They won't be able to. Their ISP will assure them of connectivity, and suffer complaints if they don't provide it. The ISPs are in a heirarchy, each already paying.
An ISP won't be able to reach across because they have to satisfy their own customers who want everyone to have clear connections to them.
"net neutrality" has never really existed. Some people get better service 'cuz their ISPs are more competant [less incompetant] about setting up multi-homing, external links and their routers. Often, you've had to pay for this as ISPs compete on service and guarantees with knowledgeable (high traffic) customers.
Now, after a lot of ISP/webhost consolidation, some of the biggies want to reintroduce performance tiering. To differentiate commodity IP transport into various service levels. That's elementary marketing to capture increased revenue from those customers willing to pay more.
I'm far from certain this is a bad thing. Instead of everyone having the same (erratic) latency, some people will pay for better, and the rest will get slightly worse. Frankly, I'm far more concerned about preserving competition between ISPs at all levels, from comsumer last-mile broadband up through the long-haul links.
I read TFA fairly closely, as usual looking as much for what could have been said but wasn't. iReading tea leaves. First, NVidia did not complain they had licenced technology from others which they couldn't "open source". It would have been a great excuse, but since they didn't use it, it doesn't apply.
Second, while they certainly want to be seen as supporting Linux, they really believe their closed-source drivers give them some source of competitive advantage. That's either in clever code or what the coding reveals about the internal organization of their GPU hardware. It would have been relatively easy and palatable to say: "We'd like to release full GPU asm specs and code, but believe this will help our competitors design better hardware. So we can only provide APIs." They didn't say this, so I think they consider their actual driver code to be very clever (main competitive advantage). No such secret will last.
Yes, I know there are many other explanations for "negative knowledge" -- things that didn't happen. But when they could have and would have been easy, perhaps we need to wonder why they didn't.
Again, I see no difficulty with indiscriminate surveillance. There is no expectation of privacy being violated. There is no actual instrusion. For one thing, it is unlikely to be indiscriminate -- cameras will be placed at high risk locations. For another, it won't be much surveillance. Even with sophisticated image-processing software, no-one will have time to look at all those images. George Orwell's 1984 flunks the eyeball count test. What will happen is things will be looked at when trouble is suspected or after the fact.
What is the matter with this? Properly concerned citizens will observe and act in public spaces today. The tapes will merely show they acted properly, and miscreants improperly. The miscreants will almost certainly be deterred. I really do not see any intrusion or chilling effect on lawful activities.
Cameras & tapes are nothing but evidence. What could possibly be wrong with more, clearer evidence? It can only help enforce good laws. Bad rulers and bad laws don't need evidence in the first place!
I am very serious and do not consider it a respectful argument to have my seriousness (or any other mood) questioned. Just _why_ is total surveillance totalitairian? It might enable totalitarianism, but that's a different matter requiring totalitarian laws.
Not everyone resents surveillance. Many (including myself) welcome it under many circumstances. CCTV in convenience stores reduces robberies and makes them safer. Many companies hire police to surveil their parking lots to protect cars and their owners.
Of course cameras do not enforce laws. But the evidence they provide makes enforement much easier and deters criminality. Who benefits by their absence?
Please tell me exactly what is oppressive about surveillance? It can only be used as evidence to enforce laws. Are you suggesting laws should not be enforced? If so, then I'd reply those laws should be stricken rather than enforced non-uniformly.
From whence the right to privacy? It must not be used to hide wrongdoing.
... OK, only half in joke. She's more particular about her coffee than I am about mine. And I value domestic tranquility. Enough that I'll often make it her way. Her happiness is important to me.
Personally, I like an extremely mild roast brewed very strong. Often in pressure equipment, 1 volume ground coffee to 4 water.
Sometimes the phone has to substitute for a face-to-face conversation of equivalent length. (it can't, but with some skill on the conversationalist's part, it can substitute with sufficient extra time).
I've used cellphone for a _very_ long time (starting with radiophones in the 1980s). The voice quality is seldom good enough for a personal conversation which depends on tone-of-voice. Yes, I'm aware there are some services that are remarkably good. Most are not, and render a phone little better than a walkie-talkie.
That's fine if that's what you value. Me, after many stubborn years, I've learned the fine art of the two hour phone call. And that takes a quality phone line where you can hear the other party breathe. Otherwise, it's just multitasking distractions. Yuck. I do too much of that at work to want to run my personal life that way.
Text communication is very different than phone or face-to-face. For one thing, tone is reduced to the point of near absence. You have to adjust content to fit the narrowband (text is wider in other respects and does fit certain content better). Face-to-face is not some "gold std" which needs to be slavishly imitated.
For another, text (especially postings), are one-to-many communications, and content again has to be adjusted.
Ubiquitity indeed loses meaning. But absence is the antithesis. Binary communications have occasionally been known to work!
Further, please note I do not rule out other emiticons, I just don't know which ambiguity they would resolve.
I also used to think emitocons were silly frippery, a distraction devoid of information.
After the N+1st flamewar on USENET, it slowly penetrated my conservative neanderthal brain that emoticons might actually have valid use: indicating tone-of-voice. Email/postings (incl/.) are very abbreviated, telegraphic, and intentions can easily be misread. Flamewars often result between participants who fundamentally agree. Homor usually falls flat without much greater context. An emoticon alerts the reader of the tone intended.
So I have come to see emoticons as a second order punctuation. Punctuation separates ideas; emoticons indicate tone. Personally, I very rarely use anything other than:) to indicate [non obvious] humor, irony and sarcasm. I'm not sure where I would use anything else without being totally redundant. For this is a common error -- most people who use emoticons use them excessively, to indicate tone when there could be no other. That is almost as annoying as people who under-utilise emoticons:) [I might have been serious here, but I'm mildly sarcastic]
Thank you for the additional details. How good are the various compilers and/or libraries? Parallel pipelines are notoriously difficult to keep full. x86 only survives by throwing hardware [buffers] at stalls.
How do you know that TV is worsening when you are changing as you grow one year older each and every year? More likely, you are becoming more discriminating.
Young people today seem to enjoy TV I do not. "Friends" for example. Yet I don't think I was all that different at their age. Probably _less_ discriminating because I had less exposure to media and technology.
Cliff High's MARS (Marchine Assisted Reading System) Vortex software got a fair bit of positive press when it came out in 1997. Bascially, it flashed in very large type one word at a time in a window. The author claimed, and many verified high reading speeds (~800-1000 w/min).
Well, MS appears worried enough to comment. Yes, the Wii's graphics aren't XBox1. They weren't targetted to be. They're more than enough for NTSC/PAL TV sets.
'tendo has put their efforts into other innovations, particularly around controllers and responsiveness. These are tougher things to develop than raw horsepower, but more valued by the user community. MS has chosen the lazy development way. The problem is they will find it difficult to become more innovative, while Nintendo can catch up on graphics any time they choose. It's not rocket science, just brute force. These same comments largely apply to Sony, too.
Sure, any victim could have done something to avoid the crime. The question is whether they should need to. What are "reasonable efforts"?
For an OS, I would say that is to avoid intentionally running undesired code. If the OS doesn't clear this hurdle (MS clearly does not), then all the feedback in the world will do nothing.
Agreed the ID itself is no problem, it is the enforcement it facilitates. But this appears to require ID to enter Federal Courts. Do they record spectators? What about open courts?
The real problem with the ID is it is hard to see any justification beyond the feared extention-of-law (ID at all times).
A reasonable complaint; and one fairly reasonably fixed by adding an option to `gpm` or `selection` ---strip_eol . Not always adviseable, but often convenient.
I'm still not sure I understand, but the microphone won't radiate much, a few tenths of a milliamp over a fedw dozen millimeters. If some input stage doesn't pick it up, what will an antenna do?
Sure, an antenna will get induced, but that will show up as noise in input or output. The GHz antenna is no-where nearly in tune to resonate and amplify a 300 Hz signal!
Yes, there is bleed. But there ought to be _LOTS_
(80+dB) isolation from the transmitter input. The expected digitial input will overwhelm it. Furthermore, even after parasitic amplification, the signal gets subjected to such heavy noise that the digital signal barely makes it through. The analog parasite gets lost. Noise is random and cannot be undone to recover weak signals.
Certainly it is possible to ignore/underweight deeplink hits. But then you are effectively prioritizing the FP surfers. Until the 'bot algorithm gets changed.
Fundamentally, 'bots must be fought by tasks they cannot accomplish, like confused OCR or fuzzy logic.
I like the idea of Xterminals, but I'm a dinosaur and remember the Real Thing: terminals that did X and you could log into the networked machine[s]. Sort of like a VT220 doing graphics. They ran BOOTP (iso DHCP) and TFTP to boot.
I think now you'd want boot from flash and DHCP. The minicomp would be a small box like a SohO router with SVGA out (only 2D required), 10/100baseT or wireless, a wall-wart for power, and USB or PS/2 for kbd/mse. Very tidy, very neat and very cheap. Add monitor, kbd, mouse and network to run.
Onboard SSH would be a must, but a key design decision would be whether to incorporate a browser client to the local X server. Doing so would usually improve performance and always cut X-traffic. But this would jeopardize making the box a stateless appliance. That might depend on whether the box was tethered to a server, or expected to work standalone.
With software, you can do much the same thing to much more powerful desktop and laptop machines using something like a Knoppix boot CD.
Slashdot Mirror
An ISP won't be able to reach across because they have to satisfy their own customers who want everyone to have clear connections to them.
Now, after a lot of ISP/webhost consolidation, some of the biggies want to reintroduce performance tiering. To differentiate commodity IP transport into various service levels. That's elementary marketing to capture increased revenue from those customers willing to pay more.
I'm far from certain this is a bad thing. Instead of everyone having the same (erratic) latency, some people will pay for better, and the rest will get slightly worse. Frankly, I'm far more concerned about preserving competition between ISPs at all levels, from comsumer last-mile broadband up through the long-haul links.
Second, while they certainly want to be seen as supporting Linux, they really believe their closed-source drivers give them some source of competitive advantage. That's either in clever code or what the coding reveals about the internal organization of their GPU hardware. It would have been relatively easy and palatable to say: "We'd like to release full GPU asm specs and code, but believe this will help our competitors design better hardware. So we can only provide APIs." They didn't say this, so I think they consider their actual driver code to be very clever (main competitive advantage). No such secret will last.
Yes, I know there are many other explanations for "negative knowledge" -- things that didn't happen. But when they could have and would have been easy, perhaps we need to wonder why they didn't.
What is the matter with this? Properly concerned citizens will observe and act in public spaces today. The tapes will merely show they acted properly, and miscreants improperly. The miscreants will almost certainly be deterred. I really do not see any intrusion or chilling effect on lawful activities.
Cameras & tapes are nothing but evidence. What could possibly be wrong with more, clearer evidence? It can only help enforce good laws. Bad rulers and bad laws don't need evidence in the first place!
Not everyone resents surveillance. Many (including myself) welcome it under many circumstances. CCTV in convenience stores reduces robberies and makes them safer. Many companies hire police to surveil their parking lots to protect cars and their owners.
Of course cameras do not enforce laws. But the evidence they provide makes enforement much easier and deters criminality. Who benefits by their absence?
From whence the right to privacy? It must not be used to hide wrongdoing.
Personally, I like an extremely mild roast brewed very strong. Often in pressure equipment, 1 volume ground coffee to 4 water.
Or don't you believe in long conversations?
That's fine if that's what you value. Me, after many stubborn years, I've learned the fine art of the two hour phone call. And that takes a quality phone line where you can hear the other party breathe. Otherwise, it's just multitasking distractions. Yuck. I do too much of that at work to want to run my personal life that way.
For another, text (especially postings), are one-to-many communications, and content again has to be adjusted.
Ubiquitity indeed loses meaning. But absence is the antithesis. Binary communications have occasionally been known to work!
Further, please note I do not rule out other emiticons, I just don't know which ambiguity they would resolve.
After the N+1st flamewar on USENET, it slowly penetrated my conservative neanderthal brain that emoticons might actually have valid use: indicating tone-of-voice. Email/postings (incl /.) are very abbreviated, telegraphic, and intentions can easily be misread. Flamewars often result between participants who fundamentally agree. Homor usually falls flat without much greater context. An emoticon alerts the reader of the tone intended.
So I have come to see emoticons as a second order punctuation. Punctuation separates ideas; emoticons indicate tone. Personally, I very rarely use anything other than :) to indicate [non obvious] humor, irony and sarcasm. I'm not sure where I would use anything else without being totally redundant. For this is a common error -- most people who use emoticons use them excessively, to indicate tone when there could be no other. That is almost as annoying as people who under-utilise emoticons :) [I might have been serious here, but I'm mildly sarcastic]
Young people today seem to enjoy TV I do not. "Friends" for example. Yet I don't think I was all that different at their age. Probably _less_ discriminating because I had less exposure to media and technology.
It is a bit mesmerising.
'tendo has put their efforts into other innovations, particularly around controllers and responsiveness. These are tougher things to develop than raw horsepower, but more valued by the user community. MS has chosen the lazy development way. The problem is they will find it difficult to become more innovative, while Nintendo can catch up on graphics any time they choose. It's not rocket science, just brute force. These same comments largely apply to Sony, too.
Whiners! You expect me to do your work? I've got lots of my own dumped by mgmt.
For an OS, I would say that is to avoid intentionally running undesired code. If the OS doesn't clear this hurdle (MS clearly does not), then all the feedback in the world will do nothing.
The real problem with the ID is it is hard to see any justification beyond the feared extention-of-law (ID at all times).
Sure, an antenna will get induced, but that will show up as noise in input or output. The GHz antenna is no-where nearly in tune to resonate and amplify a 300 Hz signal!
So MSFT is `chown -R unpriv_user *.exe` and making all pgms SUID unpriv_user! This brings problems:
Are all necessary files world-readable? What about other users.
Are all necessary files/dirs world-writable? c:\windows\system32?
How will the OS know if a pgm can access certain ports?
What if a hostile doesn't access ports directly but fork()s legit pgms?.
if other pgms are writeable, can't an attacker assume their priviliges by corrupting them?
Priv isolation by user is far clearer than by pgm.
Fundamentally, 'bots must be fought by tasks they cannot accomplish, like confused OCR or fuzzy logic.
I think now you'd want boot from flash and DHCP. The minicomp would be a small box like a SohO router with SVGA out (only 2D required), 10/100baseT or wireless, a wall-wart for power, and USB or PS/2 for kbd/mse. Very tidy, very neat and very cheap. Add monitor, kbd, mouse and network to run.
Onboard SSH would be a must, but a key design decision would be whether to incorporate a browser client to the local X server. Doing so would usually improve performance and always cut X-traffic. But this would jeopardize making the box a stateless appliance. That might depend on whether the box was tethered to a server, or expected to work standalone.
With software, you can do much the same thing to much more powerful desktop and laptop machines using something like a Knoppix boot CD.