we use several network management technologies that, when necessary, enable us to delay P2P traffic during periods of heavy congestion on the Internet. This process may delay P2P packets from reaching their destination
Followed by...
No. There is no discrimination based on the type of content.
Can't even keep their spin straight for a whole page.
If the reason you can't steal it is that the engine doesn't work, and the tyres fall off every time you install a new air freshener, then yes, nobody's going to buy it.
At its core, Facebook is primarily a system for establishing relationships between accounts. You can sign up and set all sorts of properties on your profile - what school you went to, year you graduated, area you live, places you've worked etc. You can then search in those areas and find other people who match - old schoolmates, old colleagues, old neighbours, that sort of thing. Because it's gotten so big, it works fairly well - I signed up, and almost straight away found a bunch of old school mates I hadn't seen for years, and was able to catch up with.
It's sort of grown from there - now people can write "applications" that you can add to your profile page that can do all sorts of things, from playing games, to building a personality profile, match-making, whatever.
It's just the same as any other limited resource - it's just that that particular resource is limited enough that people can get a near-monopoly without significant investment. But in the end, its just the same as anything else - in fact, its the same thing we saw with the Playstation 3 earlier - limited supply, people grab up plenty, then flog em on eBay.
I don't really have any problem with pre-order limits, or conditions on tickets that invalidate them if they're not held by the purchaser, or any other sort of controls imposed by the retailer, within their authority. It's additional government controls that I don't particularly like.
Well, a planned economy isn't communism, but communism implies a planned economy, and the most notable planned economies occur in communist countries. Either way, its still a dumb idea.
Well, if the government comes into your store and tells you what you can sell and how much you're allowed to sell them for, then they effectively have control of the goods.
And the guy who buys the scalped tickets is probably paying more tax than you as well, but you still want to put additional controls on their sales.
So your solution is for government to seize control of the goods and dictate market terms? I see more parallels to communism in your post than the parents. Maybe you should complain that only the rich and privileged get to drive a Porsche, and that the fact most people drive an old Holden is a terrible injustice that needs government intervention to set it right.
I'm all for people being enterprising and making a little money - say 10% or at most 20% above face value. But anything over that is taking advantage of the fans, and preying on their obsessive love of the sports they love.
That's right. But why stop there? Why shouldn't the government force, say, Apple to sell their products for no more than 10-20% markup - after all, anything more than that is taking advantage of Apple fanboys, and trendies who just have to have the latest chic tech. And excessive markup is a problem throughout the whole tech sector - in fact, why don't we just make the government responsible for setting the prices throughout the whole economy? Then, because human controls are so much better at maintaining a stable system than an open market, all the prices will be fair, for both the vendor and the consumer.
The problem in this case is the "insanely loyal fans who will do just about anything to see a game". If some people are stupid enough to sell their house to see a game, then society and the government is not responsible for stopping them. That's the whole concept of freedom - you can do what you want, but when you do, you've got nobody to blame but yourself.
Think of it this way: do you use Firefox? Do you think all Web sites should work given your chosen technology? Or is it your job to somehow adapt to people who only code for Internet Explorer? Is it their fault that you don't use Internet Explorer? Frankly too bad on you
And when I can launch a class-action suit against those websites, your analogy would be accurate.
No, it's not. Patents are not about protecting "good ideas". They're about protecting "novel implementations" - at least ideally. A patent isn't on, for example, the concept of one-click shopping, it's on the mechanism by which this is achieved. If someone can implement this in a different way, the patent does not apply. Sure Microsoft et al might be able to patent this particular implementation, but they couldn't patent the idea of having a handheld device with an interface on the back and user's inputs represented by shadows on the screen.
You're talking about a flaw in a apache's security model there, not PHPs. Apache runs as a single user. When it runs PHP as a module, then PHP runs as a single user. Same with Perl, or Ruby, or anything else that relies on a module interface as far as I know. If you use FastCGI (which this article is about, you may have noticed) then you can get it to suexec to a different user when it makes the CGI process, and you don't have the security problem you're whining about.
The bit about PHP admin scripts is application specific - nobody's forcing the authors to do it that way, and you can do the same with any other language. PHP has had it's flaws (register_globals and magic_quotes still give me the shivers), but if you're going to bitch about it, at least educate yourself first.
Another somewhat-useful feature of FastCGI is being able to suexec each virtual host so they run as their own user rather than every site running as apache. Not necessarily for everyone, but can be very useful.
Einstein was a pantheist, and specifically rejected the idea of an anthropomorphic god that intervenes directly in the universe.
Which would still be "religious", yes? All you're demonstrating is that great scientists can be Christians, pantheists, atheists or kooky nuts. In other words, that scientific accomplishments stand by themselves, and aren't influenced by whether the person who demonstrates them believes in God, Allah or the Tooth Fairy.
Let my clarify what the article is saying, as Slashdot seems to have done its usual trick of running off on a anti-religion flame-fest. The article isn't saying that personal, religious belief (such as that of Einstein and Newton) is responsible for retarding scientific progress. It's saying that the social and political structures that accompany modern Islam (it's not even generalizing to all of Islam, just modern Islam) do.
Personal religion doesn't mean squat to science. It's when religion gets tangled up in politics, when it gets the power to enforce the activities of non-believers through force, that it starts messing up science (and most everything else, too). It's also when the religion tends gets corrupted, but I digress.
From the OP: People working together for a common good because it is fun is a more efficient economic system than the one in which you do it to get a paycheck.
So how often do you reckon that truck would have come along if the driver hadn't been getting paid? People working together because it is fun is only efficient in a very narrow subset of work, for a very narrow subset of people. In general, it just doesn't work. People don't pump sewerage for fun, but they will do it for money.
Except that in many (most?) jurisdictions, their terms aren't legally enforceable. I know where I am, click-through EULAs are not valid - you need to able to read them before you purchase the software for them to be binding.
The system proposed by the OP isn't subsidized - it's supposed to be revenue neutral. You take the cost of building and maintaining the network, and factor it into the rates you charge the telcos to access it. The only people paying for anything are the telcos, and by extension, the telco customers who, lo and behold, are internet users.
I'd probably buy into this just for offsite backup of my important data.
Google's trustworthiness isn't really an issue - it's easy enough to encrypt the output of my backup scripts before the data is transferred, and I generally wouldn't be accessing the data directly from Google's service, so there's no reason to have it in plaintext.
Well, you'd hope so - Google have had quite a bit of experience at keeping stuff online, and I'd imagine they're a fairly large target. Even if they screwed up, encryption would help here (the hackers couldn't get anything useful), and as its a backup, unless my primary system died simultaneously, it would still be ok. And I'd hope Google would have backup and disaster recovery themselves anyway.
Automated backups, who really cares about the speed?
I don't think this is intended to replace local storage (or at least, not in the immediate future). But for backups, or sharing files, or remote access to certain files, it'll probably do ok. As long as you trust Google, or don't put anything sensitive up there, there's really no dramas.
Slashdot Mirror
we use several network management technologies that, when necessary, enable us to delay P2P traffic during periods of heavy congestion on the Internet. This process may delay P2P packets from reaching their destination
Followed by...
No. There is no discrimination based on the type of content.
Can't even keep their spin straight for a whole page.
If the reason you can't steal it is that the engine doesn't work, and the tyres fall off every time you install a new air freshener, then yes, nobody's going to buy it.
At its core, Facebook is primarily a system for establishing relationships between accounts. You can sign up and set all sorts of properties on your profile - what school you went to, year you graduated, area you live, places you've worked etc. You can then search in those areas and find other people who match - old schoolmates, old colleagues, old neighbours, that sort of thing. Because it's gotten so big, it works fairly well - I signed up, and almost straight away found a bunch of old school mates I hadn't seen for years, and was able to catch up with.
It's sort of grown from there - now people can write "applications" that you can add to your profile page that can do all sorts of things, from playing games, to building a personality profile, match-making, whatever.
It's just the same as any other limited resource - it's just that that particular resource is limited enough that people can get a near-monopoly without significant investment. But in the end, its just the same as anything else - in fact, its the same thing we saw with the Playstation 3 earlier - limited supply, people grab up plenty, then flog em on eBay.
I don't really have any problem with pre-order limits, or conditions on tickets that invalidate them if they're not held by the purchaser, or any other sort of controls imposed by the retailer, within their authority. It's additional government controls that I don't particularly like.
Well, a planned economy isn't communism, but communism implies a planned economy, and the most notable planned economies occur in communist countries. Either way, its still a dumb idea.
Well, if the government comes into your store and tells you what you can sell and how much you're allowed to sell them for, then they effectively have control of the goods.
And the guy who buys the scalped tickets is probably paying more tax than you as well, but you still want to put additional controls on their sales.
So your solution is for government to seize control of the goods and dictate market terms? I see more parallels to communism in your post than the parents. Maybe you should complain that only the rich and privileged get to drive a Porsche, and that the fact most people drive an old Holden is a terrible injustice that needs government intervention to set it right.
I'm all for people being enterprising and making a little money - say 10% or at most 20% above face value. But anything over that is taking advantage of the fans, and preying on their obsessive love of the sports they love.
That's right. But why stop there? Why shouldn't the government force, say, Apple to sell their products for no more than 10-20% markup - after all, anything more than that is taking advantage of Apple fanboys, and trendies who just have to have the latest chic tech. And excessive markup is a problem throughout the whole tech sector - in fact, why don't we just make the government responsible for setting the prices throughout the whole economy? Then, because human controls are so much better at maintaining a stable system than an open market, all the prices will be fair, for both the vendor and the consumer.
Wait, is this sounding familiar to anybody?
The problem in this case is the "insanely loyal fans who will do just about anything to see a game". If some people are stupid enough to sell their house to see a game, then society and the government is not responsible for stopping them. That's the whole concept of freedom - you can do what you want, but when you do, you've got nobody to blame but yourself.
Think of it this way: do you use Firefox? Do you think all Web sites should work given your chosen technology? Or is it your job to somehow adapt to people who only code for Internet Explorer? Is it their fault that you don't use Internet Explorer? Frankly too bad on you
And when I can launch a class-action suit against those websites, your analogy would be accurate.
No, it's not. Patents are not about protecting "good ideas". They're about protecting "novel implementations" - at least ideally. A patent isn't on, for example, the concept of one-click shopping, it's on the mechanism by which this is achieved. If someone can implement this in a different way, the patent does not apply. Sure Microsoft et al might be able to patent this particular implementation, but they couldn't patent the idea of having a handheld device with an interface on the back and user's inputs represented by shadows on the screen.
You're talking about a flaw in a apache's security model there, not PHPs. Apache runs as a single user. When it runs PHP as a module, then PHP runs as a single user. Same with Perl, or Ruby, or anything else that relies on a module interface as far as I know. If you use FastCGI (which this article is about, you may have noticed) then you can get it to suexec to a different user when it makes the CGI process, and you don't have the security problem you're whining about.
The bit about PHP admin scripts is application specific - nobody's forcing the authors to do it that way, and you can do the same with any other language. PHP has had it's flaws (register_globals and magic_quotes still give me the shivers), but if you're going to bitch about it, at least educate yourself first.
Another somewhat-useful feature of FastCGI is being able to suexec each virtual host so they run as their own user rather than every site running as apache. Not necessarily for everyone, but can be very useful.
Einstein was a pantheist, and specifically rejected the idea of an anthropomorphic god that intervenes directly in the universe.
Which would still be "religious", yes? All you're demonstrating is that great scientists can be Christians, pantheists, atheists or kooky nuts. In other words, that scientific accomplishments stand by themselves, and aren't influenced by whether the person who demonstrates them believes in God, Allah or the Tooth Fairy.
Let my clarify what the article is saying, as Slashdot seems to have done its usual trick of running off on a anti-religion flame-fest. The article isn't saying that personal, religious belief (such as that of Einstein and Newton) is responsible for retarding scientific progress. It's saying that the social and political structures that accompany modern Islam (it's not even generalizing to all of Islam, just modern Islam) do.
Personal religion doesn't mean squat to science. It's when religion gets tangled up in politics, when it gets the power to enforce the activities of non-believers through force, that it starts messing up science (and most everything else, too). It's also when the religion tends gets corrupted, but I digress.
Yes, the collapse of a world-spanning empire into chaos and anarchy had nothing to do with it.
From the OP: People working together for a common good because it is fun is a more efficient economic system than the one in which you do it to get a paycheck.
So how often do you reckon that truck would have come along if the driver hadn't been getting paid? People working together because it is fun is only efficient in a very narrow subset of work, for a very narrow subset of people. In general, it just doesn't work. People don't pump sewerage for fun, but they will do it for money.
The world would be knee-deep in shit, because nobody finds it fun to be a sewerage worker.
The already have the infrastructure built up to provide the content, yet they charge for the content.
So do you think they might want to make some money back off that investment?
If you pay the price, you still get to see the ads. Eliminate the fee, you increase the ad revenue.
That may be true, but its by no means a guarantee.
It costs you nothing.
Because bandwidth and server maintenance are free.
Except that in many (most?) jurisdictions, their terms aren't legally enforceable. I know where I am, click-through EULAs are not valid - you need to able to read them before you purchase the software for them to be binding.
I was making a grammatical point, not a religious one. Profit != Prophet.
divine profit
You sure you don't mean the church of capitalism?
The system proposed by the OP isn't subsidized - it's supposed to be revenue neutral. You take the cost of building and maintaining the network, and factor it into the rates you charge the telcos to access it. The only people paying for anything are the telcos, and by extension, the telco customers who, lo and behold, are internet users.
Depends how hard you swing it.
I don't think this is intended to replace local storage (or at least, not in the immediate future). But for backups, or sharing files, or remote access to certain files, it'll probably do ok. As long as you trust Google, or don't put anything sensitive up there, there's really no dramas.
Sydney Morning Herald, one of Australia's largest newspapers, had a fairly pro-Def Con article about it too. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/08/04/11856481 97448.html