Excellent Youtube video [youtube.com] dealing with this stuff. ..
That's really funny, man... "This Video Is No Longer Available." I guess they caught on already. Have you noticed any unfamiliar vehicles following you lately? Any strangers in the area that seem to be taking an interest in you?
Its not so much the government nuking its own people as much as it is the security infrastructure that is holding those nukes would break down. Just imagine if some screwball goes out to fight the immigrants with "the big one".
Ha... well, that might actually solve the illegal immigration problem as long as he uses one of the really big ones.
Seriously though, when the security infrastructure breaks down (as it did in Russia) those weapons become available to any fruitcake with an agenda. What amazes me is that we haven't been hit with an ex-Soviet-era nuke yet. Of course, the things do require continual maintenance and if just left to themselves tend to become useless, so it's possible they don't have one that still works. On the other hand, just having the nuclear material means you could roll your own, I suppose.
Because they have patent cross-licensing deals where they agree not to sue each other in exchange for sharing their patent portfolios. All the big boys do that. What's more to the point, however, is that they all see VoIP providers as a direct threat to their own core businesses, and will do anything to squash that threat. If they're successful in forcing Vonage into bankruptcy, that will have a definite deterrent effect on future VoIP contenders.
I currently have AT&T's CallVantage VoIP service. I'm happy with it, it works well, has some nice Web-based features... but this case makes me want to switch to someone else. Problem is, my only choices are Comcast (who I used to have for local phone service, until they jacked me up to $90/month) and... AT&T/SBC.
They're dicks. I know someone that works as a game developer for a major publisher, and he's told me on several occasions that Valve is run by dicks. Consequently, this comes as no surprise.
... but this is the sort of thing you need to communicate to your users before you sting them.
Better yet... don't sting them. They're your goddamn customers for chrissakes! PAYING CUSTOMERS, something any corporation selling intangibles like software should treasure in this day and age.
This is the same crap the movie companies have pulled wherever they could get away with it on DVDs. I'm sorry to see Valve stooping to the same level.
I guess I've just been lucky through all of this (I also happen to live in a broadband-competitive area) but I've been pulling torrents at over 10 mbits/second lately, and my backchannel has gone up to close to 200 kbits/sec. Not sure what's going on, but I'm not complaining.
"Irrevocable pledge?" To translate, what they're really saying is this: "We're Microsoft and we won't sue you. We promise! And furthermore, we absotively posilutely guarantee that all future generations of management here at Microsoft won't sue you either." You'd have to have rocks in your head to believe that one.
I hope the EU's regulators have too much on the ball to swallow this malarkey. Microsoft couldn't keep a promise if their very existence depended upon it.
You're confusing "pessimist" with "doomsayer". The terms are not equivalent. A pessimist is someone who acknowledges the existence of that bastard Murphy and his friends: in other words, a fatalistic acceptance of reality. True optimists may be more fun to be around when everything is going well, but as they willfully remain blissfully unaware of what is, they are risky companions indeed (everyone driving an SUV at 80 MPH on the highway with a cell phone plastered to his or her ear is an optimist.)
Granted, pessimists who continually voice their concerns get a negative rep, no argument. However, most pessimists I know (including myself) have justifiable confidence in an eventual positive outcome because of that pessimism. We've made plans, tried to account for all the possible negative (trust me, pessimism is hard work!) and if we fail it's because we missed something, not because we didn't believe anything could go wrong. NASA, for example, is populated by pessimists... believe me, you don't want an optimist designing your spacecraft: you'll burn to a crisp at liftoff. Conversely, true optimists rarely make any effort to ensure their goals are achieved, and simply have faith that everything will work out in the end. Sometimes they are right (sometimes pigs fly), but usually they're completely blindsided when everything that can go wrong does, because they refused to acknowledge the possibility.
On the other hand, optimists do make better leaders, this is true. After all, people are rarely inspired by pessimists. However, the most successful optimistic leaders learn early on to depend upon their more pessimistic advisors, or they don't last long.
In any event, optimists are among the most irritating people I know. I mean, sometimes you just want to take them by the lapels and shake some awareness into them. But you can't: ignorance is curable but optimism is forever.
What I find interesting about the entertainment industry's position on peer-to-peer technology is its fundamental shortsightedness. Ultimately, some form of swarming protocol is going to be required to make a lot of up-and-coming technologies viable, unless our ISPs change the way they do business (ain't gonna happen soon.) If the idiots in charge of the Sonys and Viacoms of the world have their way and manage to make swarming technology illegal or unacceptable, they may very will find themselves in a foot-in-self-shoot situation.
They've been there before. The wonder of it all is that they manage to stay in business in spite of their myopia.
Childish it may be, but then again, you have to look at the history of The Pirate Bay. And it will definitely further their agenda: I just don't think that agenda is what you think it is, that's all. Besides, the activities of the media companies (and groups like the RIAA and the IFPI) are also childish and immature.. only more so. Those people would snatch up www.piratebay.org in a heartbeat, if only they could... but the Pirate Bay's operators are a little too competent for that.
Yes, it's more along the lines of the two guys that tied the back of their pickup truck to an ATM to try and remove the front to get to the money inside. The machine stayed put, but it ripped off their rear bumper along with the license plate, which they left at the scene. They were arrested shortly thereafter.
Governor Schwarzenneger vetoed all three bills. About the bill requiring the recording of confessions he said: "This bill would place unnecessary restrictions on police investigators."
And maybe it would have. But you know what? If we, as a society, truly believe that it is better for a guilty man to go free than to imprison an innocent one, maybe that's the price we have to pay.
Took me two months and divine intervention to drag one kicking and screaming down into the basement of the same fucking building where she worked so that she could see that there really **WAS** a problem and it really **WAS** with her equipment.
You probably should have just killed her, removed her head and placed it on a pike in front of Cisco's main office. Oh, I'm sure it would have little effect on Cisco's support policies... but just think how satisfying it would have been.
those of you who are better informed on this subject than I, or for that matter anyone with a reasonable-sounding opinion: how does something like this compare to Google's GFS and all the tools that Google has for large-scale deploments?
So far as I'm concerned, if you give money to Greenpeace you might as well write a check to PETA. Neither of them have any real value to the movements of which they are supposedly a part, given that they are part money-grubber and part fruitcake.
Responsible environmentalism involves accepting a few facts: one, people want and need finished goods and other products. Two, industry produces those things. Three, industry is not going to go away no matter how "ungreen" it may be. The only hope of achieving a global industrial base that can be maintained indefinitely is through improved processes and superior technology. That requires continuous and substantial investment from both the government and private sectors.
Public bitching may "raise awareness", and I suppose that's a good thing, but it doesn't do squat in terms of real improvement. The people who will do that are the research scientists and engineers that build our production lines and recycling systems. If you want them to have the opportunity, you have to work with business leaders and convince them to make the investment. That means showing them how an environmentally-sound approach can be economically viable, because their assumption will most likely be that it isn't. And you know what? There are plenty of real environmentalists who do just that... but they aren't the ones who care about headlines and tax-deductible donations. They're also the ones that I tend to respect more.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent Youtube video [youtube.com] dealing with this stuff. . .
... "This Video Is No Longer Available." I guess they caught on already. Have you noticed any unfamiliar vehicles following you lately? Any strangers in the area that seem to be taking an interest in you?
That's really funny, man
"Hi! It looks like you're driving an SUV with a cell phone plastered to the side of your head. Would you like help with that?"
Its not so much the government nuking its own people as much as it is the security infrastructure that is holding those nukes would break down. Just imagine if some screwball goes out to fight the immigrants with "the big one".
... well, that might actually solve the illegal immigration problem as long as he uses one of the really big ones.
Ha
Seriously though, when the security infrastructure breaks down (as it did in Russia) those weapons become available to any fruitcake with an agenda. What amazes me is that we haven't been hit with an ex-Soviet-era nuke yet. Of course, the things do require continual maintenance and if just left to themselves tend to become useless, so it's possible they don't have one that still works. On the other hand, just having the nuclear material means you could roll your own, I suppose.
Yeah. Two hundred billion dollars. If that's not a "what the fuck?" situation I don't know what is.
Because they have patent cross-licensing deals where they agree not to sue each other in exchange for sharing their patent portfolios. All the big boys do that. What's more to the point, however, is that they all see VoIP providers as a direct threat to their own core businesses, and will do anything to squash that threat. If they're successful in forcing Vonage into bankruptcy, that will have a definite deterrent effect on future VoIP contenders.
... but this case makes me want to switch to someone else. Problem is, my only choices are Comcast (who I used to have for local phone service, until they jacked me up to $90/month) and ... AT&T/SBC.
I currently have AT&T's CallVantage VoIP service. I'm happy with it, it works well, has some nice Web-based features
Bummer.
They're dicks. I know someone that works as a game developer for a major publisher, and he's told me on several occasions that Valve is run by dicks. Consequently, this comes as no surprise.
... but this is the sort of thing you need to communicate to your users before you sting them.
... don't sting them. They're your goddamn customers for chrissakes! PAYING CUSTOMERS, something any corporation selling intangibles like software should treasure in this day and age.
Better yet
This is the same crap the movie companies have pulled wherever they could get away with it on DVDs. I'm sorry to see Valve stooping to the same level.
I guess I've just been lucky through all of this (I also happen to live in a broadband-competitive area) but I've been pulling torrents at over 10 mbits/second lately, and my backchannel has gone up to close to 200 kbits/sec. Not sure what's going on, but I'm not complaining.
This is Microsoft. I wouldn't suspend your disbelief for a millisecond.
"Irrevocable pledge?" To translate, what they're really saying is this: "We're Microsoft and we won't sue you. We promise! And furthermore, we absotively posilutely guarantee that all future generations of management here at Microsoft won't sue you either." You'd have to have rocks in your head to believe that one.
I hope the EU's regulators have too much on the ball to swallow this malarkey. Microsoft couldn't keep a promise if their very existence depended upon it.
You're confusing "pessimist" with "doomsayer". The terms are not equivalent. A pessimist is someone who acknowledges the existence of that bastard Murphy and his friends: in other words, a fatalistic acceptance of reality. True optimists may be more fun to be around when everything is going well, but as they willfully remain blissfully unaware of what is, they are risky companions indeed (everyone driving an SUV at 80 MPH on the highway with a cell phone plastered to his or her ear is an optimist.)
... believe me, you don't want an optimist designing your spacecraft: you'll burn to a crisp at liftoff. Conversely, true optimists rarely make any effort to ensure their goals are achieved, and simply have faith that everything will work out in the end. Sometimes they are right (sometimes pigs fly), but usually they're completely blindsided when everything that can go wrong does, because they refused to acknowledge the possibility.
Granted, pessimists who continually voice their concerns get a negative rep, no argument. However, most pessimists I know (including myself) have justifiable confidence in an eventual positive outcome because of that pessimism. We've made plans, tried to account for all the possible negative (trust me, pessimism is hard work!) and if we fail it's because we missed something, not because we didn't believe anything could go wrong. NASA, for example, is populated by pessimists
On the other hand, optimists do make better leaders, this is true. After all, people are rarely inspired by pessimists. However, the most successful optimistic leaders learn early on to depend upon their more pessimistic advisors, or they don't last long.
In any event, optimists are among the most irritating people I know. I mean, sometimes you just want to take them by the lapels and shake some awareness into them. But you can't: ignorance is curable but optimism is forever.
What I find interesting about the entertainment industry's position on peer-to-peer technology is its fundamental shortsightedness. Ultimately, some form of swarming protocol is going to be required to make a lot of up-and-coming technologies viable, unless our ISPs change the way they do business (ain't gonna happen soon.) If the idiots in charge of the Sonys and Viacoms of the world have their way and manage to make swarming technology illegal or unacceptable, they may very will find themselves in a foot-in-self-shoot situation.
They've been there before. The wonder of it all is that they manage to stay in business in spite of their myopia.
Childish it may be, but then again, you have to look at the history of The Pirate Bay. And it will definitely further their agenda: I just don't think that agenda is what you think it is, that's all. Besides, the activities of the media companies (and groups like the RIAA and the IFPI) are also childish and immature .. only more so. Those people would snatch up www.piratebay.org in a heartbeat, if only they could ... but the Pirate Bay's operators are a little too competent for that.
Yes, it's more along the lines of the two guys that tied the back of their pickup truck to an ATM to try and remove the front to get to the money inside. The machine stayed put, but it ripped off their rear bumper along with the license plate, which they left at the scene. They were arrested shortly thereafter.
It's that kind of funny.
Cable companies aren't in a position to match this capability.
I doubt Verizon really is either, but it sure sounds good.
The GP's point is still valid, it just that the Internet is a T-2-T (Tube-to-Tube) network.
Governor Schwarzenneger vetoed all three bills. About the bill requiring the recording of confessions he said: "This bill would place unnecessary restrictions on police investigators."
And maybe it would have. But you know what? If we, as a society, truly believe that it is better for a guilty man to go free than to imprison an innocent one, maybe that's the price we have to pay.
Compared to a lot of what's loose in the world right now, we're still the good guys. Don't forget that. Granted, we've tarnished our image some.
"Dude, you can't take something off the Internet.. that's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool." - Joe, NewsRadio
Actually, in that respect the Internet is kind of like poison ivy: every attempt to scratch the itch just spreads it further.
At least that way I'll be able to claim "it's not my fault, I voted for Kodos".
I was going to vote for Gowron last time around, but unfortunately Worf killed him first.
For some reason, this information is classified.
... not anymore.
Apparently
Took me two months and divine intervention to drag one kicking and screaming down into the basement of the same fucking building where she worked so that she could see that there really **WAS** a problem and it really **WAS** with her equipment.
... but just think how satisfying it would have been.
You probably should have just killed her, removed her head and placed it on a pike in front of Cisco's main office. Oh, I'm sure it would have little effect on Cisco's support policies
I meant "deployments", alas and dammit.
those of you who are better informed on this subject than I, or for that matter anyone with a reasonable-sounding opinion: how does something like this compare to Google's GFS and all the tools that Google has for large-scale deploments?
So far as I'm concerned, if you give money to Greenpeace you might as well write a check to PETA. Neither of them have any real value to the movements of which they are supposedly a part, given that they are part money-grubber and part fruitcake.
... but they aren't the ones who care about headlines and tax-deductible donations. They're also the ones that I tend to respect more.
Responsible environmentalism involves accepting a few facts: one, people want and need finished goods and other products. Two, industry produces those things. Three, industry is not going to go away no matter how "ungreen" it may be. The only hope of achieving a global industrial base that can be maintained indefinitely is through improved processes and superior technology. That requires continuous and substantial investment from both the government and private sectors.
Public bitching may "raise awareness", and I suppose that's a good thing, but it doesn't do squat in terms of real improvement. The people who will do that are the research scientists and engineers that build our production lines and recycling systems. If you want them to have the opportunity, you have to work with business leaders and convince them to make the investment. That means showing them how an environmentally-sound approach can be economically viable, because their assumption will most likely be that it isn't. And you know what? There are plenty of real environmentalists who do just that