Indeed, as soon as we all have 50mbps connections (and file sizes remain the same), the question will no longer be asked. But it won't be due to P2P, just due to the cheap bandwidth.
P2P is severely overrated. It's not a solution for anything that doesn't involve sharing illegal files. If everyone on P2P is on a standard 128k/768k ADSL connection, it will not work -- there will be more demand than supply. It only works when there are nodes with a fat upload line that never download anything. But those are quickly disappearing since organizations figure out that their fast internet connections are being abused.
If you seriously think that P2P will solve any problems besides distributing warez, you are wrong. P2P is a hack, unlike the client-server paradigm. The real solution here would be multicasting and other intelligent routing that would basically mirror the broadcast model. P2P is nothing more than a band-aid.
If you still don't believe me, just think about this: how can each node connect to 20 other nodes that have the same file and aren't busy downloading it? Mostly due to people's benevolence, but that would not work in a production environment. If I need to download a BF1942 patch, I'll get it and delete it, I won't leave it on my machine for a few more weeks. You can't expect people to share stuff indefinitely. The client-server model is much simpler and much more scalable than any P2P solution.
No, Blizzard was an extremely litigious and scammy company right from the start. I remember an interview in boot magazine (circa 1997, before they were bought by anyone) where people complained that their games uploaded tons of information about their computer to battle.net without their permission. Supposedly, it was a tactic to stop pirates. They later stopped doing it after being criticized by virtually everyone in the gaming community.
I'd argue that is damn well is my business if my ISP's servers are being compromised by a 3rd party, which could result in the interception of any information I transmit online.
Sure, but it's the ISP's problem rather than yours. You might want to tell the ISP and avoid using the service (or change ISPs if they are not cooperative), but trying to get the FBI involved when you don't even control the server in question is ludicrous. If the FBI responded to every hacking complaint out there, they wouldn't be able to do anything else. I've heard of people who called the FBI after Zonealarm warned them of some random "intrusion attempt" (most likely a ping or a portscan, no hacking involved). The FBI does not want to waste time with people who don't have a clue (like the article author).
I assume it would be none of your business if you found out that someone was embezzling money from your bank too.
Precisely. Unless I'm somehow involved with the bank and know what is going on, I'm not going to call the FBI.
This is a very standard type of attack and a standard FBI response. FBI damage trigger is $5,000 IIRC. If the ISP calls the FBI, they can get the ball rolling. You can't, and frankly it's none of your business since it's the ISP server that got hacked. I wouldn't do anything beyond calling the ISP. You can't claim financial losses, because you didn't lose any money directly as a result of this hack.
Vendor independence? From whom? Microsoft or Intel? Multiple distribution channels does not correspond to vendor independance.
Ever hear of Linux, BeOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, AMD, Transmeta? There are plenty of choices in the PC world.
Apple seems to be following Henry Ford's saying "you can get it in any color you want, so long as it's black". About the only thing you can customize when you buy an Apple notebook is the hard drive. In contrast, many PC notebook vendors let you choose everything from screen size AND resolution to the type of CD-ROM drive they put in. What exactly does Steve Jobs not like about letting people choose what THEY want?
And Ill wait to buy a Ferrari when they have one thats less than $20,000.
Given that Apple boxes are usually slower than their PC counterparts, while a Ferrari is known for its speed more than anything else, it's an extremely flawed analogy. The top-of-the-line single processor box that apple has not even yet announced comes with a 1.8GHz processor which is about the same as that in a cheap PC. If you do the car analogy here, Apple has going for it leather seating and a comfortable steering wheel design while the PC is faster and cheaper though less comfortable.
If that gives it an advantage, why didn't it evolve the glow feature already? Besides, I'm pretty sure they only glow when illuminated with a blacklight. Also, I don't see how the glow chemical could have much of an effect on any other fish, given that it originally came from an aquatic animal (jellyfish IIRC).
The guy said it himself, goldfish are basically carp. I'll bet it's the cheap type, too, not the really fancy ones with all these weird fins. Even the fancy kind has maybe been crossed with something else. I doubt those are as viable, though. The cheap ones are just gold-colored carp.
Those things will very likely not breed too well. First, the genetic modifications might screw things up so they are not fertile. Second, it might throw off the sexual selection mechanisms of those fish so that they won't want to breed.
As for environmentalists: as someone rightfully pointed out, there are two kinds of them. Some pose valid scientific questions. They would probably not be very worried about GM pet fish. Others simply bitch, whine, rant, and protest against everything that sounds like a scientific advancement. The second kind is mainly the one protesting here.
So, what would happen if you put genetically-engineered glowing fish out in the wild? They would get eaten, that's what.
The problem you described only occurs when you let loose WILD TYPE species -- they might actually be well-adapted for the niche. Chances are, if we don't already have glowing fish, that's not a trait which improves survival rates, and the glowing fish will die or get eaten.
Because a lot of people have an inexplicable confidence in technology.
Or, a distrust of people. A person cannot be trusted to do the right thing in a crisis/panic situation (for example, pulsing the brakes instead of slamming them). A computer, properly programmed, can be relied upon to do the right thing. Problems occur only when the computers are not programmed properly or assumptions are made which are not always true. Both issues are rare when proper development practices are followed.
As for Airbus jets: most airplane crashes occur due to pilot error. Others occur due to mechanical failure. Very few accidents of any sort have ever occurred due to computer failure. Therefore, I would think that a computer, which probably has a much better grip on the situation, given that airplanes have hundreds of sensors that a pilot could not possibly monitor simultaneously, is better prepared to make certain decisions.
Stock price is meaningless. It's merely a reflection of what the individual investors think the company's short-term potential is, and that changes with every press release, but does not reflect the long-term facts.
As for short selling their stock: they might lose the lawsuit in 2 years and that's when the stock will go down. Nobody is saying they are going to go bankrupt in a week.
How the hell do you think radar works? It usually measures doppler shift of a reflected radio signal. That's how, say, police speed guns work, which do basically this exact thing. "Lidar" guns (laser) simply bounce a laser beam off a car a few hundred times a second and count the number of nanoseconds it takes for it to bounce back. It's millions of times easier than measuring doppler shift of light, anyway.
You don't NEED the specs for it. It runs on a relatively common Cirrus Logic EP7212 system-on-a-chip processor, which has full documentation. It should be relatively easy to load Linux on it. However, you don't really need that. With RBMake you can make your own ebooks for the device (or just use their old Rocket software) and Librarian for windows or REBComm for Linux work pretty well for making ebooks. I own two of their devices, and I like them (both RCA REB1100).
Stop making up bullshit strawman arguments. A rebuttal can't possibly be a 10GB file, and the law probably has safeguards to make sure that the law is not abused. You do realize that European newspapers are subject to this as well? Have they been publishing 5,000 page rebuttals? What the hell are you smoking?
Also, I would probably link to nambla's website if I was doing an article on them anyway. That does not "give them a forum". If you are saying things about them which are blatantly wrong, I would like to see a rebuttal. If you aren't, then they are not entitled to one -- just like in a newspaper.
What are you talking about? If you criticize a certain group harshly enough for them to write a response, then yes, they should be entitled to having that posted in response to your article. Why the hell not? Besides, it permits having a simple link to the response (which most good websites have anyway). If I say that Republicans suck ass, I might as well have a link to their rebuttal. This only maintains a balanced discussion.
All this does is keep people from writing bullshit on-line. If you think this would create a huge problem, just look at newspapers -- they have been subject to dozens of such laws (libel, right to response, etc.) and still manage to do fine.
How exactly can you get the rear tires on a front wheel drive vehicle to spin off the ground? What the fuck are you smoking? Besides, the computer probably knows that the speed is invalid if the readings from all 4 wheels are not the same. Yes, there are sensors on all 4 wheels.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, as soon as we all have 50mbps connections (and file sizes remain the same), the question will no longer be asked. But it won't be due to P2P, just due to the cheap bandwidth.
P2P is severely overrated. It's not a solution for anything that doesn't involve sharing illegal files. If everyone on P2P is on a standard 128k/768k ADSL connection, it will not work -- there will be more demand than supply. It only works when there are nodes with a fat upload line that never download anything. But those are quickly disappearing since organizations figure out that their fast internet connections are being abused.
If you seriously think that P2P will solve any problems besides distributing warez, you are wrong. P2P is a hack, unlike the client-server paradigm. The real solution here would be multicasting and other intelligent routing that would basically mirror the broadcast model. P2P is nothing more than a band-aid.
If you still don't believe me, just think about this: how can each node connect to 20 other nodes that have the same file and aren't busy downloading it? Mostly due to people's benevolence, but that would not work in a production environment. If I need to download a BF1942 patch, I'll get it and delete it, I won't leave it on my machine for a few more weeks. You can't expect people to share stuff indefinitely. The client-server model is much simpler and much more scalable than any P2P solution.
I don't think you could sue the ISP. Most contracts have clauses that specifically exclude this type of liability.
No, Blizzard was an extremely litigious and scammy company right from the start. I remember an interview in boot magazine (circa 1997, before they were bought by anyone) where people complained that their games uploaded tons of information about their computer to battle.net without their permission. Supposedly, it was a tactic to stop pirates. They later stopped doing it after being criticized by virtually everyone in the gaming community.
I'd argue that is damn well is my business if my ISP's servers are being compromised by a 3rd party, which could result in the interception of any information I transmit online.
Sure, but it's the ISP's problem rather than yours. You might want to tell the ISP and avoid using the service (or change ISPs if they are not cooperative), but trying to get the FBI involved when you don't even control the server in question is ludicrous. If the FBI responded to every hacking complaint out there, they wouldn't be able to do anything else. I've heard of people who called the FBI after Zonealarm warned them of some random "intrusion attempt" (most likely a ping or a portscan, no hacking involved). The FBI does not want to waste time with people who don't have a clue (like the article author).
I assume it would be none of your business if you found out that someone was embezzling money from your bank too.
Precisely. Unless I'm somehow involved with the bank and know what is going on, I'm not going to call the FBI.
This is a very standard type of attack and a standard FBI response. FBI damage trigger is $5,000 IIRC. If the ISP calls the FBI, they can get the ball rolling. You can't, and frankly it's none of your business since it's the ISP server that got hacked. I wouldn't do anything beyond calling the ISP. You can't claim financial losses, because you didn't lose any money directly as a result of this hack.
Vendor independence? From whom? Microsoft or Intel? Multiple distribution channels does not correspond to vendor independance.
Ever hear of Linux, BeOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, AMD, Transmeta? There are plenty of choices in the PC world.
Apple seems to be following Henry Ford's saying "you can get it in any color you want, so long as it's black". About the only thing you can customize when you buy an Apple notebook is the hard drive. In contrast, many PC notebook vendors let you choose everything from screen size AND resolution to the type of CD-ROM drive they put in. What exactly does Steve Jobs not like about letting people choose what THEY want?
And Ill wait to buy a Ferrari when they have one thats less than $20,000.
Given that Apple boxes are usually slower than their PC counterparts, while a Ferrari is known for its speed more than anything else, it's an extremely flawed analogy. The top-of-the-line single processor box that apple has not even yet announced comes with a 1.8GHz processor which is about the same as that in a cheap PC. If you do the car analogy here, Apple has going for it leather seating and a comfortable steering wheel design while the PC is faster and cheaper though less comfortable.
If that gives it an advantage, why didn't it evolve the glow feature already? Besides, I'm pretty sure they only glow when illuminated with a blacklight. Also, I don't see how the glow chemical could have much of an effect on any other fish, given that it originally came from an aquatic animal (jellyfish IIRC).
Doppler shift is used by RADAR (as in "radio"). Measuring the wavelength of a radio signal is easy. It's almost impossible to do with lasers.
The guy said it himself, goldfish are basically carp. I'll bet it's the cheap type, too, not the really fancy ones with all these weird fins. Even the fancy kind has maybe been crossed with something else. I doubt those are as viable, though. The cheap ones are just gold-colored carp.
Those things will very likely not breed too well. First, the genetic modifications might screw things up so they are not fertile. Second, it might throw off the sexual selection mechanisms of those fish so that they won't want to breed.
As for environmentalists: as someone rightfully pointed out, there are two kinds of them. Some pose valid scientific questions. They would probably not be very worried about GM pet fish. Others simply bitch, whine, rant, and protest against everything that sounds like a scientific advancement. The second kind is mainly the one protesting here.
So, what would happen if you put genetically-engineered glowing fish out in the wild? They would get eaten, that's what.
The problem you described only occurs when you let loose WILD TYPE species -- they might actually be well-adapted for the niche. Chances are, if we don't already have glowing fish, that's not a trait which improves survival rates, and the glowing fish will die or get eaten.
Because a lot of people have an inexplicable confidence in technology.
Or, a distrust of people. A person cannot be trusted to do the right thing in a crisis/panic situation (for example, pulsing the brakes instead of slamming them). A computer, properly programmed, can be relied upon to do the right thing. Problems occur only when the computers are not programmed properly or assumptions are made which are not always true. Both issues are rare when proper development practices are followed.
As for Airbus jets: most airplane crashes occur due to pilot error. Others occur due to mechanical failure. Very few accidents of any sort have ever occurred due to computer failure. Therefore, I would think that a computer, which probably has a much better grip on the situation, given that airplanes have hundreds of sensors that a pilot could not possibly monitor simultaneously, is better prepared to make certain decisions.
Stock price is meaningless. It's merely a reflection of what the individual investors think the company's short-term potential is, and that changes with every press release, but does not reflect the long-term facts.
As for short selling their stock: they might lose the lawsuit in 2 years and that's when the stock will go down. Nobody is saying they are going to go bankrupt in a week.
How the hell do you think radar works? It usually measures doppler shift of a reflected radio signal. That's how, say, police speed guns work, which do basically this exact thing. "Lidar" guns (laser) simply bounce a laser beam off a car a few hundred times a second and count the number of nanoseconds it takes for it to bounce back. It's millions of times easier than measuring doppler shift of light, anyway.
Too bad it doesn't include the System V code, which is the code in question in the lawsuit. Read the license carefully.
It kills VMWare speed-wise. Boots up in about 15s on my old P-3 800MHz box.
One already exists, it's called RBMake.
You don't NEED the specs for it. It runs on a relatively common Cirrus Logic EP7212 system-on-a-chip processor, which has full documentation. It should be relatively easy to load Linux on it. However, you don't really need that. With RBMake you can make your own ebooks for the device (or just use their old Rocket software) and Librarian for windows or REBComm for Linux work pretty well for making ebooks. I own two of their devices, and I like them (both RCA REB1100).
Stop making up bullshit strawman arguments.
A rebuttal can't possibly be a 10GB file, and the law probably has safeguards to make sure that the law is not abused. You do realize that European newspapers are subject to this as well? Have they been publishing 5,000 page rebuttals? What the hell are you smoking?
Also, I would probably link to nambla's website if I was doing an article on them anyway. That does not "give them a forum". If you are saying things about them which are blatantly wrong, I would like to see a rebuttal. If you aren't, then they are not entitled to one -- just like in a newspaper.
That would be because they were responding to SCO's "AIX license revoked" press release. That didn't say a word about Linux, either.
This would have been a nice troll - if you had replaced 'BSD' with Win2003.
I have the right to be an IDIOT!
Exactly. And an insurance company has the right to deny compensation for doing so.
If I don't want to wear a seatbell it should be my choice,
And an insurance company can choose to deny payment in that case. Seems perfectly logical.
if the insurances are forcing me to buy insurance then they should pay
This is along the lines of "I pay for college, so I have the right to demand perfect grades despite failing all the tests."
What are you talking about? If you criticize a certain group harshly enough for them to write a response, then yes, they should be entitled to having that posted in response to your article. Why the hell not? Besides, it permits having a simple link to the response (which most good websites have anyway). If I say that Republicans suck ass, I might as well have a link to their rebuttal. This only maintains a balanced discussion.
All this does is keep people from writing bullshit on-line. If you think this would create a huge problem, just look at newspapers -- they have been subject to dozens of such laws (libel, right to response, etc.) and still manage to do fine.
How exactly can you get the rear tires on a front wheel drive vehicle to spin off the ground? What the fuck are you smoking? Besides, the computer probably knows that the speed is invalid if the readings from all 4 wheels are not the same. Yes, there are sensors on all 4 wheels.