You must have missed last night's episode of Countdown with Kieth Olbermann... there's been reports of active Republican campaigners requesting and getting the assignment to fix a phone line inside a Democratic Party office. Here we go again....
"War on terror" followed 9/11 in a time when everybody, media included, trusted the government much more than usual or that they should. Basically, NATO was ready to attack any nation we pointed at. However, Bush waited too long before pointing at Iraq, and the weakness and unsoundness of the reasons why destroyed that trust.
1991's was the Russian coup that brought down the USSR... but when the USSR was in its aquiring phase each place they took over had a similar overthrow of the sitting government.
American news is the best you can get in the world. Woodward and Bernstein were able to publish news so scandalous it forced Nixon to resign. Does any other government allow that?
You watched the censored media in the USSR. There were frequent reports of coup attempts in the 80s/90s in the form of attacks in attempt to take over the broadcasters reported on by the American media... you wouldn't have heard about it there, because the government controlled the media.
My first question would be is peer-to-peer traffic regulated, and if so, how?
Simple... controlling governments route all routes through the choke points. All traffic, even to the house next door, would have to go through the censorship point and then back to the destination.
While the gov't might be able to cut off the main Internet egress points, all it would take is one person with a covert satellite link and a good p2p network.
Simple... controlling governments ban satellite dishes.
Or, maybe, a covert side channel on a bank leased line that runs to Switzerland, for example?
Simple... controlling governments run the banks.
How about packet radio?
Simple... controlling governments don't allow consumer bandwidth. Try transmitting on an unlicensed spectrum here...
Twitter isn't exactly super bandwidth intensive.
Simple... controlling goverment loves things that are low-bandwidth and cleartext because that doesn't take much effort to scan what they've collected.
Google's current public stance on China is that they're thinking of closing their Chinese offices telling Chinese users to use google.com with the "in your language" features for translation rather than the censored google.cn.
Whenever there was a coup attempt going on in the USSR, the first place to get invaded by supporters of the coup the was the broadcasters, and then they had to get to the newspaper before it published the next issue. If they win over the media, they were effectively in power. If the media reports there's a coup in progress, then that would scramble the defenders of the existing rulers and it would fail. If the media reports the coup was successful, then whoever was reported to be the leader effectively had power.
This is why governments like Iran and China want to control all forms of communications. If people can organize in a way the government can't easily listen in on or censor, then the government is going to fail. As we have seen, a government doesn't need to be good at helping its people as long as its good at controlling them. Squash your opposing people, and you've got an easy time governing the rest.
Yep, it happens. If there's a minority-share owner and the CEO doesn't like them, they can be fired from their role as employee. Of course, the CEO can be canned if the ousted owner can get a majority of the ownership shares behind them... but there's always been cases of people falling below 50% ownership and being fired by the rest of the ownership.
I once worked for a company that had a direct competitor next door and didn't realize they next to each other and were sharing the same lunch room worker, who just happened to be the twin sister of the pricing manager of the shop I worked for. When we in the IT room figured out what was happening... we gave incorrect information to the women and drove our competitors into bankruptcy. For her involvement in the mess, that pricing manager was demoted. And because I had developed the pricing system to become efficient enough that they only needed one person operating it instead of two, that former pricing manager was laid off. Suddenly, the lunch room lady was able to spend double the time in the kit... wait a second, they're twins and the laid off worker was now cooking lunch!
Basically, your business-side staff have the keys to know what's going on with the business, and lunchroom chatter just could be intercepted. When they work in concert... that's trouble.
The story gets much much weirder after that, but that'd be TMI.
Just because I own a few shares of Best Buy doesn't mean I get any special treatment in the stores or edge in getting a job with them. If the owners don't follow the policy, they should be fired by the CEO. Of course, this doesn't work if CEO == Owner.
There's a big difference in the Red Cross these days...
Previously, the Red Cross operated in the black by collecting after a disaster not to benefit the current disaster, but to replenish their funds in reserve so they'd have money to deal with the next disaster, whatever it may be.
Then 9/11 happened. And worse yet, pinheads like Bill O'Reilly dared to attack this strategy by demanding that the Red Cross go all out to help 9/11 victims and spend all of the money it was raising. In effect, this disaster got double-funded... both from the collections after the previous disaster and the collections immediately after.
Now here's the problem: More recent disasters like Katrina and Haiti have been underfunded because the money isn't available immediately after the disaster but until news spreads and people pay for the relief. It just hasn't been the same.
The amateur radio operators are absolutely essential in a place where most of the communications structure has failed, and they didn't have much to begin with.
The fact that these guys are being fired upon just shows how much trouble Hatti is in right now. If there's no law enforcement left, just how are the emergency supplies that are moving all to slowly going to wind up in the right hands?
If they knew who these people were... why are they trying to scare away people who are rebuilding communication structures? If they didn't know who these people were... are they attacking anybody in a moving vehicle hoping they've got supplies they an steal for themselves without waiting in line like everybody else?
Patents by definition stifle competition. They're saying "I figured out how to do something this way, and because I'm first you can't copy me!" It's a monopoly on that idea granted because if everybody could duplicate it right away, nobody would make money inventing.
Rambus is acting on their patents, they've got many licenses and are suing only those who want to use their patent-protected items without licensing. nVidia is just as protective of their designs... use one without paying and they'll sue too!
Yep, a traditional patent troll doesn't file for the patent themselves, they buy somebody else's patent cheaply under the pretense that the original inventor is getting nothing because they can't mount the massive legal campaign... the new owners then sue the world. Big profit in the unlikely event they win, and that's how they justify the cost. One of these days, that lottery combo will be drawn.
SCO was a company that had nothing left but lawsuits (with a 0-win record) and money from those who felt the settlement price was less than the money they'd lose defending themselves against a threatened lawsuit.
Rambus on the other hand is proving they've got something, and has most of the chip industry as clients with the few holdouts losing and trying to claim anti-trust violations.
You're providing the fab with the spec on the part that you want them to manufacture, and you pay them to make it for you.
You don't seem to understand nVidia's business model. They don't make much under their brand, they sell the chip design to multiple companies, who then make the chip (or hire someone to do it for them) and sell it under their brand with the right to also mention nVidia's brand. So a consumer who wants a particular card has multiple SKUs from multiple manufacturers to pick from... and nVidia gets their fee no matter which one you buy.
Slashdot Mirror
You must have missed last night's episode of Countdown with Kieth Olbermann... there's been reports of active Republican campaigners requesting and getting the assignment to fix a phone line inside a Democratic Party office. Here we go again....
The standard I was setting was a story that would allow the local leader to be in trouble.
"War on terror" followed 9/11 in a time when everybody, media included, trusted the government much more than usual or that they should. Basically, NATO was ready to attack any nation we pointed at. However, Bush waited too long before pointing at Iraq, and the weakness and unsoundness of the reasons why destroyed that trust.
1991's was the Russian coup that brought down the USSR... but when the USSR was in its aquiring phase each place they took over had a similar overthrow of the sitting government.
American news is the best you can get in the world. Woodward and Bernstein were able to publish news so scandalous it forced Nixon to resign. Does any other government allow that?
You must have missed the story about Twitter actually turning a profit last quarter.
Everybody thought Google and Amazon didn't care about profits at first... now they're world leaders in what they do, and have many offshoots.
You watched the censored media in the USSR. There were frequent reports of coup attempts in the 80s/90s in the form of attacks in attempt to take over the broadcasters reported on by the American media... you wouldn't have heard about it there, because the government controlled the media.
My first question would be is peer-to-peer traffic regulated, and if so, how?
Simple... controlling governments route all routes through the choke points. All traffic, even to the house next door, would have to go through the censorship point and then back to the destination.
While the gov't might be able to cut off the main Internet egress points, all it would take is one person with a covert satellite link and a good p2p network.
Simple... controlling governments ban satellite dishes.
Or, maybe, a covert side channel on a bank leased line that runs to Switzerland, for example?
Simple... controlling governments run the banks.
How about packet radio?
Simple... controlling governments don't allow consumer bandwidth. Try transmitting on an unlicensed spectrum here...
Twitter isn't exactly super bandwidth intensive.
Simple... controlling goverment loves things that are low-bandwidth and cleartext because that doesn't take much effort to scan what they've collected.
Google's current public stance on China is that they're thinking of closing their Chinese offices telling Chinese users to use google.com with the "in your language" features for translation rather than the censored google.cn.
What would be much better would be to tell China to use https://google.com..../
Whenever there was a coup attempt going on in the USSR, the first place to get invaded by supporters of the coup the was the broadcasters, and then they had to get to the newspaper before it published the next issue. If they win over the media, they were effectively in power. If the media reports there's a coup in progress, then that would scramble the defenders of the existing rulers and it would fail. If the media reports the coup was successful, then whoever was reported to be the leader effectively had power.
This is why governments like Iran and China want to control all forms of communications. If people can organize in a way the government can't easily listen in on or censor, then the government is going to fail. As we have seen, a government doesn't need to be good at helping its people as long as its good at controlling them. Squash your opposing people, and you've got an easy time governing the rest.
Oh sure... have a cell network where everybody can transmit whatever they want whenever they want. Good luck with that.
On a closed system, the company behind the system should be able to push updates, especially when there's a security or safety risk involved.
But Google is claiming this is an "open" smartphone... and under this scheme it's usual that the user control when to upgrade.
What a contradictory situation this brings up...
Thanks, now I can make an unemployment claim instead of having to threaten to quit because you didn't listen to me.
Yep, it happens. If there's a minority-share owner and the CEO doesn't like them, they can be fired from their role as employee. Of course, the CEO can be canned if the ousted owner can get a majority of the ownership shares behind them... but there's always been cases of people falling below 50% ownership and being fired by the rest of the ownership.
I once worked for a company that had a direct competitor next door and didn't realize they next to each other and were sharing the same lunch room worker, who just happened to be the twin sister of the pricing manager of the shop I worked for. When we in the IT room figured out what was happening... we gave incorrect information to the women and drove our competitors into bankruptcy. For her involvement in the mess, that pricing manager was demoted. And because I had developed the pricing system to become efficient enough that they only needed one person operating it instead of two, that former pricing manager was laid off. Suddenly, the lunch room lady was able to spend double the time in the kit... wait a second, they're twins and the laid off worker was now cooking lunch!
Basically, your business-side staff have the keys to know what's going on with the business, and lunchroom chatter just could be intercepted. When they work in concert... that's trouble.
The story gets much much weirder after that, but that'd be TMI.
Just because I own a few shares of Best Buy doesn't mean I get any special treatment in the stores or edge in getting a job with them. If the owners don't follow the policy, they should be fired by the CEO. Of course, this doesn't work if CEO == Owner.
There's a big difference in the Red Cross these days...
Previously, the Red Cross operated in the black by collecting after a disaster not to benefit the current disaster, but to replenish their funds in reserve so they'd have money to deal with the next disaster, whatever it may be.
Then 9/11 happened. And worse yet, pinheads like Bill O'Reilly dared to attack this strategy by demanding that the Red Cross go all out to help 9/11 victims and spend all of the money it was raising. In effect, this disaster got double-funded... both from the collections after the previous disaster and the collections immediately after.
Now here's the problem: More recent disasters like Katrina and Haiti have been underfunded because the money isn't available immediately after the disaster but until news spreads and people pay for the relief. It just hasn't been the same.
I want our old Red Cross back...
The amateur radio operators are absolutely essential in a place where most of the communications structure has failed, and they didn't have much to begin with.
The fact that these guys are being fired upon just shows how much trouble Hatti is in right now. If there's no law enforcement left, just how are the emergency supplies that are moving all to slowly going to wind up in the right hands?
If they knew who these people were... why are they trying to scare away people who are rebuilding communication structures?
If they didn't know who these people were... are they attacking anybody in a moving vehicle hoping they've got supplies they an steal for themselves without waiting in line like everybody else?
Patents by definition stifle competition. They're saying "I figured out how to do something this way, and because I'm first you can't copy me!" It's a monopoly on that idea granted because if everybody could duplicate it right away, nobody would make money inventing.
Rambus is acting on their patents, they've got many licenses and are suing only those who want to use their patent-protected items without licensing. nVidia is just as protective of their designs... use one without paying and they'll sue too!
What's Rambus' patent in? Yep... design of memory chips. Your argument remains circular.
Yep, a traditional patent troll doesn't file for the patent themselves, they buy somebody else's patent cheaply under the pretense that the original inventor is getting nothing because they can't mount the massive legal campaign... the new owners then sue the world. Big profit in the unlikely event they win, and that's how they justify the cost. One of these days, that lottery combo will be drawn.
SCO was a company that had nothing left but lawsuits (with a 0-win record) and money from those who felt the settlement price was less than the money they'd lose defending themselves against a threatened lawsuit.
Rambus on the other hand is proving they've got something, and has most of the chip industry as clients with the few holdouts losing and trying to claim anti-trust violations.
You're providing the fab with the spec on the part that you want them to manufacture, and you pay them to make it for you.
You don't seem to understand nVidia's business model. They don't make much under their brand, they sell the chip design to multiple companies, who then make the chip (or hire someone to do it for them) and sell it under their brand with the right to also mention nVidia's brand. So a consumer who wants a particular card has multiple SKUs from multiple manufacturers to pick from... and nVidia gets their fee no matter which one you buy.
You appear lost.