But this isn't very unlike the PC situation in the early 80's before IBM dropped the PC, which actually was inferior to many similar machines at the time.
That's not really a fair comparison: inferior is a relative term. IBM looked at the business market (not the home/hobbyist users catered to by the likes of Apple, Commodore, Atari, SWTPC and others) and gave it exactly what it needed. And 640K was ten times the capacity of all the other "personal computers" sold at the time. Hell, the IBMPC didn't even have color graphics upon initial release... just the IBM Monochrome Display and corresponding adapter. But you know what? It didn't need it. With the IBM name behind it, solid construction, a solid maintenance program, great keyboard (specifically designed to appeal to secretaries with its simulated Selectric feel) and a substantial library of business software (largely Apple ports, but still) it was just what the corporate world needed. Companies bought into it bigtime, not just because it had the IBM logo on the front (remember, all of IBM's previous desktop entries failed), but because it did the job they wanted a desktop machine to do, and did it better than anything else that was out at the time. I was doing consulting before the PC came out, and the system most used in business at the time was the Apple ][-series. I did a LOT of programming on both platforms, but as a business-class computer system, the PC was far superior.
I dunno, that sounds suspiciously like "security through obscurity" to me!
Not really. Trunks have locks, and require keys to open them. Reading encrypted packets also requires keys. Granted, 256 bit encryption is probably a bit more secure than the average trunk.
You can disagree all you want, but the fact of the matter is that consumers have had little choice in the matter. You have the funny idea that, if we only bought products labeled "Made in the USA" we'd have been okay. But that's JUST NOT TRUE. The reality is that all products are composed of other products. Japan went after domestic manufacturs of key electronic components and essentially wiped them out. Once that happened, it didn't really matter if the box had "Made in USA" stamped on it. The guts all came from overseas, and the profits all went there, and the U.S. worker was out in the cold.
That process has been repeated over our entire manufacturing base. So yes, it was the government's job to prevent predatory pricing and the destruction of domestic manufacturing and the concomitant loss of jobs. They failed, miserably, and even aided Japan and China in their efforts. So don't try to shift the blame onto the consumer: the damage was all done behind the scenes. Maybe you'd like not to believe that, maybe you do, at some level, trust our government to be working in our best long-term interests. I don't, and as someone who spent decades in industry and watched as company after company went under because they couldn't match the cost of dumped components, I respectfully disagree with you.
This is not an area where the consumer can "vote with his dollars" and make a damn bit of difference. Asian countries went after American companies that made electronic and mechanical parts of all kinds. Once they'd successfully put them out of business, they jacked up prices and began to traverse the entire supply chain, destroying companies that manufactured more complex and consumer-level products, eliminating all but the hardiest American competition. And after thirty-some years of that, in addition to the more recent depredations of China, there's not much left.
We only had one defense against that sort of economic warfare: our government. They blew it.
And why don't you stop confusing the GODDAMN ISSUE. It really torques me into a pretzel when citizens do nothing more than ask for the law of the land to be enforced and get labelled as racist. Look, illegal immigration is a serious problem... one that is slowing bringing America to it's knees. I don't remember the GP stating at any point that only white folk should be allowed to stay here: but he was quite correct in pointing out that illegal (yes, for the memory-impaired that's illegal) aliens should be sent home. Or, better yet, not allowed to come here in the first place.
And yes, I do want my tax dollars (yes, that's my tax dollars!) spent educating American citizens (of any race, creed or color) so that they can be competitive to some degree in this insane Free Trade Global Economy mess that people like you have gotten us into. I don't want them spent educating illegal criminals. I don't, and as an American citizen that's my right. And you know what? Even if that's a (according to you) "racist" perspective (and it's not) it's mine to hold. Get used to it: citizens of any country have the right to decide, collectively, who they do and do not want crossing their borders.
Furthermore, the widespread abuse of a compassionate law that allowed the few expected children born to foreign parents to be granted citizenship is an equally great (if not greater) concern. Get your head out of the sand: even if you are of Hispanic descent you'd best realize that your countrymen are killing the Golden Goose. We're all going to regret that, and probably sooner than later. Rather than bringing down our Golden Age, I say: go forth and build your own. Oh, your culture is even more miserable and corrupt than the America's and you can't pull that off? Too bad. There's a reason countries have borders: they determine that which is ours and that which is theirs.
And, uh, dude, being a citizen of any nation involves either a. having been born there or b. having been naturalized by legal process. This insane idea that America doesn't have to abide by standards of immigration and naturalization that all other countries do is just WRONG. Equally wrong is the idea that America's resources are open for the taking for anyone who can get over the border and not get caught. Get it through your head: if you weren't born here, if you weren't legally naturalized, then it doesn't matter who you are, you are a criminal and you don't have any right to be here. Period. End of the goddamned statement. That's the case no matter where you go on this planet, and I have news for you: America is no exception!
Grow up and learn some history, and realize that this isn't a racist issue at the core. However if Mexico's government keeps pushing our buttons it may very well become one.
Ah, I know you were trying to be funny but... M.A.D. did work.
But this isn't really a MAD situation. It's an issue of whether or not people can reliably depend upon law enforcement for prevention of these kinds of crimes. It's not possible, of course, and any honest cop will tell you that about all he can do is pick up the pieces afterward and try to halt further carnage. The only deterrent that might affect someone who is planning a massacre is the sure knowledge that he won't get very far, whereas in an unarmed society, he can go pretty much as far as he likes. One presumes that there might be someone so off-his-rocker that he doesn't care about the fact he'll be facing deadly force the second he starts his rampage. And that's okay... odds are he won't last very long anyway.
if the company actually takes responsibility for it and fixes it. It's ethically their responsibility to rectify any damage their actions do to other people's property.
Possession is nine-tenths of the law. I know, it's just a saying, but it is the reason why DRM is so risky. The seller may not have a legal leg to stand on, but in practice he can do whatever he wants because he has control, which is de-facto ownership when customers have no reasonable possibility of redress and no way to remove the DRM. You can thank Congress, once again, for this truly one-sided up state of affairs.
I mean, if you have to spend a few million dollars on lawyers to get access to your property you're screwed. Furthermore, corporate ethics don't enter the picture, since under no conditions can you assume a particular vendor of DRMed material is ethical, or will always remain so. Quite the opposite, in fact. I have little interest in organized sports myself, but if there ever were a video that I wanted to buy from them, it had better be in a completely DRM-free format (or have an efficient crack available) or I won't buy it. The same applies to music or any other commercial media.
Why is that? I'll you: it's because I don't trust them with my money... and neither should you. None of them. They will say, "well, why should we trust you with our products" to which I say, "that's your cost of doing business." Don't take the shady way out. You're just making (ahem) "alternate forms of distribution" that much more desirable.
Besides, as Lazarus Long once said, "Never trust to a man's better nature. He might not have one."
Sure you will. Susceptibility to various diseases is an artifact of diet, genetics and overall lifestyle. Some people's bodies can withstand decades-long biochemical assaults (unhealthy food, smoking, alcohol, illicit drugs, etc.) with little or no ill effect, whereas others suffer horribly and die early. It's a crapshoot, any way you look at it. Take a walk around your average nursing home or assisted-living center. Plenty of the residents are in the 80-90 age group and are, well, "plump" is probably too kind a word. Not many, by any means... but if you happen to have won the genetic lottery you can pig out and live to a hundred.
Of course, to be fair now, a lot of elderly people (who after all, grew up in a different era) aren't attracted to what Dr. Joel Fuhrman calls the Mainstream American Diet. They didn't grow up in an era of culinary gluttony, and regular intake of large quantities of animal protein wasn't as common. In any event, I'd say a lot of the oldsters I know just have better dietary habits... I guess that's why they managed to become oldsters.
Silly person, it sounds like she is standing up for her opinions and will get sued because of it.
True... but school districts have been known to lose lawsuits and have to make healthy payouts. If they ultimately lose the school district legal costs plus a judgment, I would hope that they would be out on their collective ears. But that's probably asking for too much.
No kidding. Out of the property tax bill on my home, 65% goes to "education", whatever the hell that means anymore. Sixty... Five... Percent. That overshadows all other county and city service expenditures by a substantial margin, and believe me, I feel it. Now, in my area, it's largely due to the influx of illegal immigrants. The local empire-building "Board of Education" is perfectly happy to build any number of new schools to handle these people, no matter what the cost to the local taxpayers. Interestingly enough, so far as I know none of the board members are Hispanic, but they are certainly using the flood of new "students" to augment their hegemony. It's insane, really. People are losing their homes because of the bastards running our school system. The middle class is on the hairy edge of bankruptcy, and school administrations will cheerfully push what's left of it over the cliff.
Self-serving assholes, all of them. Modern medicine really needs to classify the desire for power over others as a mental disorder, and treat it accordingly. Furthermore, like many other pathological conditions, sometimes that means you don't get to hold certain positions (for example, an epileptic airline pilot would be a no-no.) We need to get the empire builders out of our government and in prison where they belong (or in mental institutions, if you really think they can be rehabilitated.)
they're defending their personal reputations by paying lawyers using public funds? Do I have that right? Such behavior, in itself, ought to be worthy of some legal action (and kinda makes you think the lady may not be too far off the mark.) If they feel they've been wronged let them put their money where their mouth is, and pay the attorneys from their own pockets. No reason for the taxpayers to foot the bill.
The point is that we can't imagine, today, what the next "killer app" of the net is going to be... but traffic shaping inherently says "these are the services that are important"--which means anything currently unimagined will remain unimplemented forever.
To put it in political terms so that our Congresscritters might better understand:
A Free State (open Internet): one in which everything is permitted except that which is forbidden.
A Totalitarian State (walled Internet): one in which everything is forbidden except that which is permitted.
I know which I'd rather be in / use.
Personally, I think we need to come up with a better term than "Network Neutrality". It has too many socio-political connotations that I think may blur its understanding among those not well versed in the technology. I think something along the lines of "Get Your Sticky Paws Off My Packets, You Damn Dirty ISP" would get the point across much more efficiently.
Winning, when it comes to Microsoft, doesn't constitute having a greater market share.
It means that, after Microsoft has done its absolute worst... you still have a marketshare, and if you can grow it so much the better. So in that sense Linux has (so far) beaten the odds: so has Apple, although that's been more because Microsoft deigned to let them live (they may come to regret that.) I mean, do you have any idea how many companies and products lie in the wake of the Microsoft's passage? I don't either, but I do know after almost thirty years in this business that it's a big number. The fact that Linux is not only heavily used, but on the rise is truly remarkable, given that Microsoft perceives it as a threat.
Dude... I, well. No, I won't say it. You sound like you want to do the right thing but don't know what it is, so don't get radical on me. Furthermore, I really hate it when people carry something I said to an illogical extreme simply because they think they disagree with it.
The most productive era in American history was when the government selectively tariffed specific imports. Before the personal income tax was instituted, those tariffs largely funded the United States Federal Government. The Feds no longer need those tariffs for operating expenses (they just take the money directly from us now) and when the free traders came into power there was no check-and-balance in place anymore to keep them from giving away our goddamn candy store. Congress had no motivation to protect us because they didn't need that source of funds anymore. The tariff system also limited the size of the Federal Government, because if it increased tariffs too high products would get too expensive, and people would start voting differently. It made our government effectively self-limiting in size, because they could only increase tariffs so much.
That's what irritates the hell out of me when people absolutely insist on making import tariffs into a black-and-white scenario. It's not. Properly and selectively applied, such tariffs protect domestic industries from predatory practices by foreign corporation and governments. That's part of why there were invented. So, this is most certainly NOT an "all tariffs are evil" situation you see, because by dropping all trade barriers we've just shot ourselves in the proverbial foot.
Let me ask you this: how do you think China, or India, or any other industrialized nation on this stupid planet looks at tariffs? Why, as an essential part of a sensible foreign policy, that's what! And why is that? Because they don't want someone else screwing around too much with their own economies! Frankly, I'd imagine they're completely amazed at America's stupid lowering of its trade defenses: it's a lot easier to bleed your enemy dry and then kill him, if he doesn't bother to shoot back. That's really not in the American tradition.
Here's another question: why are trade practices in force all over the world suddenly wrong if America continues to practice them? I'll tell you why: it's because a number of other countries, and a number of parties here in the U.S. (in the government and the private sector) have decided that America has to fall, and the sooner and harder the better. That's what happens when an industrial power throws away its means of production, its means of creating wealth. The best way to do that is to simply allow a hostile power like China to do whatever it wants to our own industries. Don't tell me you haven't seen the results of that already... if not, you're living in a dream world.
I've spent most of my professional life as an developer of industrial software: I've lost track of how many manufacturing plants I've been in over the years. I'll tell you a dirty little secret that Bush & Co. don't want you to know: there aren't as many factories as there were even ten years ago, and the trend is accelerating. All the major textile mills are gone, our automakers are on the rocks, very few consumer goods are made here: where is this going to end? The so-called "service economy"? Oh please... that's political double-speak for "third world." No thanks, I've been there, don't want it.
Now, when America is fully incapable of taking care of its own, and is utterly dependent upon China for everything, and can no longer create the wealth needed to buy products from China (cheap or otherwise)... what do you think will happen? I don't know either, but I have the feeling I won't like it very much.
This will get ugly. Mark my words. And it didn't have to be this way. We were sold out from the top down.
I don't know about the "Heil Bush" part, but I already got the "your papers, please." at LAX when I was coming home a few weeks ago. I was in line at the security checkpoint, and this Indian character in a security jacket went down the line looking at everyone's boarding passes, saying, "I'll need to see your papers, please." When he got to me I asked him if he knew how scary that sounded. He looked at me and blinked, and finished the line saying, "Tickets, please."
Yes, but the GP's point is well-taken, and I think you missed it. Congress is accusing Yahoo of cooperating with an evil totalitarian state. Okay, I get that, and it's bad... but Congress itself has sold the very people who elected it down the fucking Yangtze river to that self-same totalitarian state! WHY is it that everything sold in America is Made in China? It's because our government refused to do it's job and prevent the predatory conduct of China's industrialists. Period, end of statement. Not only did they fail to protect us, they wholeheartedly co-operated with China in the destruction of our domestic industries. "Sell-out" is far too kind a word for what these little pricks have done. I think high treason comes closer to the mark... not that I'm expecting charges to be filed anytime soon.
Congress needs to grow some ethics before it can get away with accusing anyone of anything without coming off as petulant and utterly two-faced. Put it this way: if it's amoral, immoral, unethical, illegal, treasonous, dangerous, murderous, wasteful, idiotic, misguided... or just plain wrong, Congress has been accused of it and is guilty as charged.
Hypocrites, all of them. They can take their righteous indignation and shove it where the Sun don't shine. I'm not defending the likes of Yahoo or Google or any of the other U.S.-based corporations that see nothing but dollar signs when dealing with China, but I'm really sick and tired of that malfunctioning collective we call "Congress". I don't have a solution to the problem, but it's pretty obvious to anyone with a functioning nerve cluster in his head that "Congress" is leading us over a cliff.
Think butter that doesn't melt in the oven, foie gras you can tie into knots, and fried mayonnaise.
I don't want to think about butter that doesn't melt in the oven, or foie gras in knots... and I especially don't want to think too much about fried mayonnaise. Cripes, talk about adding insult to injury.
Maybe not... but it does indicate that, unlike the typical Slashdotter (parent's basement and all) this man is not only capable of reproducing but has done so. Regardless of what you think of his homebrew processor, he should get points for successfully assembling offspring.
Slashdot Mirror
The death poll of Saddam Hussein's rule
There's your problem. You're asking dead people.
But this isn't very unlike the PC situation in the early 80's before IBM dropped the PC, which actually was inferior to many similar machines at the time.
... just the IBM Monochrome Display and corresponding adapter. But you know what? It didn't need it. With the IBM name behind it, solid construction, a solid maintenance program, great keyboard (specifically designed to appeal to secretaries with its simulated Selectric feel) and a substantial library of business software (largely Apple ports, but still) it was just what the corporate world needed. Companies bought into it bigtime, not just because it had the IBM logo on the front (remember, all of IBM's previous desktop entries failed), but because it did the job they wanted a desktop machine to do, and did it better than anything else that was out at the time. I was doing consulting before the PC came out, and the system most used in business at the time was the Apple ][-series. I did a LOT of programming on both platforms, but as a business-class computer system, the PC was far superior.
That's not really a fair comparison: inferior is a relative term. IBM looked at the business market (not the home/hobbyist users catered to by the likes of Apple, Commodore, Atari, SWTPC and others) and gave it exactly what it needed. And 640K was ten times the capacity of all the other "personal computers" sold at the time. Hell, the IBMPC didn't even have color graphics upon initial release
Okay, you nailed my funnybone on that one.
I dunno, that sounds suspiciously like "security through obscurity" to me!
Not really. Trunks have locks, and require keys to open them. Reading encrypted packets also requires keys. Granted, 256 bit encryption is probably a bit more secure than the average trunk.
You can disagree all you want, but the fact of the matter is that consumers have had little choice in the matter. You have the funny idea that, if we only bought products labeled "Made in the USA" we'd have been okay. But that's JUST NOT TRUE. The reality is that all products are composed of other products. Japan went after domestic manufacturs of key electronic components and essentially wiped them out. Once that happened, it didn't really matter if the box had "Made in USA" stamped on it. The guts all came from overseas, and the profits all went there, and the U.S. worker was out in the cold.
That process has been repeated over our entire manufacturing base. So yes, it was the government's job to prevent predatory pricing and the destruction of domestic manufacturing and the concomitant loss of jobs. They failed, miserably, and even aided Japan and China in their efforts. So don't try to shift the blame onto the consumer: the damage was all done behind the scenes. Maybe you'd like not to believe that, maybe you do, at some level, trust our government to be working in our best long-term interests. I don't, and as someone who spent decades in industry and watched as company after company went under because they couldn't match the cost of dumped components, I respectfully disagree with you.
This is not an area where the consumer can "vote with his dollars" and make a damn bit of difference. Asian countries went after American companies that made electronic and mechanical parts of all kinds. Once they'd successfully put them out of business, they jacked up prices and began to traverse the entire supply chain, destroying companies that manufactured more complex and consumer-level products, eliminating all but the hardiest American competition. And after thirty-some years of that, in addition to the more recent depredations of China, there's not much left.
We only had one defense against that sort of economic warfare: our government. They blew it.
And why don't you stop confusing the GODDAMN ISSUE. It really torques me into a pretzel when citizens do nothing more than ask for the law of the land to be enforced and get labelled as racist. Look, illegal immigration is a serious problem ... one that is slowing bringing America to it's knees. I don't remember the GP stating at any point that only white folk should be allowed to stay here: but he was quite correct in pointing out that illegal (yes, for the memory-impaired that's illegal) aliens should be sent home. Or, better yet, not allowed to come here in the first place.
And yes, I do want my tax dollars (yes, that's my tax dollars!) spent educating American citizens (of any race, creed or color) so that they can be competitive to some degree in this insane Free Trade Global Economy mess that people like you have gotten us into. I don't want them spent educating illegal criminals. I don't, and as an American citizen that's my right. And you know what? Even if that's a (according to you) "racist" perspective (and it's not) it's mine to hold. Get used to it: citizens of any country have the right to decide, collectively, who they do and do not want crossing their borders.
Furthermore, the widespread abuse of a compassionate law that allowed the few expected children born to foreign parents to be granted citizenship is an equally great (if not greater) concern. Get your head out of the sand: even if you are of Hispanic descent you'd best realize that your countrymen are killing the Golden Goose. We're all going to regret that, and probably sooner than later. Rather than bringing down our Golden Age, I say: go forth and build your own. Oh, your culture is even more miserable and corrupt than the America's and you can't pull that off? Too bad. There's a reason countries have borders: they determine that which is ours and that which is theirs.
And, uh, dude, being a citizen of any nation involves either a. having been born there or b. having been naturalized by legal process. This insane idea that America doesn't have to abide by standards of immigration and naturalization that all other countries do is just WRONG. Equally wrong is the idea that America's resources are open for the taking for anyone who can get over the border and not get caught. Get it through your head: if you weren't born here, if you weren't legally naturalized, then it doesn't matter who you are, you are a criminal and you don't have any right to be here. Period. End of the goddamned statement. That's the case no matter where you go on this planet, and I have news for you: America is no exception!
Grow up and learn some history, and realize that this isn't a racist issue at the core. However if Mexico's government keeps pushing our buttons it may very well become one.
Ah, I know you were trying to be funny but ... M.A.D. did work.
... odds are he won't last very long anyway.
But this isn't really a MAD situation. It's an issue of whether or not people can reliably depend upon law enforcement for prevention of these kinds of crimes. It's not possible, of course, and any honest cop will tell you that about all he can do is pick up the pieces afterward and try to halt further carnage. The only deterrent that might affect someone who is planning a massacre is the sure knowledge that he won't get very far, whereas in an unarmed society, he can go pretty much as far as he likes. One presumes that there might be someone so off-his-rocker that he doesn't care about the fact he'll be facing deadly force the second he starts his rampage. And that's okay
if the company actually takes responsibility for it and fixes it. It's ethically their responsibility to rectify any damage their actions do to other people's property.
... and neither should you. None of them. They will say, "well, why should we trust you with our products" to which I say, "that's your cost of doing business." Don't take the shady way out. You're just making (ahem) "alternate forms of distribution" that much more desirable.
Possession is nine-tenths of the law. I know, it's just a saying, but it is the reason why DRM is so risky. The seller may not have a legal leg to stand on, but in practice he can do whatever he wants because he has control, which is de-facto ownership when customers have no reasonable possibility of redress and no way to remove the DRM. You can thank Congress, once again, for this truly one-sided up state of affairs.
I mean, if you have to spend a few million dollars on lawyers to get access to your property you're screwed. Furthermore, corporate ethics don't enter the picture, since under no conditions can you assume a particular vendor of DRMed material is ethical, or will always remain so. Quite the opposite, in fact. I have little interest in organized sports myself, but if there ever were a video that I wanted to buy from them, it had better be in a completely DRM-free format (or have an efficient crack available) or I won't buy it. The same applies to music or any other commercial media.
Why is that? I'll you: it's because I don't trust them with my money
Besides, as Lazarus Long once said, "Never trust to a man's better nature. He might not have one."
You won't find an overweight 90-year-old.
... but if you happen to have won the genetic lottery you can pig out and live to a hundred.
... I guess that's why they managed to become oldsters.
Sure you will. Susceptibility to various diseases is an artifact of diet, genetics and overall lifestyle. Some people's bodies can withstand decades-long biochemical assaults (unhealthy food, smoking, alcohol, illicit drugs, etc.) with little or no ill effect, whereas others suffer horribly and die early. It's a crapshoot, any way you look at it. Take a walk around your average nursing home or assisted-living center. Plenty of the residents are in the 80-90 age group and are, well, "plump" is probably too kind a word. Not many, by any means
Of course, to be fair now, a lot of elderly people (who after all, grew up in a different era) aren't attracted to what Dr. Joel Fuhrman calls the Mainstream American Diet. They didn't grow up in an era of culinary gluttony, and regular intake of large quantities of animal protein wasn't as common. In any event, I'd say a lot of the oldsters I know just have better dietary habits
Silly person, it sounds like she is standing up for her opinions and will get sued because of it.
... but school districts have been known to lose lawsuits and have to make healthy payouts. If they ultimately lose the school district legal costs plus a judgment, I would hope that they would be out on their collective ears. But that's probably asking for too much.
True
No kidding. Out of the property tax bill on my home, 65% goes to "education", whatever the hell that means anymore. Sixty ... Five ... Percent. That overshadows all other county and city service expenditures by a substantial margin, and believe me, I feel it. Now, in my area, it's largely due to the influx of illegal immigrants. The local empire-building "Board of Education" is perfectly happy to build any number of new schools to handle these people, no matter what the cost to the local taxpayers. Interestingly enough, so far as I know none of the board members are Hispanic, but they are certainly using the flood of new "students" to augment their hegemony. It's insane, really. People are losing their homes because of the bastards running our school system. The middle class is on the hairy edge of bankruptcy, and school administrations will cheerfully push what's left of it over the cliff.
Self-serving assholes, all of them. Modern medicine really needs to classify the desire for power over others as a mental disorder, and treat it accordingly. Furthermore, like many other pathological conditions, sometimes that means you don't get to hold certain positions (for example, an epileptic airline pilot would be a no-no.) We need to get the empire builders out of our government and in prison where they belong (or in mental institutions, if you really think they can be rehabilitated.)
they're defending their personal reputations by paying lawyers using public funds? Do I have that right? Such behavior, in itself, ought to be worthy of some legal action (and kinda makes you think the lady may not be too far off the mark.) If they feel they've been wronged let them put their money where their mouth is, and pay the attorneys from their own pockets. No reason for the taxpayers to foot the bill.
Whose Laws Apply On the ISS?
You could say, whichever nation the ISS was above when the alleged crime was committed.
In reality though, it will probably come down to the astro/cosmo/whatevernaut that smuggled aboard the biggest gun.
The point is that we can't imagine, today, what the next "killer app" of the net is going to be... but traffic shaping inherently says "these are the services that are important"--which means anything currently unimagined will remain unimplemented forever.
To put it in political terms so that our Congresscritters might better understand:
A Free State (open Internet): one in which everything is permitted except that which is forbidden.
A Totalitarian State (walled Internet): one in which everything is forbidden except that which is permitted.
I know which I'd rather be in / use.
Personally, I think we need to come up with a better term than "Network Neutrality". It has too many socio-political connotations that I think may blur its understanding among those not well versed in the technology. I think something along the lines of "Get Your Sticky Paws Off My Packets, You Damn Dirty ISP" would get the point across much more efficiently.
Winning, when it comes to Microsoft, doesn't constitute having a greater market share.
... you still have a marketshare, and if you can grow it so much the better. So in that sense Linux has (so far) beaten the odds: so has Apple, although that's been more because Microsoft deigned to let them live (they may come to regret that.) I mean, do you have any idea how many companies and products lie in the wake of the Microsoft's passage? I don't either, but I do know after almost thirty years in this business that it's a big number. The fact that Linux is not only heavily used, but on the rise is truly remarkable, given that Microsoft perceives it as a threat.
It means that, after Microsoft has done its absolute worst
Dude ... I, well. No, I won't say it. You sound like you want to do the right thing but don't know what it is, so don't get radical on me. Furthermore, I really hate it when people carry something I said to an illogical extreme simply because they think they disagree with it.
... if not, you're living in a dream world.
... that's political double-speak for "third world." No thanks, I've been there, don't want it.
... what do you think will happen? I don't know either, but I have the feeling I won't like it very much.
The most productive era in American history was when the government selectively tariffed specific imports. Before the personal income tax was instituted, those tariffs largely funded the United States Federal Government. The Feds no longer need those tariffs for operating expenses (they just take the money directly from us now) and when the free traders came into power there was no check-and-balance in place anymore to keep them from giving away our goddamn candy store. Congress had no motivation to protect us because they didn't need that source of funds anymore. The tariff system also limited the size of the Federal Government, because if it increased tariffs too high products would get too expensive, and people would start voting differently. It made our government effectively self-limiting in size, because they could only increase tariffs so much.
That's what irritates the hell out of me when people absolutely insist on making import tariffs into a black-and-white scenario. It's not. Properly and selectively applied, such tariffs protect domestic industries from predatory practices by foreign corporation and governments. That's part of why there were invented. So, this is most certainly NOT an "all tariffs are evil" situation you see, because by dropping all trade barriers we've just shot ourselves in the proverbial foot.
Let me ask you this: how do you think China, or India, or any other industrialized nation on this stupid planet looks at tariffs? Why, as an essential part of a sensible foreign policy, that's what! And why is that? Because they don't want someone else screwing around too much with their own economies! Frankly, I'd imagine they're completely amazed at America's stupid lowering of its trade defenses: it's a lot easier to bleed your enemy dry and then kill him, if he doesn't bother to shoot back. That's really not in the American tradition.
Here's another question: why are trade practices in force all over the world suddenly wrong if America continues to practice them? I'll tell you why: it's because a number of other countries, and a number of parties here in the U.S. (in the government and the private sector) have decided that America has to fall, and the sooner and harder the better. That's what happens when an industrial power throws away its means of production, its means of creating wealth. The best way to do that is to simply allow a hostile power like China to do whatever it wants to our own industries. Don't tell me you haven't seen the results of that already
I've spent most of my professional life as an developer of industrial software: I've lost track of how many manufacturing plants I've been in over the years. I'll tell you a dirty little secret that Bush & Co. don't want you to know: there aren't as many factories as there were even ten years ago, and the trend is accelerating. All the major textile mills are gone, our automakers are on the rocks, very few consumer goods are made here: where is this going to end? The so-called "service economy"? Oh please
Now, when America is fully incapable of taking care of its own, and is utterly dependent upon China for everything, and can no longer create the wealth needed to buy products from China (cheap or otherwise)
This will get ugly. Mark my words. And it didn't have to be this way. We were sold out from the top down.
I don't know about the "Heil Bush" part, but I already got the "your papers, please." at LAX when I was coming home a few weeks ago. I was in line at the security checkpoint, and this Indian character in a security jacket went down the line looking at everyone's boarding passes, saying, "I'll need to see your papers, please." When he got to me I asked him if he knew how scary that sounded. He looked at me and blinked, and finished the line saying, "Tickets, please."
Nah ... totalitarian PRC rule. We aren't buying all of our Christmas tree bulbs from Russia, you know.
Yes, but the GP's point is well-taken, and I think you missed it. Congress is accusing Yahoo of cooperating with an evil totalitarian state. Okay, I get that, and it's bad ... but Congress itself has sold the very people who elected it down the fucking Yangtze river to that self-same totalitarian state! WHY is it that everything sold in America is Made in China? It's because our government refused to do it's job and prevent the predatory conduct of China's industrialists. Period, end of statement. Not only did they fail to protect us, they wholeheartedly co-operated with China in the destruction of our domestic industries. "Sell-out" is far too kind a word for what these little pricks have done. I think high treason comes closer to the mark ... not that I'm expecting charges to be filed anytime soon.
... or just plain wrong, Congress has been accused of it and is guilty as charged.
Congress needs to grow some ethics before it can get away with accusing anyone of anything without coming off as petulant and utterly two-faced. Put it this way: if it's amoral, immoral, unethical, illegal, treasonous, dangerous, murderous, wasteful, idiotic, misguided
Hypocrites, all of them. They can take their righteous indignation and shove it where the Sun don't shine. I'm not defending the likes of Yahoo or Google or any of the other U.S.-based corporations that see nothing but dollar signs when dealing with China, but I'm really sick and tired of that malfunctioning collective we call "Congress". I don't have a solution to the problem, but it's pretty obvious to anyone with a functioning nerve cluster in his head that "Congress" is leading us over a cliff.
It's a long way down.
Think butter that doesn't melt in the oven, foie gras you can tie into knots, and fried mayonnaise.
... and I especially don't want to think too much about fried mayonnaise. Cripes, talk about adding insult to injury.
I don't want to think about butter that doesn't melt in the oven, or foie gras in knots
Their lawsuit profiteering directly hurts the artists.
Yeah. Doesn't do a whole lot for the suees either.
Did you read the same article I did?
... I'm amazed that my comment got modded Insightful.
Nope. Just read the summary
Basically I agree with you except on the required fuel efficiency: ideally such vehicles should get at least 40 gallons per mile.
How do you "waive a Constitutional right?", without anyone at least asking you if you mind waiving it?
It says NOTHING about his sexual activity.
... but it does indicate that, unlike the typical Slashdotter (parent's basement and all) this man is not only capable of reproducing but has done so. Regardless of what you think of his homebrew processor, he should get points for successfully assembling offspring.
Maybe not