It's called protecting my desire to not be surrounded by it.
Sorry, but that's one of the things you have to put up with in a free society. Why is your desire to not be around such language inherently more important than someone else's desire to express themselves in their own words?
It pisses me off to no end that so many people love to wave the flag and talk about how much they love "freedom" and want to protect it, without the first thought to what freedom really entails. Just because you disagree or are offended with someone's speech gives you NO right to silence them.
You didn't show any harm. People curse in public - that's part of living in society, and the little ones are going to have to get used to it. You're quite welcome to tell them that cursing is unacceptable behavior and enforce that upon them, but the only harm I can see being done is that they see a lot of people around them that can't (or won't) express their thoughts in a more refined and thoughtful manner. People need to understand that real freedom means occasionally having to put up with stuff you don't like.
Contrary to the post above, you actually get to meet lots of young high-school or college-aged women who are often very beautiful (being young), and often dress with low necklines. When they bend over, they expose all their "charms" to the salesman's eye.
Why the hell do you think Al Bundy took the job in the first place?
I doubt Sprint is lying outright, but I suppose it's possible that the traffic requirements in the agreement weren't reasonable. That still doesn't excuse Cogent *at all* for not notifying their customers of the impending difficulties, but Sprint admittedly does sound like Ed Whitacre a few years ago when he got all indignant and said that content providers should be charged for using "his pipes". Whitacre was speaking of Google, YouTube, and the like, but his argument likely could apply to other Tier 1 providers as well
I'm sure they're out there, but are probably wondering whether it's worth it to spend a *lot* more on connectivity than they currently give Cogent. Putting aside any arguments about quality, morality, etc., Cogent keeps a lot of customers because they're by far the cheapest game in town
But you said it yourself - it's due to cost. Whoever is writing the checks would be asking "why pay 3-4 times as much to move our traffic if it's at all avoidable"?
They pulled what amounts to a "sure, try it risk free for 3 months. Cancel if you don't like it, but if you fail to inform us in triplicate you owe us hundreds of thousands of dollars."
That's not what Sprint said - "Following a three-month commercial trial agreement during June - September 2007, the peering trial data indicated that Cogent did not meet the minimum traffic exchange criteria agreed to by both parties. As a result, settlement-free peering was not established and Cogent was notified in writing of these results." Given Cogent's history, it seems that Sprint was just covering its bases and trying to find a way to work with Cogent instead of just telling them to go fark themselves when they first approached Sprint about a settlement-free agreement.
I'm not. As I remember, when Level 3 depeered Cogent, they'd given them more than two months' notice before cutting them off, and Cogent said exactly jack shit to their customers about it. Same thing happened here - Sprint gave them more than a month's notice before starting to cut them off, and it was almost two months before depeering was complete and the Sprint/Cogent link was down completely. Did Cogent give any of their customers advance notice of this? Doesn't look like it. In fact, it looks to me more like a brazen attempt by Cogent to try to steal as many Sprint customers as possible, considering their offer for free connectivity to affected Sprint customers.
There's something seriously wrong in a world in which any ISP is allowed to break connectivity for millions of customers without being taken to court for it.
Give it time. I'm sure Cogent's legal department will be quite busy by the end of the week.
Re:why bother with 6 month release cycle?
on
OpenBSD 4.4 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
T1s aren't quite three years old yet, and T2s have only been out for just over a year.
No, they do have an authentication system - it's called a signature. Granted, signatures can be forged, but banks don't check them against the signature that's supposed to be on file for the account. Apparently any degree of diligence is just too much of an imposition when it comes to safeguarding their customers' accounts.
I personally think we'd be best off just going back to the original terms that we had back in 1790. It provides copyright protection for a full third of an average artist's life, for crying out loud, and I believe it was a fair balance keeping 100% in spirit of what the Copyright Clause was trying to achieve. Why is it not enough to exclusively profit from a work for that long, and why is the artist's individual right to profit for the rest of his fricking life considered more beneficial than the right of society to benefit from that artist's work after he's had a reaonable chance to do so?
But if a government WERE willing to inflict those kinds of casulties (and please note that I am NOT advocating such a course of action) any would-be rebels would find themselves in a world of hurt very quickly.
As would the US military. Do you seriously think that Russia, China, etc. are just going to sit back and not take advantage of such a situation? If, God forbid, a widespread armed revolt against the government happens, I don't think it's just the domestic population the military will have to deal with. It'll get really ugly for everyone very quickly.
If there was a revolution in the United States, it would be much different.
Most definitely - our government is spending $10 billion per month to occupy an area less than 5% that of the U.S. that contains a lot of locals that are supportive of the effort to begin with, so I doubt there's any way they could afford a large-scale domestic occupation. There simply wouldn't be enough soldiers (even assuming no desertions), and it's likely that the military would suffer a logistical collapse that would make Napoleon rise from the grave and say, "Damn!". And of course there likely would be widespread sabotage of the specialized manufacturing and service mechanisms needed to support the effort.
The folks that are saying there'd be no way to resist the US military are gravely underestimating the abilities of a sufficiently motivated populace that feels they have nothing to lose. They're also not taking into account that blowing up everything in sight with tanks and bombs works against the military just as much as it does the oppressed, and you can't occupy an area without troops on the ground.
It's only a cornerstone if you're willing to actually use it, though. For instance, the ridiculous SWAT raids that have been getting more and more prevalent recently could very easily be reduced if the American populace would actually put up an armed resistance to the bad warrants being served, and the police could expect at least one or two casualties every time they served one. A lot of people are willing to talk a good game about freedom, but where the rubber meets the road they're not willing to actually put their lives on the line for it. Most importantly, the government knows that, and will continue to press as hard as they can to limit freedoms.
Re:blah the emporer has his new clothes on again.
on
The Walking House
·
· Score: 1
Just because they haven't used one yet doesn't mean they aren't looking at them.
True, but the fact that they haven't used one yet is a pretty strong indication that they still don't feel it's a practical means of locomotion at this time.
Now you have to work hard, play the right places, know the right people, and make a huge financial commitment just for your shot. Many of the "right places" have closed, and the right people are swamped with deserving candidates they know won't make the cut.
So find another line of work instead of restricting the rights of everyone else, or sign with a label/distributor that isn't going to ask for a body part or first-born child as collateral - no one is *owed* a successful career in anything. I'm a better-than-fair musician myself, but even when I was in high school I saw that the odds of being able to make a career out of music were not good, which is why I went into software development (which hasn't exactly been unaffected by copyright infringement issues) where I've made a pretty comfortable living for the past 20 years. That comfortable living has allowed me to purchase decent gear with which I can record and release pro-quality content on my own should I choose to, without the need of a distributor or other middleman.
I will have much more sympathy for those complaining about infringement when they begin to uphold their end of the bargain with society and get copyright terms back into the realm of the reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been seeing that a lot lately. I completely and totally disagree with the parent post, but that's no reason to mod it as it was.
It's called protecting my desire to not be surrounded by it.
Sorry, but that's one of the things you have to put up with in a free society. Why is your desire to not be around such language inherently more important than someone else's desire to express themselves in their own words?
It pisses me off to no end that so many people love to wave the flag and talk about how much they love "freedom" and want to protect it, without the first thought to what freedom really entails. Just because you disagree or are offended with someone's speech gives you NO right to silence them.
You didn't show any harm. People curse in public - that's part of living in society, and the little ones are going to have to get used to it. You're quite welcome to tell them that cursing is unacceptable behavior and enforce that upon them, but the only harm I can see being done is that they see a lot of people around them that can't (or won't) express their thoughts in a more refined and thoughtful manner. People need to understand that real freedom means occasionally having to put up with stuff you don't like.
Contrary to the post above, you actually get to meet lots of young high-school or college-aged women who are often very beautiful (being young), and often dress with low necklines. When they bend over, they expose all their "charms" to the salesman's eye.
Why the hell do you think Al Bundy took the job in the first place?
why should other providers be obligated to give me free service just so I can send data?
Because their customers have already paid to have your traffic brought to them?
Per month.
Sprint was still transiting traffic to them via other routes
I don't think there were any transit agreements in place for anyone else to carry Sprint's traffic to Cogent and vice versa.
I doubt Sprint is lying outright, but I suppose it's possible that the traffic requirements in the agreement weren't reasonable. That still doesn't excuse Cogent *at all* for not notifying their customers of the impending difficulties, but Sprint admittedly does sound like Ed Whitacre a few years ago when he got all indignant and said that content providers should be charged for using "his pipes". Whitacre was speaking of Google, YouTube, and the like, but his argument likely could apply to other Tier 1 providers as well
Where are the angered masses?
I'm sure they're out there, but are probably wondering whether it's worth it to spend a *lot* more on connectivity than they currently give Cogent. Putting aside any arguments about quality, morality, etc., Cogent keeps a lot of customers because they're by far the cheapest game in town
I know that's stupid but it's the real world
But you said it yourself - it's due to cost. Whoever is writing the checks would be asking "why pay 3-4 times as much to move our traffic if it's at all avoidable"?
Once again for the slow kids - you DON'T moderate something (-1, Troll) just because you don't agree with the poster.
They pulled what amounts to a "sure, try it risk free for 3 months. Cancel if you don't like it, but if you fail to inform us in triplicate you owe us hundreds of thousands of dollars."
That's not what Sprint said - "Following a three-month commercial trial agreement during June - September 2007, the peering trial data indicated that Cogent did not meet the minimum traffic exchange criteria agreed to by both parties. As a result, settlement-free peering was not established and Cogent was notified in writing of these results." Given Cogent's history, it seems that Sprint was just covering its bases and trying to find a way to work with Cogent instead of just telling them to go fark themselves when they first approached Sprint about a settlement-free agreement.
Not to mention that they knew the depeering was imminent, and apparently did not attempt to inform their customers.
I'm not. As I remember, when Level 3 depeered Cogent, they'd given them more than two months' notice before cutting them off, and Cogent said exactly jack shit to their customers about it. Same thing happened here - Sprint gave them more than a month's notice before starting to cut them off, and it was almost two months before depeering was complete and the Sprint/Cogent link was down completely. Did Cogent give any of their customers advance notice of this? Doesn't look like it. In fact, it looks to me more like a brazen attempt by Cogent to try to steal as many Sprint customers as possible, considering their offer for free connectivity to affected Sprint customers.
There's something seriously wrong in a world in which any ISP is allowed to break connectivity for millions of customers without being taken to court for it.
Give it time. I'm sure Cogent's legal department will be quite busy by the end of the week.
T1s aren't quite three years old yet, and T2s have only been out for just over a year.
Better than being caught and eaten by a gazebo.
No, they do have an authentication system - it's called a signature. Granted, signatures can be forged, but banks don't check them against the signature that's supposed to be on file for the account. Apparently any degree of diligence is just too much of an imposition when it comes to safeguarding their customers' accounts.
I personally think we'd be best off just going back to the original terms that we had back in 1790. It provides copyright protection for a full third of an average artist's life, for crying out loud, and I believe it was a fair balance keeping 100% in spirit of what the Copyright Clause was trying to achieve. Why is it not enough to exclusively profit from a work for that long, and why is the artist's individual right to profit for the rest of his fricking life considered more beneficial than the right of society to benefit from that artist's work after he's had a reaonable chance to do so?
Yeah, actually you can.
But if a government WERE willing to inflict those kinds of casulties (and please note that I am NOT advocating such a course of action) any would-be rebels would find themselves in a world of hurt very quickly.
As would the US military. Do you seriously think that Russia, China, etc. are just going to sit back and not take advantage of such a situation? If, God forbid, a widespread armed revolt against the government happens, I don't think it's just the domestic population the military will have to deal with. It'll get really ugly for everyone very quickly.
If there was a revolution in the United States, it would be much different.
Most definitely - our government is spending $10 billion per month to occupy an area less than 5% that of the U.S. that contains a lot of locals that are supportive of the effort to begin with, so I doubt there's any way they could afford a large-scale domestic occupation. There simply wouldn't be enough soldiers (even assuming no desertions), and it's likely that the military would suffer a logistical collapse that would make Napoleon rise from the grave and say, "Damn!". And of course there likely would be widespread sabotage of the specialized manufacturing and service mechanisms needed to support the effort.
The folks that are saying there'd be no way to resist the US military are gravely underestimating the abilities of a sufficiently motivated populace that feels they have nothing to lose. They're also not taking into account that blowing up everything in sight with tanks and bombs works against the military just as much as it does the oppressed, and you can't occupy an area without troops on the ground.
It's only a cornerstone if you're willing to actually use it, though. For instance, the ridiculous SWAT raids that have been getting more and more prevalent recently could very easily be reduced if the American populace would actually put up an armed resistance to the bad warrants being served, and the police could expect at least one or two casualties every time they served one. A lot of people are willing to talk a good game about freedom, but where the rubber meets the road they're not willing to actually put their lives on the line for it. Most importantly, the government knows that, and will continue to press as hard as they can to limit freedoms.
Just because they haven't used one yet doesn't mean they aren't looking at them.
True, but the fact that they haven't used one yet is a pretty strong indication that they still don't feel it's a practical means of locomotion at this time.
Now you have to work hard, play the right places, know the right people, and make a huge financial commitment just for your shot. Many of the "right places" have closed, and the right people are swamped with deserving candidates they know won't make the cut.
So find another line of work instead of restricting the rights of everyone else, or sign with a label/distributor that isn't going to ask for a body part or first-born child as collateral - no one is *owed* a successful career in anything. I'm a better-than-fair musician myself, but even when I was in high school I saw that the odds of being able to make a career out of music were not good, which is why I went into software development (which hasn't exactly been unaffected by copyright infringement issues) where I've made a pretty comfortable living for the past 20 years. That comfortable living has allowed me to purchase decent gear with which I can record and release pro-quality content on my own should I choose to, without the need of a distributor or other middleman.
I will have much more sympathy for those complaining about infringement when they begin to uphold their end of the bargain with society and get copyright terms back into the realm of the reasonable.