I see ads, and I do it voluntarily because I believe in allowing the publishers of content that I wish to view a possible revenue stream - if the ad is intrusive or impacts me in a negative way, I simply cross that site off my list and don't go back. I don't have adblock installed on any of my browsers.
Except that Slashdot overreacted to that story, in typical Slashdot style - the Comcast-Level3 issue was not net neutrality related, it was a case of Level3 exceeding their already existing peering relationship with Comcast by taking on Netflix CDN traffic (replacing Akamai), and turning down Comcasts offer to include it under the same terms as offered to Akamai.
It was Level3 trying to position this as a net neutrality story when infact it was a breach of already existing commercial peering arrangements - Level3 expected Comcast to take more traffic than formally agreed to and Comcast said "no".
How does the FCC propose to regulate Net Neutrality for the parts of the internet that sit outside of the US but may still impose extra fees on US ISPs?
Yeah, good luck with that, its a ridiculous stance to take.
You have essentially just said that diplomats should not be making any full and frank assessments of foreign diplomats, countries or situations. Assessments that may aid others in their work, but may equally insult the subject, or cause the subject to legitimately show insult or withdraw cooperation if said assessment became public.
Take for example the revelation that China is growing weary of North Korea and could soon be in a position to cease supporting the countries government - that has the potential to seriously damage the current relationship between North Korea and China, causing North Korea to stop listening to Chinese suggestions or even back away from the negotiating table completely. In turn, China could make trade negotiations that much more difficult for American diplomats, because of the position they have been put in.
The revelation can be entirely true, but it can still cause severe problems on many sides.
Your stance of "that shouldn't have been kept secret" would have resulted in one of two scenarios - either the assessment from the front line diplomat doesn't get written because they don't want an international spat on their hands, thus analysts and diplomats further up the chain have less information to go on, and future negotiations are that much more difficult or alternatively the assessment gets written, becomes public knowledge and that diplomat gets expelled from China, or all further meetings are cancelled with that diplomat, and you have the aforementioned spat.
Would you tell something "in confidence" to someone who you expected to write down a detailed report of your statements, and send them into a system to analysed and passed around? Anyone speaking to a diplomat and expecting confidence was naive from day one.
So you would have no issues with your medical records being made public then?
There are plenty of reasons for diplomats to commit potentially inflammatory statements to paper and have them passed around - detailed foreign staffing reports on who they met, their personalities, comments made and perceptions drawn all help other diplomats to handle foreign contacts better and most certainly will contain information you would never, ever say to that persons face, despite it being 100% true.
I agree with you in essence, but would like to offer a rephrasement of your post as I disagree with its position.
Every attack cost us something, whether it failed or not. It may have cost us the sense of safety we have at home or in the office, it may have cost us some freedom as the government attempts to increase security, it may have cost us some liberty as those increases in security discourage us from certain acts.
The point at which I disagree with you is that I don't agree that all terrorism has a shared objective of forcing governments to make life worse for their own citizens, my opinion is that in a lot of cases that is merely coincidental and in some cases it doesn't further the goals of the terrorist at all, so they actually achieve nothing.
There are a lot of cases, ongoing and in history, where terrorism has not been about the subjugation, pure killing or maiming of the other side for the sake of it - there are a lot of cases where terrorism was a means to an end, because those carrying out the acts of terror could not form a legitimate army with uniforms.
Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress is one prime example - much vaunted by the world for being the government that replaced the apartheid regime in South Africa, much of its past seems to have been conveniently forgotten by the world. A past which contains many acts of terrorism, many killings, many kidnappings and beatings of whites. None of them were done out of a need to simply kill, maim or subjugate the opposition, all of them were done with a perceived goal in sight - freedom.
I'm jumping into this conversation a few days late, but I need to comment:)
I looked heavily at the N900 earlier this year, read the reviews, did the research and followed the discussions here on Slashdot. The N900 was looking promising.
My wifes contract was up before mine, so I talked her into getting it so I could see how it was - sure enough we were both impressed and two weeks later I ordered mine.
After using it for 3 months, I switched back to my iPhone 3G - the N900 was slow, buggy, crashy, it had poor response times to clicks and the interface felt icky. Wifi was spotty, calls kept getting dropped and sometimes the screen would not allow you to accept incoming calls.
Now, I would have written most of that off to a faulty handset, except when my wife had spotted that I had gone back to my old phone, she also commented on the same things (both handsets came from different networks, so were not part of the same batch). She hates her N900 - not only does she have much the same complaints as me, but now 8 months on (she got hers in March this year), the handset is actually coming apart - the keyboard is losing keys, paint is scraping off, the screen needs to be pressed hard to get it to respond.
Theres no way I could actually recommend an N900 now that I have used one, and have someone else that has used one for longer!
Your understanding of the removal and subsequent restoration of the English monarchy is a little stunted - there were several subsequent further rebellions against the installed Parliament, including the removal of the Lord Protectorate (the position that Cromwell created to replace the monarchy - essentially the same in all but name) by the army, and the closure of the Houses and installation of a new committee to oversee England.
The installed governor of Scotland also marched against England, which resulted in the English army essentially falling apart and allowing him to make it all the way to London, and reformed Parliament who installed Charles II as King.
The monarch-less Parliament failed because of infighting and lack of direction once Cromwell had died, and they couldn't prevent someone else from taking over the country (which is what happened).
Only the iPhone 4 includes an actual gyroscope, on all other iPhones and the iPad, rotational input is handled by the 3-axis accelerometer. So my point stands.
Why is this a "big fail of ms"? Microsoft didn't write the iPhones Exchange integration, Apple did - if Apple are deleting unrelated information on request of an Exchange server without a prompt, then its Apples fault, not Microsofts.
Diaspora also doesn't have any of the reasons to sign up, it's currently as useful as not signing up for Facebook, you get the same privacy protection either way...
You get what you pay for - at $43.5Billion in todays money for 13 launches, Saturn V was not cheap. The Delta 4 however has an average cost of $210Million with 14 launches, so is considerably cheaper.
You really seem to be trying ever so hard in justifying piracy regardless and yet you seem to completely miss my point.
If there are no consequences to just taking the game, and people can see that there are no consequences for just taking the game, why would anyone pay for it?
That's the crux of the matter, and your argument skirts it entirely.
The amount of people that pirate something most certainly DOES matter in our discussion, because if there is a complete lack of consequence, and that completely lack of consequence is well and truly demonstrated, it lifts the barrier for the paying customer - why would they pay for something when there is no consequence to just taking it for free?
I'm guessing you don't know about Boeings long stint with industrial espionage earlier this decade? In 2003 they enticed a DoD employee to pass them extensive confidential details of a rivals bid to supply the USAF with tanker aircraft, sparking a criminal investigation within the DoD and punitive measures against Boeing. Again in 2003 Lockheed successfully sued Boeing over allegations that a former Lockheed employee took significant quantities of confidential and proprietary Lockheed corporate documentation to Boeing when he switched companies in 1998, and Boeing used those documents to secure several high profile government contracts. Boeing was found guilty by the DoD and stripped of its contracts, fined $500m and banned from bidding for two years.
If you think its just the Chinese that do this, think again - the Boeing/Lockheed case has startling similarities to this one, don't you think...
Likewise, the blame also shouldn't be put on people who do things that harm no one (as explained above).
The problem with your premise is that this action can certainly do harm if it is not prevented.
If this game were to be pirated 5% of the time (random figure pulled out of my arse, but I really think its on the low side), and no action were taken against that act, what proportion of the 95% who spent $45 on the game would think 'hey, those guys are getting the same game as me but for free, and theres nothing being done about it - why am I spending my money?'
When the next game is released under the same conditions (no DRM, packaged as a downloadable purchase that has no restrictions), how many of that 95% are going to remember that there were no consequences for those choosing not to pay for the game, and instead torrent it themselves this time round?
This isn't friends telling friends not to purchase, this is about the wrong actions having no consequence and the public seeing that. That is where the harm comes in.
Not it isn't deprecated, that rumours been going around for a while but its still under active development at Microsoft -.Net 4.0 included some fairly hefty updates to Linq to SQL. There is no evidence of it being dropped any time soon.
I think you vastly overstate Assange's 'following' - there is nothing there to make him a martyr.
Howver, the way its currently playing, he gets to scream and shout about a conspiracy against him - not much of a discreditation if people are still listening to him...
No you *haven't* answered the question, you just repeat the same stuff over again - which is why I keep repeating the same response as well.
What about using a different technology in your spare time to the one you make money with makes you more likely to be considered? What does it show? Because it certainly does not show an automatic interest in "new technologies", it just shows that you may have divergent interests outside of work.
If you are just plonking shit down on a CV, you don't just put ".Net experience", you put where you have used it, when you have used it and at what level. That way the.Net developer who is relying on 5 year old experience won't get past the first sift of the CV pile, and instead someone who says they used ".Net and C# up to and including 4.0 from 2007 to date, in the role of Web Developer with ASP.Net WebForms and ASP.Net MVC 1 & 2".
What you are really trying to do is say that because I enjoy the same technologies as I use in my day job, I am at a disadvantage to someone who prefers to pursue something different, but you have yet to come up with a decent reason *why*.
If the government wanted him out of the way that badly, you know what they would do? Have a deranged wife or brother of a soldier killed in Afghanistan walk up to Assange and stab him with a carving knife. Thats how it would happen - complete deniability and a link to his own actions in to boot. No need to make up seedy sex crime claims or whatever.
You still haven't answered the question - why would you consider someone who knows another seemingly random language to be more interested in new technologies? Why should the fact that I like to continue to program in my daytime language in the evenings and weekends have any negative bearing on whether I like new technologies or not?
.Net has undergone some significant changes fairly recently, 3.5 brought in Linq and the related language constructs, 4.0 brought in significant parallel processing capabilities, 5.0 has a lot of goodies and is just around the corner. The C#of today is different to the C# of yesterday. ASP.Net has had a lot of development over the past few years, with MVC (yeah I know, not new in the grand scheme but ASP.Net MVC certainly is and is very nice), WebForms 4.0 and other stuff.
So why do I have to drop my enjoyment of the platform and take up another to be considered a serious candidate by yourself? You make it sound as if there is no way to grow within an ecosystem, which is utter bollocks.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said that they knowingly took them back? Its trivially easy to register a new account with EveryDNS and get them to host a new domain...
I see ads, and I do it voluntarily because I believe in allowing the publishers of content that I wish to view a possible revenue stream - if the ad is intrusive or impacts me in a negative way, I simply cross that site off my list and don't go back. I don't have adblock installed on any of my browsers.
Except that Slashdot overreacted to that story, in typical Slashdot style - the Comcast-Level3 issue was not net neutrality related, it was a case of Level3 exceeding their already existing peering relationship with Comcast by taking on Netflix CDN traffic (replacing Akamai), and turning down Comcasts offer to include it under the same terms as offered to Akamai.
It was Level3 trying to position this as a net neutrality story when infact it was a breach of already existing commercial peering arrangements - Level3 expected Comcast to take more traffic than formally agreed to and Comcast said "no".
How does the FCC propose to regulate Net Neutrality for the parts of the internet that sit outside of the US but may still impose extra fees on US ISPs?
Yeah, good luck with that, its a ridiculous stance to take.
You have essentially just said that diplomats should not be making any full and frank assessments of foreign diplomats, countries or situations. Assessments that may aid others in their work, but may equally insult the subject, or cause the subject to legitimately show insult or withdraw cooperation if said assessment became public.
Take for example the revelation that China is growing weary of North Korea and could soon be in a position to cease supporting the countries government - that has the potential to seriously damage the current relationship between North Korea and China, causing North Korea to stop listening to Chinese suggestions or even back away from the negotiating table completely. In turn, China could make trade negotiations that much more difficult for American diplomats, because of the position they have been put in.
The revelation can be entirely true, but it can still cause severe problems on many sides.
Your stance of "that shouldn't have been kept secret" would have resulted in one of two scenarios - either the assessment from the front line diplomat doesn't get written because they don't want an international spat on their hands, thus analysts and diplomats further up the chain have less information to go on, and future negotiations are that much more difficult or alternatively the assessment gets written, becomes public knowledge and that diplomat gets expelled from China, or all further meetings are cancelled with that diplomat, and you have the aforementioned spat.
And rightfully so!
Would you tell something "in confidence" to someone who you expected to write down a detailed report of your statements, and send them into a system to analysed and passed around? Anyone speaking to a diplomat and expecting confidence was naive from day one.
So you would have no issues with your medical records being made public then?
There are plenty of reasons for diplomats to commit potentially inflammatory statements to paper and have them passed around - detailed foreign staffing reports on who they met, their personalities, comments made and perceptions drawn all help other diplomats to handle foreign contacts better and most certainly will contain information you would never, ever say to that persons face, despite it being 100% true.
I agree with you in essence, but would like to offer a rephrasement of your post as I disagree with its position.
Every attack cost us something, whether it failed or not. It may have cost us the sense of safety we have at home or in the office, it may have cost us some freedom as the government attempts to increase security, it may have cost us some liberty as those increases in security discourage us from certain acts.
The point at which I disagree with you is that I don't agree that all terrorism has a shared objective of forcing governments to make life worse for their own citizens, my opinion is that in a lot of cases that is merely coincidental and in some cases it doesn't further the goals of the terrorist at all, so they actually achieve nothing.
There are a lot of cases, ongoing and in history, where terrorism has not been about the subjugation, pure killing or maiming of the other side for the sake of it - there are a lot of cases where terrorism was a means to an end, because those carrying out the acts of terror could not form a legitimate army with uniforms.
Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress is one prime example - much vaunted by the world for being the government that replaced the apartheid regime in South Africa, much of its past seems to have been conveniently forgotten by the world. A past which contains many acts of terrorism, many killings, many kidnappings and beatings of whites. None of them were done out of a need to simply kill, maim or subjugate the opposition, all of them were done with a perceived goal in sight - freedom.
No, that isn't slavery. Stop trying to subvert the meaning of words.
I'm jumping into this conversation a few days late, but I need to comment :)
I looked heavily at the N900 earlier this year, read the reviews, did the research and followed the discussions here on Slashdot. The N900 was looking promising.
My wifes contract was up before mine, so I talked her into getting it so I could see how it was - sure enough we were both impressed and two weeks later I ordered mine.
After using it for 3 months, I switched back to my iPhone 3G - the N900 was slow, buggy, crashy, it had poor response times to clicks and the interface felt icky. Wifi was spotty, calls kept getting dropped and sometimes the screen would not allow you to accept incoming calls.
Now, I would have written most of that off to a faulty handset, except when my wife had spotted that I had gone back to my old phone, she also commented on the same things (both handsets came from different networks, so were not part of the same batch). She hates her N900 - not only does she have much the same complaints as me, but now 8 months on (she got hers in March this year), the handset is actually coming apart - the keyboard is losing keys, paint is scraping off, the screen needs to be pressed hard to get it to respond.
Theres no way I could actually recommend an N900 now that I have used one, and have someone else that has used one for longer!
Your understanding of the removal and subsequent restoration of the English monarchy is a little stunted - there were several subsequent further rebellions against the installed Parliament, including the removal of the Lord Protectorate (the position that Cromwell created to replace the monarchy - essentially the same in all but name) by the army, and the closure of the Houses and installation of a new committee to oversee England.
The installed governor of Scotland also marched against England, which resulted in the English army essentially falling apart and allowing him to make it all the way to London, and reformed Parliament who installed Charles II as King.
The monarch-less Parliament failed because of infighting and lack of direction once Cromwell had died, and they couldn't prevent someone else from taking over the country (which is what happened).
Only the iPhone 4 includes an actual gyroscope, on all other iPhones and the iPad, rotational input is handled by the 3-axis accelerometer. So my point stands.
Accuracy. I haven't yet seen a game where accuracy in the accelerometer hasn't been an issue.
Why is this a "big fail of ms"? Microsoft didn't write the iPhones Exchange integration, Apple did - if Apple are deleting unrelated information on request of an Exchange server without a prompt, then its Apples fault, not Microsofts.
Diaspora also doesn't have any of the reasons to sign up, it's currently as useful as not signing up for Facebook, you get the same privacy protection either way...
Why shouldn't the insurance industry try and load the odds in their favour?
You get what you pay for - at $43.5Billion in todays money for 13 launches, Saturn V was not cheap. The Delta 4 however has an average cost of $210Million with 14 launches, so is considerably cheaper.
You really seem to be trying ever so hard in justifying piracy regardless and yet you seem to completely miss my point.
If there are no consequences to just taking the game, and people can see that there are no consequences for just taking the game, why would anyone pay for it?
That's the crux of the matter, and your argument skirts it entirely.
The amount of people that pirate something most certainly DOES matter in our discussion, because if there is a complete lack of consequence, and that completely lack of consequence is well and truly demonstrated, it lifts the barrier for the paying customer - why would they pay for something when there is no consequence to just taking it for free?
See my above comment about it not just being the Chinese (Boeing/Lockheed, 2003. Boeing/Airbus, 2003). Your own closet has some skeletons as well...
I'm guessing you don't know about Boeings long stint with industrial espionage earlier this decade? In 2003 they enticed a DoD employee to pass them extensive confidential details of a rivals bid to supply the USAF with tanker aircraft, sparking a criminal investigation within the DoD and punitive measures against Boeing. Again in 2003 Lockheed successfully sued Boeing over allegations that a former Lockheed employee took significant quantities of confidential and proprietary Lockheed corporate documentation to Boeing when he switched companies in 1998, and Boeing used those documents to secure several high profile government contracts. Boeing was found guilty by the DoD and stripped of its contracts, fined $500m and banned from bidding for two years.
If you think its just the Chinese that do this, think again - the Boeing/Lockheed case has startling similarities to this one, don't you think...
Likewise, the blame also shouldn't be put on people who do things that harm no one (as explained above).
The problem with your premise is that this action can certainly do harm if it is not prevented.
If this game were to be pirated 5% of the time (random figure pulled out of my arse, but I really think its on the low side), and no action were taken against that act, what proportion of the 95% who spent $45 on the game would think 'hey, those guys are getting the same game as me but for free, and theres nothing being done about it - why am I spending my money?'
When the next game is released under the same conditions (no DRM, packaged as a downloadable purchase that has no restrictions), how many of that 95% are going to remember that there were no consequences for those choosing not to pay for the game, and instead torrent it themselves this time round?
This isn't friends telling friends not to purchase, this is about the wrong actions having no consequence and the public seeing that. That is where the harm comes in.
Not it isn't deprecated, that rumours been going around for a while but its still under active development at Microsoft - .Net 4.0 included some fairly hefty updates to Linq to SQL. There is no evidence of it being dropped any time soon.
I think you vastly overstate Assange's 'following' - there is nothing there to make him a martyr.
Howver, the way its currently playing, he gets to scream and shout about a conspiracy against him - not much of a discreditation if people are still listening to him...
No you *haven't* answered the question, you just repeat the same stuff over again - which is why I keep repeating the same response as well.
.Net developer who is relying on 5 year old experience won't get past the first sift of the CV pile, and instead someone who says they used ".Net and C# up to and including 4.0 from 2007 to date, in the role of Web Developer with ASP.Net WebForms and ASP.Net MVC 1 & 2".
What about using a different technology in your spare time to the one you make money with makes you more likely to be considered? What does it show? Because it certainly does not show an automatic interest in "new technologies", it just shows that you may have divergent interests outside of work.
If you are just plonking shit down on a CV, you don't just put ".Net experience", you put where you have used it, when you have used it and at what level. That way the
What you are really trying to do is say that because I enjoy the same technologies as I use in my day job, I am at a disadvantage to someone who prefers to pursue something different, but you have yet to come up with a decent reason *why*.
If the government wanted him out of the way that badly, you know what they would do? Have a deranged wife or brother of a soldier killed in Afghanistan walk up to Assange and stab him with a carving knife. Thats how it would happen - complete deniability and a link to his own actions in to boot. No need to make up seedy sex crime claims or whatever.
You still haven't answered the question - why would you consider someone who knows another seemingly random language to be more interested in new technologies? Why should the fact that I like to continue to program in my daytime language in the evenings and weekends have any negative bearing on whether I like new technologies or not?
.Net has undergone some significant changes fairly recently, 3.5 brought in Linq and the related language constructs, 4.0 brought in significant parallel processing capabilities, 5.0 has a lot of goodies and is just around the corner. The C#of today is different to the C# of yesterday. ASP.Net has had a lot of development over the past few years, with MVC (yeah I know, not new in the grand scheme but ASP.Net MVC certainly is and is very nice), WebForms 4.0 and other stuff.
So why do I have to drop my enjoyment of the platform and take up another to be considered a serious candidate by yourself? You make it sound as if there is no way to grow within an ecosystem, which is utter bollocks.