You are referring to the concept of "price discrimination". This would be all find and good except 1) The all-you-can-eat model was the one chosen by the providers themselves thus now *they* after all these years wish to change the deal; and 2) You're applying concepts of resource consumption to a entity (bandwidth) that doesn't play by the same rules as other resources. Bandwidth is a different cat in that it can be "managed". It can be allocated, throttled, prioritized, etc. You can't do that with electricity, gasoline, coal, etc as they are more binary in nature (used or not used). Furthermore bandwidth can be increased much more readily as there isn't really a finite amount available.
The ISPs of course could manage all this if they wanted to. Instead they find it more convenient and profitable to take the "fuck you, pay me!" approach. If you want to sound all educated and cite an economic justification for all this, the far better one would be "price elasticity of demand".
Powell said that while a lot of people had tried to label the cable industry's interest in the issue as about congestion management. "That's wrong," he said. "Our principal purpose is how to fairly monetize a high fixed cost."
----
Mr. Powell is straw-manning here. The only ones who have ever even suggested that data caps were about congestion management were ISP industry shills (usually company spokesman and industry paid commentators). Every other reasonable person (including the customer base) has guessed from the get go that the caps were pure cash grabs.
While I appreciate that Mr. Powell is finally coming clean, this candor now way after the fact merely slightly elevates his status from "pure whore" to "occationally honest whore".
They are already are involved. That's why the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation exists. However, it isn't clear that liability for a spaceflight that begins and ends in New Mexico falls under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Isn't clear to whom exactly? It sounds like just to you. The aviation Feds have jurisdiction over airspace, period. It matters not if you start and end from the same airport. The minute the landing gear leave the ground, you're Federal jurisdiction. Doesn't matter if you're in an airplane at 10,000 feet or hovering in a hot air balloon 30 feet over your house. I see no reason why these same rules would cease to apply to an aircraft destined for space and back.
Granted? Are you serious? "Limited liability" isn't something that should have to be "granted".
You're welcome to your opinion, but nobody gives a shit whether you think it *should* have to be granted or not. Your personal belief does not change what is.
If I want to off myself in a spectacular way and pay for it, that is frankly none of your or the legislature's business.
Typical slashdotter, can't see two feet beyond your face.
What if you *didn't* want to off yourself in the first place? What if the suppliers were negligent and caused a crash yet it had been represented to the passengers that everything was fine? If limited liability like this passes, that is precisely what could (I would argue will) happen.
No one is saying these individuals should not be allowed to take their lives in their hands if they wish. And no one is saying that the passengers can't contract with the suppliers to waive liability. But it is not the policy of the individual U.S. states to allow suppliers to carte blanche escape liability merely because they are upstream vendors.
.....we grant airplanes or automobile makers the same kind of liability. So why should this industry be granted the same?
The examples used in the open letter, skiing, skydiving, and bungee jumping, are considered "extreme sports". They are activities with a certain degree of personal risk. Space travel should not be in the same category.
What we are seeing here is an industry in its infancy. As such the pioneers are looking down the road and trying to head off substantive regulation. Right now many may consider space travel "risky" and in the class of extreme sports. I'm sure manned flight was viewed similarly in its early days. However it is no longer that today. Today air travel is generally safe and efficient. I don't see any reason why space travel could not be the same in 20 - 30 years. But if limited liability is granted now, it will be that much harder to retract years later.
Also, this talk of regulation is moot anyway. It is only a matter of time before the Feds get involved and pre-empt all state regs.
No, not out of date.
Just got tired of Samba 3 not fulfilling my clients' needs and said fuck it.
On a broader level your assertion is absurd.
You're prepared to say Samba 4 does AD and call it good based on an RC. Slashdot rightfully doesn't give Microsoft a pass on something like that, I don't see why an open source project should be any different.
>You do not know seem to have a lot of recent knowledge about samba. It is practically a requirement for all but the smallest site to use LDAP as the backed database. This effectively means you don't need to maintain different user databases.
All the more reason I don't want to putz with it.
>Why exactly do you need AD authentication for spam filtering and internet proxies?
Because in my consulting gigs it is all about reducing *my* pain and aggravation. It gets annoying having users constantly complain about the indignity of having to enter credentials to get into a web-managed spam queue or having to login with a special password to be able to view Facebook on their workstations. Or any number of problems with having to identify not just the workstation but who is logged into it etc.
With the products that integrate with AD (Palo Alto's internet appliance line for one) none of the above are issues. Done. I don't get any angry user calls, and the client pays my invoices without hassle because everything "just works".
A simple browse through the forums quickly showed this is simply not true. Reading on how to enable Outlook integration confirmed that.
Same old same old. It's alright if you have available time, a client willing to pay for the learning curve, and users comfortable with "out of mainstream" software. If you have clients like these, count yourself lucky.
It works for small environments. But as you start getting above 50 people AD is the way to go for two reasons:
1) Less admin overhead time. Like it or not, AD "just works" unless you really snork it up; and
2) AD credentials integrate with more stuff and it's not tenable to have to maintain different user databases for each one. Sooner or later an enterprise will want exchange.,,,,,,,and spam filtering......and internet proxies etc. There are a multitude of products out there that will integrate with AD. To get the same with Linux / Samba (if it can be done at all) will require cobbling together services and solutions that will complicate your life.
The bottom line:
I went through my Linux zealotry phase too. Then I got a life and couldn't spend hours on end reading docs and fiddling with services and config files. Towards that end AD just simplifies user admin and frees you up to deal with other stuff. Linux has its place in the enterprise, but it ain't as an AD replacement.
Slashdot Mirror
You are referring to the concept of "price discrimination". This would be all find and good except 1) The all-you-can-eat model was the one chosen by the providers themselves thus now *they* after all these years wish to change the deal; and 2) You're applying concepts of resource consumption to a entity (bandwidth) that doesn't play by the same rules as other resources. Bandwidth is a different cat in that it can be "managed". It can be allocated, throttled, prioritized, etc. You can't do that with electricity, gasoline, coal, etc as they are more binary in nature (used or not used). Furthermore bandwidth can be increased much more readily as there isn't really a finite amount available.
The ISPs of course could manage all this if they wanted to. Instead they find it more convenient and profitable to take the "fuck you, pay me!" approach. If you want to sound all educated and cite an economic justification for all this, the far better one would be "price elasticity of demand".
Powell said that while a lot of people had tried to label the cable industry's interest in the issue as about congestion management. "That's wrong," he said. "Our principal purpose is how to fairly monetize a high fixed cost."
----
Mr. Powell is straw-manning here. The only ones who have ever even suggested that data caps were about congestion management were ISP industry shills (usually company spokesman and industry paid commentators). Every other reasonable person (including the customer base) has guessed from the get go that the caps were pure cash grabs.
While I appreciate that Mr. Powell is finally coming clean, this candor now way after the fact merely slightly elevates his status from "pure whore" to "occationally honest whore".
They are already are involved. That's why the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation exists. However, it isn't clear that liability for a spaceflight that begins and ends in New Mexico falls under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Isn't clear to whom exactly? It sounds like just to you. The aviation Feds have jurisdiction over airspace, period. It matters not if you start and end from the same airport. The minute the landing gear leave the ground, you're Federal jurisdiction. Doesn't matter if you're in an airplane at 10,000 feet or hovering in a hot air balloon 30 feet over your house. I see no reason why these same rules would cease to apply to an aircraft destined for space and back.
Granted? Are you serious? "Limited liability" isn't something that should have to be "granted".
You're welcome to your opinion, but nobody gives a shit whether you think it *should* have to be granted or not. Your personal belief does not change what is.
If I want to off myself in a spectacular way and pay for it, that is frankly none of your or the legislature's business.
Typical slashdotter, can't see two feet beyond your face. What if you *didn't* want to off yourself in the first place? What if the suppliers were negligent and caused a crash yet it had been represented to the passengers that everything was fine? If limited liability like this passes, that is precisely what could (I would argue will) happen.
No one is saying these individuals should not be allowed to take their lives in their hands if they wish. And no one is saying that the passengers can't contract with the suppliers to waive liability. But it is not the policy of the individual U.S. states to allow suppliers to carte blanche escape liability merely because they are upstream vendors.
That is, we *don't* grant that kind of liability. Ugh.
No, not out of date. Just got tired of Samba 3 not fulfilling my clients' needs and said fuck it.
On a broader level your assertion is absurd. You're prepared to say Samba 4 does AD and call it good based on an RC. Slashdot rightfully doesn't give Microsoft a pass on something like that, I don't see why an open source project should be any different.
>You do not know seem to have a lot of recent knowledge about samba. It is practically a requirement for all but the smallest site to use LDAP as the backed database. This effectively means you don't need to maintain different user databases.
All the more reason I don't want to putz with it.
>Why exactly do you need AD authentication for spam filtering and internet proxies?
Because in my consulting gigs it is all about reducing *my* pain and aggravation. It gets annoying having users constantly complain about the indignity of having to enter credentials to get into a web-managed spam queue or having to login with a special password to be able to view Facebook on their workstations. Or any number of problems with having to identify not just the workstation but who is logged into it etc.
With the products that integrate with AD (Palo Alto's internet appliance line for one) none of the above are issues. Done. I don't get any angry user calls, and the client pays my invoices without hassle because everything "just works".
To quote Dave Hester, "YUUUUUUUP!"
>No need to fiddle with config files
A simple browse through the forums quickly showed this is simply not true. Reading on how to enable Outlook integration confirmed that. Same old same old. It's alright if you have available time, a client willing to pay for the learning curve, and users comfortable with "out of mainstream" software. If you have clients like these, count yourself lucky.
It works for small environments. But as you start getting above 50 people AD is the way to go for two reasons: 1) Less admin overhead time. Like it or not, AD "just works" unless you really snork it up; and 2) AD credentials integrate with more stuff and it's not tenable to have to maintain different user databases for each one. Sooner or later an enterprise will want exchange.,,,,,,,and spam filtering......and internet proxies etc. There are a multitude of products out there that will integrate with AD. To get the same with Linux / Samba (if it can be done at all) will require cobbling together services and solutions that will complicate your life. The bottom line: I went through my Linux zealotry phase too. Then I got a life and couldn't spend hours on end reading docs and fiddling with services and config files. Towards that end AD just simplifies user admin and frees you up to deal with other stuff. Linux has its place in the enterprise, but it ain't as an AD replacement.