This is a red herring. Telemarketing companies are moving those jobs overseas anyway, it is the ideal job to move to India etc as it is done completely over the phone. So when Telemarketing companies whine about this law causing millions of lost jobs ask them how many of those jobs would have been shipped overseas anyway...
Re:Terminator is trying to
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
Keep in mind the media scrutiny that Presidential candidates are exposed to. Given the public's lust for dirt you can count that no stone will be left unturned. I think it'd be kindof hard to hide the fact that you spent a few years over in Afghanistan training for Jihad.
Re:Terminator is trying to
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Time to start paying attention to news sites other than Slashdot. Orrin Hatch (Senator from Utah) is pushing an ammendment to allow US Citizens that were not born in the US but have been citizens for a decent amount of time (I believe 20 years) to be eligible to be president. It's actually a good idea in my opinion, the requirement that you were born in the US is outdated.
The ironic thing is wasn't there a Movie (was it Demolition Man?) about a future where they changed the laws to allow Arnold to become president? Life imitates movies it appears.
I don't think you are looking at this from the ISPs point of view.
The problem is that ISPs can no longer simply charge a flat rate for a given amount of bandwidth. With unicast if your subscriber is paying you for 1mbps you know that they are only going to use 1mbps period and you can plan your core links and upstream links appropriately. But with multicast that 1mbps that you are giving to your customer can become 5mbps, 10mbps, 100mbps through your core network as it moves down the multicast tree. The result is that you are paying your upstream provider for 100mbps while your customer is only paying you for 1mpbs. Not the best business plan. In summary, with multicast if your customers pay by the bit, make sure it's counted as it egresses your AS, not just on their single link.
An example, lets say I'll streaming a 1mbps video stream. If I have three listeners and I have a separate unicast stream for each then that means I will be taking up 3mbps in my pipe to the ISP. If we are using multicast however, then I will send just a single 1mbps stream to my ISP. At some point within my ISP this stream could separate into the three different streams for my receivers, or it could continue as a single stream throughout the entire ISP it all just depends on where the receivers are located at. So what should I be charged for, 1mpbs or 3mpbs? And how does the ISP track how much bandwidth was used given that they can no longer just go by how much bandwidth my direct pipe to them used? Obviously there are solutions to this as some ISPs offer multicast but saying that you can just "bill by the bit" is oversimplifying the issue.
As a side note, multicast receivers don't need any special treatment...the bandwidth that goes down their pipe is the bandwidth you need to bill them.
I'm sorry but my parents were incapable of being three feet away from me throughout my entire childhood. According to what you are implying they were obviously very neglectful.
The Bible rests on the notion that there is a supreme creator. Given that He is the giver of life He also is the only one with the authority to determine when or if that life should be taken away. This isn't a defense (as He needs no defense) just my way of looking at it.
Again this refers to the context, murder is condemned throughout the Bible. But taking a life for just cause (as determined by God) is not murder. Whether or not you or I can understand His actions is besides the point.
So does the nightly news. The issue here is the context in which it is presented. (i.e. porn makes it look appealing, the Bible/nightly news rightly portray bad things as bad).
When I was about 4 years old I broke my arm jumping off my bunkbed pretending to be superman. My point? Kids are impressionable. Just like they play house following their parents example they recreate situations they see on TV and in pictures. That is one of the reasons why it is necessary to keep pornography away from children otherwise you'll have kids paying a little bit too much attention to the family dog after stumbling across a beastiality site.
The facts that pornography is immoral, offensive to women in that it treats them solely as sex objects, offensive to the viewer in that it implies that their only means of sexual gratification is through watching others(in other words, they lack the social skills to build a relationship and have a healthy sex life, instead they must rely on pictures/movies to satisfy their sex drive), are also important to consider.
Of course as usual this goes against the slashdot creed so I don't expect to see many agree with me here.
If they want to block their customers from viewing porn then more power to them. If their customers do not appreciate this then they will take their business elsewhere.
Not really, even if the person in Minnesota initially requests it from the server it is still the server that is sending the objectionable traffic to Minnesota, if the courts in Minnesota find that that traffic is obscene according to their communities standards then they should be able to charge that person. (So I assume they'll have to extradite them from Cali fo Minnesota).
Will this make it really difficult for porn websites? Yes. Is this a bad thing? Definately not. It would make them have to start being careful about who receives their material, being careful about checking that the people that receive their material are who they really say they are, etc. These things are good things as it will help keep porn away from kids and will also help cleanup the internet alot.
Seems like people try to use the internet as an excuse to ignore all laws. Bottom line is that if you are sending traffic into a state/country your traffic could (and I would argue should) be subject to their laws. People need to start being more careful about where they send questionable traffic.
Freedom of speech is simply that, freedom of speech, it isn't the freedom to see pictures of a guy raping a goat.
I don't believe protecting porn is anything even remotely close to what the founding fathers intended.
Seems like people try to protect pretty much everything by attempting to rationalize it as some bizarre form of speech, but lets face it, speech is speech and porn is porn. The line might get fuzzy when dealing with artwork etc, but when you are just talking about Hustler, Playboy, or the hardcore porn found on the internet then it really should be a no brainer. I'm not at this particular time arguing that it should all be outlawed by default, but please stop insulting our intelligence and comparing that type of material to speech.
Of course this is not the typical geek party-line which wholeheartedly endorses porn so I don't expect to be well received:-)
Umm no. This list is obviously from a conservative christian church that wishes to label the proselyting christian churches (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc) as cults to keep their members from joining them.
Basically, according to this list if you don't believe that the Bible is the only source of inspiration from God then you must be a cultist. Not too far a step away from if you don't believe in OUR interpretation of the Bible then you must be a cultist.
I saw the movie. If I remember right she had just moved into the house and the camera's had been inserted prior to her moving in. It was a friend that did it and he was often invited into the house (even given the keys sometimes) so proving breaking and entering would be impossible. They even thought about charging for burglary (for the electricity) but it wouldn't have amounted to more than a slap in the wrist. Bottom line is that this law is definately needed, the second part will be hard to get passed though...
That is like saying non-alcoholic beer prevents alcoholism. Do you really think an alcoholic will settle for non-alcoholic beer, or will they go after the real thing?
Porn is an addiction, looking at virtual child porn will just lead the pervent to want more and more.
Ok, a similar example focusing on the core of the issue here: retrieving information from a store due to a receipt found at the scene of a crime in order to match the receipt to the customer.
Assume a murder has taken place and one of the pieces of evidence that was left is a numbered receipt (so it can be identified) to a local electronics store. Should the police be able to ask the store to provide the name of the person that matches the receipt?
In truth this has nothing to do with speech, just common sense intentionally muddied by the book store.
Sounds like this isn't a first ammendment issue at all IMHO. Rather, it sounds like the owners of the Tattered Cover are just trying to block a standard police investigation:
Just because someone is claiming that a case is regarding defending First Amendment rights does not mean that it really is. In this case I would definately say that this has nothing to do with freedom of speech and the judge made a mistake in reversing the judgement.
And keep them on a 3 foot leash the entire time they are there too right?
Seriously though, it's obvious that parents should be going with their young kids to the library, but I don't think we should have to accompany 12 year olds...and I don't believe that the benefits provided by having internet access in libraries are great enough to justify the negative effects of un-filtered porn.
So basically, we either need to come up with a filtering mechanism that works, or just get rid of the access in public places altogether. That's where my vote is going.
Traditional libraries with no internet access, and therefore no access to porn for children.
Libraries with internet access thereby making it very easy for porn to be seen by children (search queries turning up wrong, porn spam, etc)
Obvious solution would be to throw filtering software on the computers and prevent porn from being viewed. But this is problematic, it doesn't work 100% and it runs into free speech issues.
So, we have two options to weigh, is it more important to provide internet access in a library, or is it more important to maintain obscenity standards in a public place (and prevent children from being subjected to porn).
I say we take away the internet connection. Sure people will bitch and moan and start sounding like Jon Katz, but lets face it, the internet isn't that important, if there is any information the children need to receive then that is what those aisles and aisles of books are for.
Should everyone who has a beer be put on a work detail for two weeks?
>>
Should you be executed for fighting while drunk? If so, exactly how many teenagers would make it past the age of 17?
Should you pay a >$5000US file for getting drunk in any way and showing up in public and "disturbing" someone? Would the fact that you may disturb someone just by being drunk make you eligible for the police to confiscate your home?
>>
Actually yes, it'd be great to extend the drug policy to include alcohol but given our cultural norms society wouldn't currently allow it. But lets not make the situation worse by legalizing other drugs.
The current status quo is better than nothing.
Why you equate smoking and drinking with really living is beyond me. It always thought it was pitiful that people can't have fun when they're sober, how boring can you be?
I do support for one of the core router vendors. So, the reasons for having someone work today should be obvious. It's been pretty slow, only a couple problems this morning before my shift started.
As for why I'm one of the ones working, well, my fiance is in a different state visiting her parents, what else am I supposed to do?
"First of all, RAM on a router is not the issue anymore. The issue is bandwidth. If your router has to maintain 100,000,000 routers instead of 100,000, you have a 1,000 fold increase in routing table updates in network bandwidth. "
Not sure what makes you think not. We're certainly not running RIP in the core so there are no regular updates, just incremental updates. Yes, when two BGP peers first come online the entire routing table has to be transferred so that is an issue, but after that only changes are sent.
Main issues you'll see are memory and route-lookup times.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a red herring. Telemarketing companies are moving those jobs overseas anyway, it is the ideal job to move to India etc as it is done completely over the phone. So when Telemarketing companies whine about this law causing millions of lost jobs ask them how many of those jobs would have been shipped overseas anyway...
Keep in mind the media scrutiny that Presidential candidates are exposed to. Given the public's lust for dirt you can count that no stone will be left unturned. I think it'd be kindof hard to hide the fact that you spent a few years over in Afghanistan training for Jihad.
Time to start paying attention to news sites other than Slashdot. Orrin Hatch (Senator from Utah) is pushing an ammendment to allow US Citizens that were not born in the US but have been citizens for a decent amount of time (I believe 20 years) to be eligible to be president. It's actually a good idea in my opinion, the requirement that you were born in the US is outdated.
The ironic thing is wasn't there a Movie (was it Demolition Man?) about a future where they changed the laws to allow Arnold to become president? Life imitates movies it appears.
I don't think you are looking at this from the ISPs point of view.
The problem is that ISPs can no longer simply charge a flat rate for a given amount of bandwidth. With unicast if your subscriber is paying you for 1mbps you know that they are only going to use 1mbps period and you can plan your core links and upstream links appropriately. But with multicast that 1mbps that you are giving to your customer can become 5mbps, 10mbps, 100mbps through your core network as it moves down the multicast tree. The result is that you are paying your upstream provider for 100mbps while your customer is only paying you for 1mpbs. Not the best business plan. In summary, with multicast if your customers pay by the bit, make sure it's counted as it egresses your AS, not just on their single link.
An example, lets say I'll streaming a 1mbps video stream. If I have three listeners and I have a separate unicast stream for each then that means I will be taking up 3mbps in my pipe to the ISP. If we are using multicast however, then I will send just a single 1mbps stream to my ISP. At some point within my ISP this stream could separate into the three different streams for my receivers, or it could continue as a single stream throughout the entire ISP it all just depends on where the receivers are located at. So what should I be charged for, 1mpbs or 3mpbs? And how does the ISP track how much bandwidth was used given that they can no longer just go by how much bandwidth my direct pipe to them used? Obviously there are solutions to this as some ISPs offer multicast but saying that you can just "bill by the bit" is oversimplifying the issue.
As a side note, multicast receivers don't need any special treatment...the bandwidth that goes down their pipe is the bandwidth you need to bill them.
I'm sorry but my parents were incapable of being three feet away from me throughout my entire childhood. According to what you are implying they were obviously very neglectful.
The Bible rests on the notion that there is a supreme creator. Given that He is the giver of life He also is the only one with the authority to determine when or if that life should be taken away. This isn't a defense (as He needs no defense) just my way of looking at it.
Again this refers to the context, murder is condemned throughout the Bible. But taking a life for just cause (as determined by God) is not murder. Whether or not you or I can understand His actions is besides the point.
So does the nightly news. The issue here is the context in which it is presented. (i.e. porn makes it look appealing, the Bible/nightly news rightly portray bad things as bad).
When I was about 4 years old I broke my arm jumping off my bunkbed pretending to be superman. My point? Kids are impressionable. Just like they play house following their parents example they recreate situations they see on TV and in pictures. That is one of the reasons why it is necessary to keep pornography away from children otherwise you'll have kids paying a little bit too much attention to the family dog after stumbling across a beastiality site.
The facts that pornography is immoral, offensive to women in that it treats them solely as sex objects, offensive to the viewer in that it implies that their only means of sexual gratification is through watching others(in other words, they lack the social skills to build a relationship and have a healthy sex life, instead they must rely on pictures/movies to satisfy their sex drive), are also important to consider.
Of course as usual this goes against the slashdot creed so I don't expect to see many agree with me here.
If they want to block their customers from viewing porn then more power to them. If their customers do not appreciate this then they will take their business elsewhere.
Where is the story here?
Not really, even if the person in Minnesota initially requests it from the server it is still the server that is sending the objectionable traffic to Minnesota, if the courts in Minnesota find that that traffic is obscene according to their communities standards then they should be able to charge that person. (So I assume they'll have to extradite them from Cali fo Minnesota).
Will this make it really difficult for porn websites? Yes. Is this a bad thing? Definately not. It would make them have to start being careful about who receives their material, being careful about checking that the people that receive their material are who they really say they are, etc. These things are good things as it will help keep porn away from kids and will also help cleanup the internet alot.
Seems like people try to use the internet as an excuse to ignore all laws. Bottom line is that if you are sending traffic into a state/country your traffic could (and I would argue should) be subject to their laws. People need to start being more careful about where they send questionable traffic.
Freedom of speech is simply that, freedom of speech, it isn't the freedom to see pictures of a guy raping a goat.
:-)
I don't believe protecting porn is anything even remotely close to what the founding fathers intended.
Seems like people try to protect pretty much everything by attempting to rationalize it as some bizarre form of speech, but lets face it, speech is speech and porn is porn. The line might get fuzzy when dealing with artwork etc, but when you are just talking about Hustler, Playboy, or the hardcore porn found on the internet then it really should be a no brainer. I'm not at this particular time arguing that it should all be outlawed by default, but please stop insulting our intelligence and comparing that type of material to speech.
Of course this is not the typical geek party-line which wholeheartedly endorses porn so I don't expect to be well received
Umm no. This list is obviously from a conservative christian church that wishes to label the proselyting christian churches (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc) as cults to keep their members from joining them.
Basically, according to this list if you don't believe that the Bible is the only source of inspiration from God then you must be a cultist. Not too far a step away from if you don't believe in OUR interpretation of the Bible then you must be a cultist.
I saw the movie. If I remember right she had just moved into the house and the camera's had been inserted prior to her moving in. It was a friend that did it and he was often invited into the house (even given the keys sometimes) so proving breaking and entering would be impossible. They even thought about charging for burglary (for the electricity) but it wouldn't have amounted to more than a slap in the wrist. Bottom line is that this law is definately needed, the second part will be hard to get passed though...
That is like saying non-alcoholic beer prevents alcoholism. Do you really think an alcoholic will settle for non-alcoholic beer, or will they go after the real thing?
Porn is an addiction, looking at virtual child porn will just lead the pervent to want more and more.
Ok, a similar example focusing on the core of the issue here: retrieving information from a store due to a receipt found at the scene of a crime in order to match the receipt to the customer.
Assume a murder has taken place and one of the pieces of evidence that was left is a numbered receipt (so it can be identified) to a local electronics store. Should the police be able to ask the store to provide the name of the person that matches the receipt?
In truth this has nothing to do with speech, just common sense intentionally muddied by the book store.
Sounds like this isn't a first ammendment issue at all IMHO. Rather, it sounds like the owners of the Tattered Cover are just trying to block a standard police investigation:
i cl e/0,1299,DRMN_15_1061730,00.html
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/art
Just because someone is claiming that a case is regarding defending First Amendment rights does not mean that it really is. In this case I would definately say that this has nothing to do with freedom of speech and the judge made a mistake in reversing the judgement.
And keep them on a 3 foot leash the entire time they are there too right?
Seriously though, it's obvious that parents should be going with their young kids to the library, but I don't think we should have to accompany 12 year olds...and I don't believe that the benefits provided by having internet access in libraries are great enough to justify the negative effects of un-filtered porn.
So basically, we either need to come up with a filtering mechanism that works, or just get rid of the access in public places altogether. That's where my vote is going.
Seems we have two choices:
Traditional libraries with no internet access, and therefore no access to porn for children.
Libraries with internet access thereby making it very easy for porn to be seen by children (search queries turning up wrong, porn spam, etc)
Obvious solution would be to throw filtering software on the computers and prevent porn from being viewed. But this is problematic, it doesn't work 100% and it runs into free speech issues.
So, we have two options to weigh, is it more important to provide internet access in a library, or is it more important to maintain obscenity standards in a public place (and prevent children from being subjected to porn).
I say we take away the internet connection. Sure people will bitch and moan and start sounding like Jon Katz, but lets face it, the internet isn't that important, if there is any information the children need to receive then that is what those aisles and aisles of books are for.
Should everyone who has a beer be put on a work detail for two weeks?
>>
Should you be executed for fighting while drunk? If so, exactly how many teenagers would make it past the age of 17?
Should you pay a >$5000US file for getting drunk in any way and showing up in public and "disturbing" someone? Would the fact that you may disturb someone just by being drunk make you eligible for the police to confiscate your home?
>>
Actually yes, it'd be great to extend the drug policy to include alcohol but given our cultural norms society wouldn't currently allow it. But lets not make the situation worse by legalizing other drugs.
The current status quo is better than nothing.
Why you equate smoking and drinking with really living is beyond me. It always thought it was pitiful that people can't have fun when they're sober, how boring can you be?
I do support for one of the core router vendors. So, the reasons for having someone work today should be obvious. It's been pretty slow, only a couple problems this morning before my shift started.
As for why I'm one of the ones working, well, my fiance is in a different state visiting her parents, what else am I supposed to do?
When you find yourself spending too much time playing a game, just delete it, that's what I do.
Otherwise I find myself saying "I have a few free minutes, I'll play a little Diablo II" and the next thing I know it's 2am.
Already stated earlier but Juniper routers all support IPv6 as of the newest software release (JUNOS 5.1).
There are a few customers using it and it'll see more use as time goes by.
"First of all, RAM on a router is not the issue anymore. The issue is bandwidth. If your router has to maintain 100,000,000 routers instead of 100,000, you have a 1,000 fold increase in routing table updates in network bandwidth. "
Not sure what makes you think not. We're certainly not running RIP in the core so there are no regular updates, just incremental updates. Yes, when two BGP peers first come online the entire routing table has to be transferred so that is an issue, but after that only changes are sent.
Main issues you'll see are memory and route-lookup times.