This is essentially correct. All the math works out. By encumbering their content to the point of unusability, the RIAA is effectively creating a huge group of people with the resources, knowledge, and motivation to start presenting and promoting the unencumbered content.
In response to many posts out there, the vast majority of musicians produce their content for free. Actually making money at it is a rare circumstance, and the RIAA is dedicated to focusing as much of that money on as few artists as possible because that minimizes effort and maximizes profit. If the RIAA and its members were to entirely collapse, it would result in a re-distribution of those funds among a larger group, a larger percentage of it going to the artists and a smaller portion being spent on advertising. The really popular groups would still make their money where many big recording artists do today - on the concert circuit.
While this is good advice to the typical person, there are some who truly cannot take a couple of hours out uninterrupted without people dying or companies loosing heaping piles of cash. This precaution isn't for the dork who can't spend ten minutes without hearing the latest piece of gossip about his brother's girlfriend's new boyfriend, it's for doctors and similar professionals for whom time matters.
So, yes, it would improve a lot of people's lives if they would disconnect from the network for two hours. But forcing this on everyone would be a mistake.
I'll second this. Not tailgating is a pipe dream in St. Louis rush hour traffic. If you leave a three second following distance between you and the guy in front of you, the guy in the next lane will assume you're not effectively using your lane and get in front of you. It's more than inevitable, it's the rules of the road.
Their findings completely fail to take into account multiple learning styles. People have a mix of learning styles. For most of us, we absorb information most easily when we get it in auditory or visual form - heard or read. There are also kinesthetic learners and cognitive learners - people who don't learn unless they're moving, or don't learn unless they're figuring it out for themselves. Anyone who's tried to teach a fidgetter should know that asking them to sit still shuts down their brain from absorbing information. Every person has their own unique mix of these styles.
People who are heavy visual learners will tune out what the speaker is saying and just read what's on it. Most of the stuff that the speaker is saying is near insensible anyway because those paths aren't very good at absorption. For heavy auditory learners, you could have almost anything on the slide, but it wouldn't matter unless the speaker described it. The power point isn't redundant to the speaker, it's a backup, in case the audience contains heavy visual/poor auditory learners.
The best teachers in the industry also include segments where they have their students moving physically about the classroom. One well-known teacher of teachers has an example where he gets across the difference between parallel and serial by having the students line up and walk across a line, and then walk across the line in groups. The idea behind exercises is to appeal to the cognitive learners.
It's fine for people to say that it clogs the pathways when you try to absorb things through two channels at once, but for most of us it's an either/or, where we pick the one that best suits us.
If you can't afford people to carry your laptop around for you, what are you doing spending a million on a laptop in the first place. While you're at it, pay them to do your typing, too. And your web surfing, and your pron collecting....
Just because your microwave doesn't leak microwaves doesn't mean that it doesn't leak heat. A warm environment will significantly speed up the effect. This will work on top of your refrigerator, too.
I couldn't agree more. When people compare the efficiency of C++ vs. Java they often concentrate on how long it takes to iterate through a 'for' loop or something silly like that. The real issue isn't how efficient it compiles down to an executable, but how the programmer tries to implement an algorithm. C++ programmers, being closer to the processor, are much more aware of how many cycles it's going to take for a specific chunk to run, whereas Java programmers are more likely to implement functionality using only partially applicable re-built components.
Um, why is this news? "Insane" is hardly a quantifiable value. So Balmer doesn't understand Google's business plan. Maybe Google is just building a brain trust while looking for the next big thing. Balmer is also doing a pretty good job at mischaracterizing Google's effort by calling it "a bunch of programmers doing their own thing", as if they're working completely without direction. I repeat, why are Balmer's completely uninformative ravings about Google news?
Vista comes with APIs for condition variables and reader-writer locks so you don't have to spend 15 minutes writing your own.
Well, fifteen minutes writing, plus ten years of programming experience to be sure that you aren't going to create a deadlock in some obscure circumstance.
If you've been anywhere near Hawaii, you know about the Mongoose. With all the ships arriving, rats disembarked and began destroying the ecosystem. Simple European solution - introduce the Mongoose to eat the rats. The problem with this is that the rats sleep in the day and mongooses sleep at night, so the mongooses didn't impact the rat population, and they doubled the destruction of the ecosystem.
The real problem I have with most of these solutions is that they're not terribly adjustable. Painting a million square miles white isn't a simple task, it isn't easy to undo, and then you're left with several cubic miles of paint to dispose of. Another generation's problem? Probably not. The space umbrellas and "big cloud of bits" solutions have the same problem - how do we get them back OUT of orbit when we start swinging towards turning the earth into a giant snowball?
The iron seeding idea is probably most practical and financially viable, but it involves messing with the food chain. In the short term it sounds like a good idea because you increase the food chain all the way down the line by replacing a food source that we've killed off in other places with various pollutants. There are two problems with it, though. Once we start doing it, we'll have a huge die-off if we stop. You think they're going to keep dumping iron in the ocean when we run out of fossil fuels? You think anyone's going to care? The other (and subsequent) problem is that we don't know what'll happen to the carbon when these huge algae blooms stop happening. There's a reasonable belief that they'll just return to the atmosphere in the form of methane as the algae (and creatures that eat the algae, and creatures that eat them) die and decay, making this a very short-term benefit.
Needless to say, I'm in the "stop pumping it into the atmosphere in the first place" camp.
, as it involves increasing algae blooms, which will increase general biodiversity. Unfortunately, we still don't know what happens when the increased creatures start dying off. They coul
Sounds more like you got screwed on the original purchase.
Well, yes, that's another way of putting it. I wouldn't purchase another Dell. But te $400 price tag on the warranty tells you that the average warrantee'd Dell will take about $300 in repairs in the period warranted for. For the average person it's a waste of money.
This is obviously from a person who hasn't had repeated conversations with Dell customer support representatives. I'm one of those lucky individuals who, in the lifetime of his 3 year warranty, has needed them to replace the video card, the cd rom, the screen, the hard drive, and the motherboard. Needless to say, I definitely got my money's worth for the 400+ dollar warranty, and obviously had worse than average luck or the warranty would have cost more.
In any case, I've spent extensive time on the phone with Dell's customer support. Although they may speak excellent Indian English, this isn't even close to American English. They may speak as clearly as royalty, but that doesn't mean that they're comprehensible to Americans. On a couple of occasions, it has been necessary for me to ask the rep to transfer me to someone who had a more American accent, and that helped a bit. Regardless, I can guarantee that their first tier customer service centers were nowhere in the United States.
[i]As he says, we really should have two different words for the "feeling of security" and "security".[/i]
Unfortunately, this would have about the same effect has having two words for "thinking" and "acting as if you'd thought about it." People would only apply the term for a "feeling of security" to others, and it would quickly be labeled derogatory and non-PC.
I never tell a poster how obnoxiously one-sided his opinion is. For one thing, after he's posted there's zero chance that he'll actually learn anything from an opposing position.
Second, from a contributer's perspective, it may be in the narrow self-interest of the person replying for such a person to continue to spout their inanity across the rest of the blog. This can only make you look better by comparison.
While this is definitely a case for IPv6, it's a little more complicated than "Qatar should upgrade". If they upgraded to IPv6, unless Wikipedia serves with an IPv6 server, they would still need to go through an v6->v4 gateway in order to access it. Is Wikipedia ready for IPv6? Here we see the whole chicken/egg issue of IPv6.
Whenever you consider ethics, you can never take any event out of its context. Take murder, for example. Obviously sticking a knife in someone and letting their life's blood flow all over the pavement is an unethical (perhaps even immoral, but that's another story), thing to do. However, if same said person is getting ready to bash someone's head in with a hammer, and that's the only effective method of stopping them, then we refer to it as self defense.
The same argument applies here. This has been a danger for a significant time. There is evidence that, not only is it likely that this kind of thing will happen, but it's likely that it already has happened. If the exit polls were as skewed as they were in the 2004 election for any other nation, the U.N. would have been calling for a default on the election process. Too many people are running on autopilot, accepting on faith that our government is capable of watching itself when all evidence points towards that viewpoint being dangerously flawed.
In essence, those who can see the problem have been backed into a corner by the rest of the population's willingness to take away their right to make their votes count. We have tried the nice approach, we have tried the angry approach. I fully believe that this is a rational and responsible step for escalating the issue, made necessary by the irresponsibility of our legislature and the apathy of the average voting age adult.
Given this, I wonder if home owner associate dues are even close to worth the increase in property values that they provide. I somehow doubt it.
Re:You are completely retarded.
on
IPv6 Essentials
·
· Score: 1
someone with NAT and IPv4 has basically the same restricted addressing as offered by IPv6, which doesn't add that much in terms of security.
Not true. Unless your NAT is also properly configured as a firewall, it'll take something addressed from 192.168.0.33 and happily pass it on to your local systems. Your on-computer firewall will look at it and say "hey, that's from inside the local zone, so I can pass it right through to my Windows services!" The windows service accepts the packet and suddenly your computer's a zombie pumping out spam.
Yes, the configuration difference is trival, but it isn't the default, and it isn't always set up properly. Poor security comes from one person having to know 1000 trivial things and get them all right, so eliminating entire classes of those kind of things is always an improvement.
I'll accept your argument on QoS, though. You can do something very similar on IPv4. The only real difference is that it doesn't have as many competing standards on IPv6
Actually, you could effectively do this for the entire trajectory, but it would take multiple lasers. If you were to just pulse the laser in the planned path of the projectile, then you wouldn't be able to keep the laser on while the projectile was passing through the column (the projectile would be in the way!) As a result, the air would collapse around the hole created by the laser, effectively slamming into the projectile before it gets out of the atmosphere and slowing it down.
What you REALLY want to do is to have a tube of lasers (like six, but at least three) to track around the projectile as it flies. This will keep the air thinned out and have the effect you were looking for. If you're really enthused, you could pack the projectile's tail with carbon and ice and have another laser fire into it, thus creating thrust.
Re:You are completely retarded.
on
IPv6 Essentials
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Talking completely out your hind end, are we?
IPv6 is more secure because communications within a subnet use a special address coding that (a) can never leave the subnet (b) can never be introduced from outside the subnet, and (c) can be positively identified as coming from inside the subnet. IPv6 has other security features, but this one all by itself blocks a couple of categories of intrusion technique.
QoS has a single field in IPv4 that has no implementation attached to it, and is thus implemented as an afterthought in a collection of vendor-specific ways. Saying it has QoS is kind of like saying that your house comes with a jacuzzi because there's a place out back where you can put one and plug it in. IPv6, on the other hand, has a full standard implementation associated with it.
Um, IPv6 IS at the network level. Duh. Are you talking at the hardware link layer? That's only supposed to connect one device to the next, not keep track of network topology. Roaming isn't tunneling either - the old address actually replies to a packet letting it know where it should send the information to, thus making the switchover quick, transparent, and very, very lightweight.
IPv6 autoconfiguration is STATELESS. It doesn't require a server to figure out what addresses it has available, which ones it's handed out already, which ones have expired, etc, etc. DHCP is nice, but it requires maintenance. You can tell me how easy DHCP is to configure all day long, but it'll always be tougher than none at all.
How are you going to convince the 3 billion people to switch? Tell them that they won't be able to access resource N (Slashdot, YouTube, whatever) unless they switch over.
How are you going to change all that software? The software is mostly changed already. The majority of that is done below the level that your typical implementation requires it to be accomplished at. There are notable exceptions, but the parts that need changing are usually very small libraries at the bottom of the application.
Why would you even try to do either of those things while there's a much simpler option? This assumes that the simpler option is adequate. The rest of the world is changing, with or without you, and if you don't change you won't be able to access content from IPv6 sites.
This is pretty easy based on freedom of speech. Everyone has the freedom to speak, but there is no freedom to be heard. Bad studies already happen all the time. They may get some initial fanfare, but mostly they get ignored because someone points out their bad methodology.
Yes, you can create a flawed study to prove almost anything. That's what peer review and counter-studies are for. What the government is doing right now is to create these flawed studies to promote their point of view, and then attempt to bury anything that might allow for such peer review.
Good information should never be supressed. If it's offensive to someone, that is a problem with the offended for not being able to face up to reality, not the information for presenting reality to them.
I really liked Misfits of Science, especially the rock singer who got caught in an amp explosion. Too bad they couldn't even take themselves seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
This is essentially correct. All the math works out. By encumbering their content to the point of unusability, the RIAA is effectively creating a huge group of people with the resources, knowledge, and motivation to start presenting and promoting the unencumbered content.
In response to many posts out there, the vast majority of musicians produce their content for free. Actually making money at it is a rare circumstance, and the RIAA is dedicated to focusing as much of that money on as few artists as possible because that minimizes effort and maximizes profit. If the RIAA and its members were to entirely collapse, it would result in a re-distribution of those funds among a larger group, a larger percentage of it going to the artists and a smaller portion being spent on advertising. The really popular groups would still make their money where many big recording artists do today - on the concert circuit.
While this is good advice to the typical person, there are some who truly cannot take a couple of hours out uninterrupted without people dying or companies loosing heaping piles of cash. This precaution isn't for the dork who can't spend ten minutes without hearing the latest piece of gossip about his brother's girlfriend's new boyfriend, it's for doctors and similar professionals for whom time matters.
So, yes, it would improve a lot of people's lives if they would disconnect from the network for two hours. But forcing this on everyone would be a mistake.
I'll second this. Not tailgating is a pipe dream in St. Louis rush hour traffic. If you leave a three second following distance between you and the guy in front of you, the guy in the next lane will assume you're not effectively using your lane and get in front of you. It's more than inevitable, it's the rules of the road.
Their findings completely fail to take into account multiple learning styles. People have a mix of learning styles. For most of us, we absorb information most easily when we get it in auditory or visual form - heard or read. There are also kinesthetic learners and cognitive learners - people who don't learn unless they're moving, or don't learn unless they're figuring it out for themselves. Anyone who's tried to teach a fidgetter should know that asking them to sit still shuts down their brain from absorbing information. Every person has their own unique mix of these styles.
People who are heavy visual learners will tune out what the speaker is saying and just read what's on it. Most of the stuff that the speaker is saying is near insensible anyway because those paths aren't very good at absorption. For heavy auditory learners, you could have almost anything on the slide, but it wouldn't matter unless the speaker described it. The power point isn't redundant to the speaker, it's a backup, in case the audience contains heavy visual/poor auditory learners.
The best teachers in the industry also include segments where they have their students moving physically about the classroom. One well-known teacher of teachers has an example where he gets across the difference between parallel and serial by having the students line up and walk across a line, and then walk across the line in groups. The idea behind exercises is to appeal to the cognitive learners.
It's fine for people to say that it clogs the pathways when you try to absorb things through two channels at once, but for most of us it's an either/or, where we pick the one that best suits us.
If you can't afford people to carry your laptop around for you, what are you doing spending a million on a laptop in the first place. While you're at it, pay them to do your typing, too. And your web surfing, and your pron collecting....
Yea, it would be somewhat difficult to throw your entire house out of one of its own windows, wouldn't it?
Just because your microwave doesn't leak microwaves doesn't mean that it doesn't leak heat. A warm environment will significantly speed up the effect. This will work on top of your refrigerator, too.
I couldn't agree more. When people compare the efficiency of C++ vs. Java they often concentrate on how long it takes to iterate through a 'for' loop or something silly like that. The real issue isn't how efficient it compiles down to an executable, but how the programmer tries to implement an algorithm. C++ programmers, being closer to the processor, are much more aware of how many cycles it's going to take for a specific chunk to run, whereas Java programmers are more likely to implement functionality using only partially applicable re-built components.
Lol, point taken.
Um, why is this news? "Insane" is hardly a quantifiable value. So Balmer doesn't understand Google's business plan. Maybe Google is just building a brain trust while looking for the next big thing. Balmer is also doing a pretty good job at mischaracterizing Google's effort by calling it "a bunch of programmers doing their own thing", as if they're working completely without direction. I repeat, why are Balmer's completely uninformative ravings about Google news?
Vista comes with APIs for condition variables and reader-writer locks so you don't have to spend 15 minutes writing your own.
Well, fifteen minutes writing, plus ten years of programming experience to be sure that you aren't going to create a deadlock in some obscure circumstance.
If you've been anywhere near Hawaii, you know about the Mongoose. With all the ships arriving, rats disembarked and began destroying the ecosystem. Simple European solution - introduce the Mongoose to eat the rats. The problem with this is that the rats sleep in the day and mongooses sleep at night, so the mongooses didn't impact the rat population, and they doubled the destruction of the ecosystem.
The real problem I have with most of these solutions is that they're not terribly adjustable. Painting a million square miles white isn't a simple task, it isn't easy to undo, and then you're left with several cubic miles of paint to dispose of. Another generation's problem? Probably not. The space umbrellas and "big cloud of bits" solutions have the same problem - how do we get them back OUT of orbit when we start swinging towards turning the earth into a giant snowball?
The iron seeding idea is probably most practical and financially viable, but it involves messing with the food chain. In the short term it sounds like a good idea because you increase the food chain all the way down the line by replacing a food source that we've killed off in other places with various pollutants. There are two problems with it, though. Once we start doing it, we'll have a huge die-off if we stop. You think they're going to keep dumping iron in the ocean when we run out of fossil fuels? You think anyone's going to care? The other (and subsequent) problem is that we don't know what'll happen to the carbon when these huge algae blooms stop happening. There's a reasonable belief that they'll just return to the atmosphere in the form of methane as the algae (and creatures that eat the algae, and creatures that eat them) die and decay, making this a very short-term benefit.
Needless to say, I'm in the "stop pumping it into the atmosphere in the first place" camp.
, as it involves increasing algae blooms, which will increase general biodiversity. Unfortunately, we still don't know what happens when the increased creatures start dying off. They coul
Sounds more like you got screwed on the original purchase.
Well, yes, that's another way of putting it. I wouldn't purchase another Dell. But te $400 price tag on the warranty tells you that the average warrantee'd Dell will take about $300 in repairs in the period warranted for. For the average person it's a waste of money.
This is obviously from a person who hasn't had repeated conversations with Dell customer support representatives. I'm one of those lucky individuals who, in the lifetime of his 3 year warranty, has needed them to replace the video card, the cd rom, the screen, the hard drive, and the motherboard. Needless to say, I definitely got my money's worth for the 400+ dollar warranty, and obviously had worse than average luck or the warranty would have cost more.
In any case, I've spent extensive time on the phone with Dell's customer support. Although they may speak excellent Indian English, this isn't even close to American English. They may speak as clearly as royalty, but that doesn't mean that they're comprehensible to Americans. On a couple of occasions, it has been necessary for me to ask the rep to transfer me to someone who had a more American accent, and that helped a bit. Regardless, I can guarantee that their first tier customer service centers were nowhere in the United States.
[i]As he says, we really should have two different words for the "feeling of security" and "security".[/i]
Unfortunately, this would have about the same effect has having two words for "thinking" and "acting as if you'd thought about it." People would only apply the term for a "feeling of security" to others, and it would quickly be labeled derogatory and non-PC.
I never tell a poster how obnoxiously one-sided his opinion is. For one thing, after he's posted there's zero chance that he'll actually learn anything from an opposing position.
Second, from a contributer's perspective, it may be in the narrow self-interest of the person replying for such a person to continue to spout their inanity across the rest of the blog. This can only make you look better by comparison.
While this is definitely a case for IPv6, it's a little more complicated than "Qatar should upgrade". If they upgraded to IPv6, unless Wikipedia serves with an IPv6 server, they would still need to go through an v6->v4 gateway in order to access it. Is Wikipedia ready for IPv6? Here we see the whole chicken/egg issue of IPv6.
Whenever you consider ethics, you can never take any event out of its context. Take murder, for example. Obviously sticking a knife in someone and letting their life's blood flow all over the pavement is an unethical (perhaps even immoral, but that's another story), thing to do. However, if same said person is getting ready to bash someone's head in with a hammer, and that's the only effective method of stopping them, then we refer to it as self defense.
The same argument applies here. This has been a danger for a significant time. There is evidence that, not only is it likely that this kind of thing will happen, but it's likely that it already has happened. If the exit polls were as skewed as they were in the 2004 election for any other nation, the U.N. would have been calling for a default on the election process. Too many people are running on autopilot, accepting on faith that our government is capable of watching itself when all evidence points towards that viewpoint being dangerously flawed.
In essence, those who can see the problem have been backed into a corner by the rest of the population's willingness to take away their right to make their votes count. We have tried the nice approach, we have tried the angry approach. I fully believe that this is a rational and responsible step for escalating the issue, made necessary by the irresponsibility of our legislature and the apathy of the average voting age adult.
Given this, I wonder if home owner associate dues are even close to worth the increase in property values that they provide. I somehow doubt it.
someone with NAT and IPv4 has basically the same restricted addressing as offered by IPv6, which doesn't add that much in terms of security.
Not true. Unless your NAT is also properly configured as a firewall, it'll take something addressed from 192.168.0.33 and happily pass it on to your local systems. Your on-computer firewall will look at it and say "hey, that's from inside the local zone, so I can pass it right through to my Windows services!" The windows service accepts the packet and suddenly your computer's a zombie pumping out spam.
Yes, the configuration difference is trival, but it isn't the default, and it isn't always set up properly. Poor security comes from one person having to know 1000 trivial things and get them all right, so eliminating entire classes of those kind of things is always an improvement.
I'll accept your argument on QoS, though. You can do something very similar on IPv4. The only real difference is that it doesn't have as many competing standards on IPv6
Actually, you could effectively do this for the entire trajectory, but it would take multiple lasers. If you were to just pulse the laser in the planned path of the projectile, then you wouldn't be able to keep the laser on while the projectile was passing through the column (the projectile would be in the way!) As a result, the air would collapse around the hole created by the laser, effectively slamming into the projectile before it gets out of the atmosphere and slowing it down.
What you REALLY want to do is to have a tube of lasers (like six, but at least three) to track around the projectile as it flies. This will keep the air thinned out and have the effect you were looking for. If you're really enthused, you could pack the projectile's tail with carbon and ice and have another laser fire into it, thus creating thrust.
Talking completely out your hind end, are we?
IPv6 is more secure because communications within a subnet use a special address coding that (a) can never leave the subnet (b) can never be introduced from outside the subnet, and (c) can be positively identified as coming from inside the subnet. IPv6 has other security features, but this one all by itself blocks a couple of categories of intrusion technique.
QoS has a single field in IPv4 that has no implementation attached to it, and is thus implemented as an afterthought in a collection of vendor-specific ways. Saying it has QoS is kind of like saying that your house comes with a jacuzzi because there's a place out back where you can put one and plug it in. IPv6, on the other hand, has a full standard implementation associated with it.
Um, IPv6 IS at the network level. Duh. Are you talking at the hardware link layer? That's only supposed to connect one device to the next, not keep track of network topology. Roaming isn't tunneling either - the old address actually replies to a packet letting it know where it should send the information to, thus making the switchover quick, transparent, and very, very lightweight.
IPv6 autoconfiguration is STATELESS. It doesn't require a server to figure out what addresses it has available, which ones it's handed out already, which ones have expired, etc, etc. DHCP is nice, but it requires maintenance. You can tell me how easy DHCP is to configure all day long, but it'll always be tougher than none at all.
How are you going to convince the 3 billion people to switch?
Tell them that they won't be able to access resource N (Slashdot, YouTube, whatever) unless they switch over.
How are you going to change all that software?
The software is mostly changed already. The majority of that is done below the level that your typical implementation requires it to be accomplished at. There are notable exceptions, but the parts that need changing are usually very small libraries at the bottom of the application.
Why would you even try to do either of those things while there's a much simpler option?
This assumes that the simpler option is adequate. The rest of the world is changing, with or without you, and if you don't change you won't be able to access content from IPv6 sites.
This is pretty easy based on freedom of speech. Everyone has the freedom to speak, but there is no freedom to be heard. Bad studies already happen all the time. They may get some initial fanfare, but mostly they get ignored because someone points out their bad methodology.
Yes, you can create a flawed study to prove almost anything. That's what peer review and counter-studies are for. What the government is doing right now is to create these flawed studies to promote their point of view, and then attempt to bury anything that might allow for such peer review.
Good information should never be supressed. If it's offensive to someone, that is a problem with the offended for not being able to face up to reality, not the information for presenting reality to them.
I really liked Misfits of Science, especially the rock singer who got caught in an amp explosion. Too bad they couldn't even take themselves seriously.