No offense, but how old are you? Did you never use telnet (or telnet-like BBS systems) before the web? 9600 is plenty fast for a telnet connection.
What he's saying, and he's quite correct, is that telnet isn't always terribly responsive.
A direct-dialed 2400bps connection to a BBS is certainly more responsive than telnet over a 56K PPP link. That's simple math (protocol overhead), not to mention the empirical observation of anyone who's tried both.
I would love to see this turned around. If MS released Visual Gnu Herder or MSGimp, the cognitive dissonance around here from the high school IKANATL (I Know Almost Nothing About The Law) Crowd would be deafening.
Microsoft's hypocrisy in such a case - and not necessarily a feeling of entitlement to certain words - would probably be a good part of the reason.
Oh, dammit, you know, there went my professional author friend's livelyhood. I guess I'll have to lend him a cardboard box, shaln't I?
Now the cardboard box, that's property.
As for your friend's writing, it may be valuable and productive and original and profitable, but that doesn't mean it's property.
Plenty of things are protected without being property. My health is protected by assault laws, but it's not property. My reputation is protected by libel and slander laws, but it's not property. My credit rating, my children, my likeness, and my peace and quiet all receive various appropriate legal protections without anyone wasting the time and effort of retrofitting property law to them.
Just because we value something does not mean we need to try to shove it into the same rules and customs that apply to physical property. It just doesn't work, and leads to insane excesses like charging someone with theft of $1,000,000 for making 10,000 copies of a $100 piece of software. That $1m figure represents neither the lost revenue to the publisher nor the resale value captured by the pirate. It's just silliness. This stands in contrast to, say, a heist of $1,000,000 worth of physical property, where valuations work quite differently.
Sure. Saudi Arabia is a notable example, since they have a high proportion of overseas residents who would like to be able to make phone calls for less than $.70/minute. For a while they blocked all calls to +1.206 because a lot of callback companies were based in and around Seattle. The main effective result of their ambitious internet filtering system is to make it difficult to use VOIP services. So you're in fine company.
I thought that Euro governments were supposed to have opened up telecoms markets by this year.
We use IP phones in the office, and they are great for our application, since we can move the phone anywhere in our buildings, and still have the same extension.
The ubiquitous Nortel Norstar system does this, and it's been around for 10 years or so. When I need to work somewhere else, I just bring my phone with me and my calls automatically follow.
It seems to be as expensive as regular Long Distance calling once you factor in all the costs...
Unless you already have DSL/Cable.
Even then it's more expensive than regular LD (normal dial-1 charges these days being around 4-5c domestic, no fees or minimums, as long as you don't go with MCI/ATT/Sprint) unless you make hundreds of hours of calls. I cannot see how this could possibly be worth it. I've been looking around for a device like this to hang on one of the ports of our PBX just to see how it works out, but I am sure as hell not going to pay effectively 25% more for long distance in exchange for trying out a new gadget that will surely provide far worse-quality calls.
American would mean someone in America. I guess you're one of these arrogant US'ers that think "America" only includes the US.
Ecuadorian would mean someone who lives along the equator. I guess you're one of those arrogant Andeans who think "Ecuador" only includes a certain country sandwiched between Peru and Colombia.
Malaysian would mean someone who lives on the Malay peninsula. I guess you're one of those arrogant Malays who thinks "Malaysia" only includes a certain country north of Singapore.
South African would mean someone who lives in the south of Africa. I guess you're one of those arrogant Afrikaners who thinks that "South Africa" only includes the RSA.
Turkish would mean someone who lives in a certain near-flightless bird in the vulture family. I guess you're one of those arrogant Ottomans who thinks "Turkey" only includes the country straddling the Bosporus.
Lemme guess, you're either Canadian or a South American grad student. Either way, you're an idiot.
i think the 'question' here is maybe based on the fact that you have the source code to a virus (which, is something symantec et al dont have on file).
They certainly decompile the virus and re-create the source code as part of analysis.
Other considerations need to be thought about as well. In some countries, children play a role of water carriers. Go in and start pumping water with solar panels, and you've changed the social aspects of the community. The children must be given some other role to play.
This, if taken seriously, would be a pretty powerful argument against ever doing anything anywhere.
If this is bad enough to worry about - after all, kids are supremely adaptable - then everything is.
Re: Never said fuel wasn't precious
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
But, right now, there's a whole lot of it.
Nonetheless, it's not priced in accordance with its scarcity, because of the nature of competition (and level of economic development) among its producers. If the oil were all in the hands of a bunch of Norways (instead of economically schizophrenic Saudi Arabias and Venezuelas), you can bet it'd last longer and cost a whole lot more, because Norway doesn't have the cash flow issues that preclude other countries from rationally extracting the most income (taking into account time value of money). As it is, however, they are dragged into the race to the bottom (unless they wanted to just put off all production until everyone else ran out).
OPEC artificially limits the production of fuel.
Rarely. Every once in a while MPM Ali Al-Naimi will work up a lather and get someone at an OPEC meeting to suggest that countries should start adhering to the production quotas they'd agreed to, and they all mutter assent, and then just keep on selling all they can. OPEC ain't what it used to be.
If I can buy my gasoline right at the refinery in Saudi, I'll bet it's pretty damn cheap.
Good luck. The Saudis have been trying for some time to develop their refinery business (the apparent culmination of their strategy to guarantee long-term economic viability by diversifying away from petrochemicals and into "services") but it's still not particularly competitive.
That's the worst argument I've ever heard. By that rationale, we should allow old, dirty power plants to stay in business instead of building new, cleaner ones to replace them.
Old, dirty power plants are not taken offline because they are dirty. They are only taken offline when they become so old that maintenance costs exceed the cost of constructing and operating a new plant.
Anyway, when we're talking about the decision to purchase an SUV, we're talking about the specific point when someone who is in the market for a car is deciding which sort of car to get. They can get one that pollutes a lot or one that pollutes a little. It doesn't matter what anyone else is driving, or how much pollution is being generated by farting cows or paper mills or mad scientists. The decision being made is unaffected by, and unaffecting of, all the red herrings in the world.
I find the whole "let's get people out of their cars" argument a very superficial one, one that doesn't do very much good at all.
To be honest, the pollution is a secondary issue for me - salient, but secondary. I just find cars to be very unpleasant in cities. They are dangerous and antisocial and slow and disruptive. I am wowed by the overwhelming stupidity of having a car in a city - why spend all that money to have a slow way to get around that makes you fat and mean? - but I do not think the fascinating sociopathology question justifies the ill effects it visits upon the rest of the city's residents.
Getting everyone out of their cars certainly looks good, but doesn't accomplish much at all -- so why bother?
I don't go to suburbs or small towns (less than 1m metro population) in the USA unless strongly compelled, so I couldn't care less what goes on there. Conduct Main Street smash-em-up derbies seven nights a week if you like. Change the driving age to 9. But in cities, every car taken off the road accomplishes a lot toward increasing quality of life for the inhabitants. I want to be able to walk through a green light without being honked at, without having to clamber over cars that have backed up through the crosswalk because their drivers are too idiotic to see that they need to wait until the intersection is clear. I want to hear sounds of people playing music and kids screaming and friends talking, not of someone's maladjusted engine idling outside my window (stinking up my apartment) or speeding up the street. I don't want to pick up the paper and learn about yet another child run down by a driver who doesn't understand the words "Slow - School zone". I don't want to pay the increased housing costs resulting from 25% of available land area being in service to cars.
The only pleasant thing about cars in cities is how much time they buy me. When I have to meet someone who has to take a 15-minute drive from a comparable distance, I can leave 5 minutes before the meeting time and still beat them there, because the bike is that much faster.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you meant to say "nobody has a real Sealand passport", as in, nobody has a Sealand passport that they could use as ID to get into a bar, let alone to cross a border.
We might as well argue about who has real passports for my treehouse.
Don't be a knee-jerk cultural relativist. It's people like you who give liberals a bad name.
You'd have to look under an awful lot of rocks before you found a Muslim who supported the Taliban or wanted to live in Afghanistan.
This is disingenuous as written. The Pashtun are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan (i.e., a plurality); there is no group with 50% or more of the population.
They've been in Tajikistan (by proxy) for some time now. Making a mess of the place.
TCP doesn't really work this way, since a node will not continue sending packets if earlier ones have not been acknowledged. It's not like the machine just fills the pipe up until it starts backing up and flooding the basement. And even if it were, it's not clear to me how this would have any impact except perhaps at the very tail end of a buffer-pluggingly-large transmission.
Some pretty impressive sanctions they've got, stopping the Afghans from conducting the same agriculture that's fed them for centuries prior to the Taliban's advent. Did UNESCO go in and salt their soil or something?
This is not like Iraq, where the economy had developed to the point where critical efficiencies came from imports and exports.
What's happening here is that a huge number of people have been withdrawn from the labor pool. (A) Women, and (B) All the men who used to do actual productive things and now sit around growing beards and whacking at each other with sticks. This is all very disruptive in the short term, and to some degree debilitating in the long term. Plus the climate of fear results in resources being withdrawn from circulation as people save money under their mattresses to sneak into Pakistan or to build thicker walls so the noise of the TV can't be heard from the street.
Wa ana kabir rajul, tathkur; fathalika afham 'alam al bilaadi fi asia janub wal sharq il awsat.
Says who? You insult Muslims everywhere with your intimation that they are so weak-willed that just seeing something contrary to their beliefs will cause their faith to falter.
You have got to be kidding me. The "laws that rule their state" are (A) destroying their state, and (B) the laughingstock of the world, including the Islamic world. If I take over a country and pass a law that says all children must be kicked in the head thrice daily, can I count on your support?
If the 5 people don't know and trust one another, then there is the very real cost of protecting them from each other. That means administrative time and hassle to monitor logs, worry about a wider range of security updates, and when necessary, play referee. All that human power don't come cheap.
That's what I thought you meant. It doesn't make any sense.
The observable characteristics of an end-to-end link are latency, bandwidth, and (if not handled by protocol) data loss.
It is not possible to determine, in band (i.e., leaving aside out-of-band tricks like traceroute and pathchar), at which end these characteristics are being affected.
So what you say is pretty close to impossible.
Perhaps what you're observing is the 33Kb ceiling on upstream traffic with 56Kb modems on analog POTS lines.
Every character your type in a telnet session gets packaged up in a TCP packet inside an IP packet inside a PPP packet, ballooning it to a dozen or more bytes.
Every character you type when modemmed directly to a BBS gets sent as exactly one byte (okay, yeah, except for escape sequences).
What on earth does that mean?
What he's saying, and he's quite correct, is that telnet isn't always terribly responsive.
A direct-dialed 2400bps connection to a BBS is certainly more responsive than telnet over a 56K PPP link. That's simple math (protocol overhead), not to mention the empirical observation of anyone who's tried both.
Microsoft's hypocrisy in such a case - and not necessarily a feeling of entitlement to certain words - would probably be a good part of the reason.
Now the cardboard box, that's property.
As for your friend's writing, it may be valuable and productive and original and profitable, but that doesn't mean it's property.
Plenty of things are protected without being property. My health is protected by assault laws, but it's not property. My reputation is protected by libel and slander laws, but it's not property. My credit rating, my children, my likeness, and my peace and quiet all receive various appropriate legal protections without anyone wasting the time and effort of retrofitting property law to them.
Just because we value something does not mean we need to try to shove it into the same rules and customs that apply to physical property. It just doesn't work, and leads to insane excesses like charging someone with theft of $1,000,000 for making 10,000 copies of a $100 piece of software. That $1m figure represents neither the lost revenue to the publisher nor the resale value captured by the pirate. It's just silliness. This stands in contrast to, say, a heist of $1,000,000 worth of physical property, where valuations work quite differently.
No matter how many times you say it, a name, word, sentence, story, idea, song, or image will not be property.
Sure. Saudi Arabia is a notable example, since they have a high proportion of overseas residents who would like to be able to make phone calls for less than $.70/minute. For a while they blocked all calls to +1.206 because a lot of callback companies were based in and around Seattle. The main effective result of their ambitious internet filtering system is to make it difficult to use VOIP services. So you're in fine company.
I thought that Euro governments were supposed to have opened up telecoms markets by this year.
The ubiquitous Nortel Norstar system does this, and it's been around for 10 years or so. When I need to work somewhere else, I just bring my phone with me and my calls automatically follow.
Even then it's more expensive than regular LD (normal dial-1 charges these days being around 4-5c domestic, no fees or minimums, as long as you don't go with MCI/ATT/Sprint) unless you make hundreds of hours of calls. I cannot see how this could possibly be worth it. I've been looking around for a device like this to hang on one of the ports of our PBX just to see how it works out, but I am sure as hell not going to pay effectively 25% more for long distance in exchange for trying out a new gadget that will surely provide far worse-quality calls.
Ecuadorian would mean someone who lives along the equator. I guess you're one of those arrogant Andeans who think "Ecuador" only includes a certain country sandwiched between Peru and Colombia.
Malaysian would mean someone who lives on the Malay peninsula. I guess you're one of those arrogant Malays who thinks "Malaysia" only includes a certain country north of Singapore.
South African would mean someone who lives in the south of Africa. I guess you're one of those arrogant Afrikaners who thinks that "South Africa" only includes the RSA.
Turkish would mean someone who lives in a certain near-flightless bird in the vulture family. I guess you're one of those arrogant Ottomans who thinks "Turkey" only includes the country straddling the Bosporus.
Lemme guess, you're either Canadian or a South American grad student. Either way, you're an idiot.
Then he's not "actively" involved, is he?
They certainly decompile the virus and re-create the source code as part of analysis.
This, if taken seriously, would be a pretty powerful argument against ever doing anything anywhere.
If this is bad enough to worry about - after all, kids are supremely adaptable - then everything is.
That depends on the anticipated subscriber density and on your cost of financing.
In sparsely-populated areas or in cases when it is difficult to secure long-term financing at reasonable rates, wireless is cheaper, yes.
In a dense area, when you can afford to invest for the long term, nothing beats good old fashioned copper. At least so far.
You could always try a flywheel.
Nonetheless, it's not priced in accordance with its scarcity, because of the nature of competition (and level of economic development) among its producers. If the oil were all in the hands of a bunch of Norways (instead of economically schizophrenic Saudi Arabias and Venezuelas), you can bet it'd last longer and cost a whole lot more, because Norway doesn't have the cash flow issues that preclude other countries from rationally extracting the most income (taking into account time value of money). As it is, however, they are dragged into the race to the bottom (unless they wanted to just put off all production until everyone else ran out).
Rarely. Every once in a while MPM Ali Al-Naimi will work up a lather and get someone at an OPEC meeting to suggest that countries should start adhering to the production quotas they'd agreed to, and they all mutter assent, and then just keep on selling all they can. OPEC ain't what it used to be.
Good luck. The Saudis have been trying for some time to develop their refinery business (the apparent culmination of their strategy to guarantee long-term economic viability by diversifying away from petrochemicals and into "services") but it's still not particularly competitive.
Old, dirty power plants are not taken offline because they are dirty. They are only taken offline when they become so old that maintenance costs exceed the cost of constructing and operating a new plant.
Anyway, when we're talking about the decision to purchase an SUV, we're talking about the specific point when someone who is in the market for a car is deciding which sort of car to get. They can get one that pollutes a lot or one that pollutes a little. It doesn't matter what anyone else is driving, or how much pollution is being generated by farting cows or paper mills or mad scientists. The decision being made is unaffected by, and unaffecting of, all the red herrings in the world.
To be honest, the pollution is a secondary issue for me - salient, but secondary. I just find cars to be very unpleasant in cities. They are dangerous and antisocial and slow and disruptive. I am wowed by the overwhelming stupidity of having a car in a city - why spend all that money to have a slow way to get around that makes you fat and mean? - but I do not think the fascinating sociopathology question justifies the ill effects it visits upon the rest of the city's residents.
I don't go to suburbs or small towns (less than 1m metro population) in the USA unless strongly compelled, so I couldn't care less what goes on there. Conduct Main Street smash-em-up derbies seven nights a week if you like. Change the driving age to 9. But in cities, every car taken off the road accomplishes a lot toward increasing quality of life for the inhabitants. I want to be able to walk through a green light without being honked at, without having to clamber over cars that have backed up through the crosswalk because their drivers are too idiotic to see that they need to wait until the intersection is clear. I want to hear sounds of people playing music and kids screaming and friends talking, not of someone's maladjusted engine idling outside my window (stinking up my apartment) or speeding up the street. I don't want to pick up the paper and learn about yet another child run down by a driver who doesn't understand the words "Slow - School zone". I don't want to pay the increased housing costs resulting from 25% of available land area being in service to cars.
The only pleasant thing about cars in cities is how much time they buy me. When I have to meet someone who has to take a 15-minute drive from a comparable distance, I can leave 5 minutes before the meeting time and still beat them there, because the bike is that much faster.