Because radio is a shared resource, and at some point someone has to be responsible for the signals they send, or it all turns to shit. Is the software developer going to be responsible when the bugs cause some transmitter to jam a frequency when the operator thinks the radio is off? Or worse yet, transmit on a frequency allocated for someone else like broadcast radio or emergency services? Ultimately it has to come down to the operator of the equipment, so they're the ones who have to be licensed.
All ISPs either peer, or pay for bandwidth, with other ISPs. The negotiations of which can be quite convoluted.
That said, if Netflix, or anyone, can convince an ISP to let them peer for free, they should absolutely do it. Just like if you could convince an ISP to let you use their service for free, you should absolutely do it.
I highly doubt any ISP is allowing Netflix to do this, and **even if they were** it would not negate the fact that even if Netflix isn't paying for their bandwidth, their ISP would be, so it would be being paid regardless.
You are getting hosed. You're probably with an incumbent provider. You should look at going with a third party internet provider, you'll get the same (or better) service for a lot less.
It's not our job as software developers to save the world.
Isn't it all of our responsibilities to save the world? If we can prevent an atrocity, shouldn't we?
We want freedom in software, and that freedom is extended to everyone, including evil people
Even the GPL has limits on use, most free software / open source licenses do.
Anything else is a slippery slope that will be detrimental to the entire community.
I understand the slippery slope argument and I agree that there isn't a good mechanism to determine where to draw the line, but I'm pretty sure the majority of people would choose not to aid NAZI Germany. I suppose it would be the developers who would have to decide, but I am absolutely not convinced that we should aid evil people and not aiding evil would be detrimental to the entire community.
Eric Raymond had called the decision "destructive of one of the deep norms that keeps the open source community functional -- keeping politics separated from our work."
Should politics be separated from our work? I'm not convinced it should be. The whole idea of open source / free software is political in nature as it is a means to keep power and control of a users computing with them and not in the hands of any outside entity such as a corporation or government.
So let's take this to the extreme: If computing and Linux were around in WW2, should we have let Hitler use Linux? What if Hitler's use of Linux was the deciding factor in NAZI Germany winning the war?
Only if it's mismanaged. Most western countries don't have the same problems as the US with their public health and education systems. You'd really be in favor of having all roads be toll roads? Including the one your house is on?
Because it turns out having privately funded road, health, education, and defense systems are bad for various reasons. This extends out to other areas, like some branches of science.
> In situations like this forcing in a small wedge can be what is needed to start a move towards a genuine meritocracy and a system that doesn't exclude women.
Here's the problem. These are **private** companies. They should be allowed to "exclude women" if they want. They should be able to choose their board however they damn well please. Women are not prevented from being directors of companies, they can start their own whenever they like, but forcing certain numbers of board members of private companies to be a certain sex is sexist, and wrong.
Which doesn't make any sense at all to me, a US patent is itself valid or not, how can it matter who it belongs to.
Allergan was claiming the challenge to a patent was the same as a lawsuit and since the patents belonged to a sovereign entity which was immune to lawsuits it therefore couldn't be challenged. The court got this one right.
...details knew what they were talking about half the time.
The application (in this case, the game Fortnite) doesn't "request your processor provide faster performance."
The operating system, noticing an application is making certain API calls consistent with a program that needs high performance, will ramp up the clock rate of the processor.
No. As a manufacturer you can suggest a retail price (MSRP), but once the product is bought by the retailer, they can set whatever price they want, as it is theirs.
Was the first AR-15 made by ArmaLite designed for military use? Yes. ArmaLite ran into financial trouble and sold the patents and trademarks to Colt.
Was the first AR-15 made by ArmaLite ever used by the US military? Technically yes, as it was field tested and not yet accepted by the military it was still called the AR-15. When it was accepted it was classed the M16A1, Colt ramped up production and sold the M16A1 to the US military. The original AR-15 was for all intents and purposes the M16A1.
Are AR-15s you can buy now the same rifle as the original ones? No. When the original AR-15 was reclassed the M16A1, Colt, still having the trademark on AR-15, named the police/civilian versions AR-15. M16A1 is a select fire full auto or burst fire rifle. The civilian AR-15 is a semi-auto rifle.
I can understand the confusion because Colt, wanting to keep using the trademark they already paid for, reused the AR-15 name. That said, all AR-15s after that initial testing phase, were never manufactured for military use.
Actually, the 5.56/.223 Remington round the AR-15 uses is meant for varmints. It's considered not powerful enough to reliably and humanely hunt medium game (like deer and sheep). The.223 round is actually quite low powered.
It also isn't based on the M4. It predates the M4 by several decades.
Semi-auto just means that for every pull of the trigger, one round is fired.
So do you mean it's military style because it looks scary?
Slashdot Mirror
Because radio is a shared resource, and at some point someone has to be responsible for the signals they send, or it all turns to shit. Is the software developer going to be responsible when the bugs cause some transmitter to jam a frequency when the operator thinks the radio is off? Or worse yet, transmit on a frequency allocated for someone else like broadcast radio or emergency services? Ultimately it has to come down to the operator of the equipment, so they're the ones who have to be licensed.
Genuine Leather is actually one of the lower grades of leather. Now if it was Full Grain or Top Grain, that would be something.
All ISPs either peer, or pay for bandwidth, with other ISPs. The negotiations of which can be quite convoluted.
That said, if Netflix, or anyone, can convince an ISP to let them peer for free, they should absolutely do it. Just like if you could convince an ISP to let you use their service for free, you should absolutely do it.
I highly doubt any ISP is allowing Netflix to do this, and **even if they were** it would not negate the fact that even if Netflix isn't paying for their bandwidth, their ISP would be, so it would be being paid regardless.
You are getting hosed. You're probably with an incumbent provider. You should look at going with a third party internet provider, you'll get the same (or better) service for a lot less.
Google pays it's ISPs to carry all of it's traffic. Doesn't matter if it goes to users, Google pays an ISP to carry it.
ISPs pay or peer with other ISPs to carry all of their traffic. Doesn't matter if it goes to Google or users, ISPs pay an ISP to carry it.
Users pay their ISPs to carry all of their traffic. Doesn't matter if it goes to Google, users pay an ISP to carry it.
Who is getting free internet again?
Isn't it all of our responsibilities to save the world? If we can prevent an atrocity, shouldn't we?
Even the GPL has limits on use, most free software / open source licenses do.
I understand the slippery slope argument and I agree that there isn't a good mechanism to determine where to draw the line, but I'm pretty sure the majority of people would choose not to aid NAZI Germany. I suppose it would be the developers who would have to decide, but I am absolutely not convinced that we should aid evil people and not aiding evil would be detrimental to the entire community.
Should politics be separated from our work? I'm not convinced it should be. The whole idea of open source / free software is political in nature as it is a means to keep power and control of a users computing with them and not in the hands of any outside entity such as a corporation or government.
So let's take this to the extreme: If computing and Linux were around in WW2, should we have let Hitler use Linux? What if Hitler's use of Linux was the deciding factor in NAZI Germany winning the war?
Games are literally the last bastion for Windows.... this is huge and Valve deserves our thanks.
Compulsory dues are akin to a tax, the only difference is who is collecting it.
You focus on a word instead of the argument made... Congratulations: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
That's not a toll road, that's actually socialist tax.
A toll road would require anyone driving on it, including people coming to visit you, to pay per use.
Only if it's mismanaged. Most western countries don't have the same problems as the US with their public health and education systems. You'd really be in favor of having all roads be toll roads? Including the one your house is on?
Because it turns out having privately funded road, health, education, and defense systems are bad for various reasons. This extends out to other areas, like some branches of science.
But it isn't, because private companies are, by definition, not open to the public like a restaurant is.
> In situations like this forcing in a small wedge can be what is needed to start a move towards a genuine meritocracy and a system that doesn't exclude women.
Here's the problem. These are **private** companies. They should be allowed to "exclude women" if they want. They should be able to choose their board however they damn well please. Women are not prevented from being directors of companies, they can start their own whenever they like, but forcing certain numbers of board members of private companies to be a certain sex is sexist, and wrong.
n/t
Allergan was claiming the challenge to a patent was the same as a lawsuit and since the patents belonged to a sovereign entity which was immune to lawsuits it therefore couldn't be challenged. The court got this one right.
Well, if you forgot your password, lost your security key, and your house burned down, then you have bigger problems.
But seriously, fireproof lock boxes are a thing, and they're not that expensive.
...details knew what they were talking about half the time.
The application (in this case, the game Fortnite) doesn't "request your processor provide faster performance."
The operating system, noticing an application is making certain API calls consistent with a program that needs high performance, will ramp up the clock rate of the processor.
No. As a manufacturer you can suggest a retail price (MSRP), but once the product is bought by the retailer, they can set whatever price they want, as it is theirs.
Sounds like that guy opened his mind so wide that his brain fell out.
Who the hell trains IT staff? Where do I sign up?
51.2GByte * 8 = 409.6Gbit
409.6Gbit / 6.4Gbit = 64
So it's 6.4Gbps (6400Mbps) per pin on a 64bit bus.
(n/t)
Was the first AR-15 made by ArmaLite designed for military use? Yes. ArmaLite ran into financial trouble and sold the patents and trademarks to Colt.
Was the first AR-15 made by ArmaLite ever used by the US military? Technically yes, as it was field tested and not yet accepted by the military it was still called the AR-15. When it was accepted it was classed the M16A1, Colt ramped up production and sold the M16A1 to the US military. The original AR-15 was for all intents and purposes the M16A1.
Are AR-15s you can buy now the same rifle as the original ones? No. When the original AR-15 was reclassed the M16A1, Colt, still having the trademark on AR-15, named the police/civilian versions AR-15. M16A1 is a select fire full auto or burst fire rifle. The civilian AR-15 is a semi-auto rifle.
I can understand the confusion because Colt, wanting to keep using the trademark they already paid for, reused the AR-15 name. That said, all AR-15s after that initial testing phase, were never manufactured for military use.
Actually, the 5.56/.223 Remington round the AR-15 uses is meant for varmints. It's considered not powerful enough to reliably and humanely hunt medium game (like deer and sheep). The .223 round is actually quite low powered.
It also isn't based on the M4. It predates the M4 by several decades.
Semi-auto just means that for every pull of the trigger, one round is fired.
So do you mean it's military style because it looks scary?