That is easily solved by semi-randomizing the feed volunteers view. Make sure it is another city (based on requester ID) and otherwise randomize. Every 15 mins, switch feed. And of course don't set the cameras up to show building numbers or street numbers.
It might be possible to trace a feed, but it would take a lot of effort and there is no guarantee which feed you are tracing.
It would be pretty useless for tracking specific people.
"""Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"" [wikipedia.org] "
That is next to Ellis Island where legal immigrants could register when they came into the country. There really isn't much barrier for someone to come here legally. When we set the bar so low, how should we respond to those who enter in violation of our laws so they won't be on the radar when they then proceed to violate the labor laws we have established?
Diversity is one thing, diversity is promoted by controlled diverse immigration. Change over a hundred years is one thing. Opening the border to Mexico outright would hand political control of the entire southwest of our nation to Mexicans, subjecting the entire existing population to their rule. That wouldn't take a hundred years, it might take as much as ten.
I welcome latin integration into our culture. But the latino culture has already been integrated and for the better. I would not want to see the latin culture replace the American culture wholesale.
'Really, if some impoverished people want to come to your country, is it such a bad thing for you, as a "rich" person?'
If it were only a matter of rich vs poor then we could have legal crossing day every month and just let them enter legally.
There are quotas on immigration for other reasons. One very important reason is prevent mass immigration from a single place and to spread it around. This prevents people who are loyal to another nation and culture from effectively conquering by immigration. This is a very real and serious concern for the U.S. where legal immigrants can vote and have a voice equal to someone who has lived in and built up this nation their entire lives.
Mexican's in particular have a widespread belief that the American southwest was stolen from Mexico. Illegal mexican immigrants have actually staged protest marches carrying mexican flags.
The problem isn't just that we would have pockets of the U.S. in which people who consider themselves Mexican rather than American would have political power. The problem is that there are Americans living in the places were those immigrants would take over. Americans who would be displaced or submerged within a foreign culture in a short period of time. Aliens in their own country, their own homes, the communities where they were born and raised.
Part of the process of legal immigration is forswearing loyalty to your previous nation and swearing loyalty to the United States. It requires learning rudimentary English and learning some of the basics of American History. And of course it requires finding and keeping gainful employment in the U.S. That's a pretty thin security blanket as it is.
I would support raising immigration quotas somewhat if some sort of placement were applied to spread the immigrants out instead of allowing them to band together. Obviously there would be no such restriction on their offspring or even after they gained citizenship but it would provide a good chance for them to gain some sense of America and loyalty for it.
"That way other workers could report their employer for hiring cheap illegals."
No luck there. First of all, the actual people involved have protection from liability as a business so the business gets fined and nobody goes to jail. Second, in the US the accused has the right to face the accuser. WHO reported the company will be in the paperwork and will also be a matter of public record.
By the way it is already a crime to hire illegals, and to pay them less than american workers, and it is already a criminal affair. The system doesn't work particularly well.
You can anonymously report a crime, but you can not anonymously accuse someone of a crime. No employee is going to lose their job by reporting their employer for anything.
'And when dozens of cattle and feral horses are left maimed or dead, we'll just say "serves those stupid animals right! They should learn to read!"'
For the wild animals it doesn't much matter and for the domestic ones it is the responsibility of ranchers to track and herd their own animals. No reason to be concerned about this unless you are a PETA nutter.
'Or, for that matter, how desperate some people are when they're trying to escape severe poverty or starvation? Or do you just not care?'
I certainly don't care. Not when there are legal routes for the poor and starving to take to enter. Or they could get off their asses and work to improve their economic situation. Even Mexico has internet these days and that means they have more knowledge than any first rate university in the world at their fingertips.
Its an entire nation, you're going to tell me that with the global store of information at their fingertips and millions of people to search Google they can't figure out a way to make money?
'A rudimentary knowledge of fairly recent history would have told you land mines don't deter the very poor from attempting to use land'
That is what we refer to as natural selection.
The problem is that landmines are expensive we couldn't pepper the area with enough landmines.
I picture something more like two chain link fences with barbed wire and pressure sensors rather than landmines between them. The fences keep out animals and the pressure sensors alert border patrol. At regular intervals you have an autonomous motion sensing machine gun mounted. They can cover a greater range than landmines. They also help to protect against a Mexican military invasion.
Actually liability generally runs the other way. You are a service provider and enjoy common carrier and safe harbors provisions so long as you DON'T know what is running through your network.
If you access someone elses server you could be held liable for what it is serving as well as for the breach of the confidential data on the machine. For instance that server might hold credit card details, you could be held liable for identity theft.
You are right and wrong. An example of something I can't do is give you permission via contract to kill me. I can't do this even via a power of attorney where you are acting on my behalf since suicide is illegal. In this case, the crime does not depend on my consent.
But in any case where the action is only a crime without my consent, the contract constitutes the consent. Breaking and Entering is only breaking and entering if you don't have a legal right to access the property/home for instance, that right can be conveyed via contract. The same is true of accessing a computer system. You can sign a contract that grants someone permission to access your computer.
All in all a simple rule of thumb is to ask if you yourself can do the thing legally. If so, you can generally give someone else permission to the do the thing via contract. A notable exception would be a power/permission you yourself acquired via non transferable contract.
Just mentioning these rights or having literature that mentions them can result in a judge declaring a mistrial. That is because in this instance the jury not only checks the legislature, it checks the judicial.
Judges don't like the fact that juries outrank them and jumped on the first excuse to subvert the power of the people (juries abused this power in the Jim Jones south).
I think you are getting a little wrapped up in the details. Contrary to tv shows full of technicalities legal issues generally come down to the bottom line. Who ended up with the money. Was there actually anything exchanged. Was there a meeting of minds on the contract terms.
I doubt you'll find many judges who would rule based on the intricate details of the protocols the PC's used to transfer the data.
Similar scenerios are Canadian (and other) Cannabis seed banks, both mail order and online. As well as online canadian pharmacies. You can buy pot seeds or medicine that is unrestricted in Canada from your PC in the U.S. in these cases it is the person who is doing the ordering and not the site that is responsible for these actions (seeds are illegal to import, some of the medications are and some are not).
Another example of this is allofmp3.com. I don't know of this hitting a courtroom but the allofmp3.com legal argument that the sale occurs in Russia and is then imported was solid enough the music industry's powerful lawyers didn't dare fight it in court. In fact, they actually used political leverage to force russia to shut down the site in order to join the WTO. Somehow I doubt they would have used that route if they had any ground to stand on legally.
I think it is more of a case of seeing injustice inspiring a psychological rebellion which in turn ultimately manifests in the form of civil disobedience.
Do you download 20gb of mp3's because you want them or need them? Is it to show off to others? Perhaps, in vary degrees from individual to individual. But for most people, that is reason to download an album or even a few. Escalating that beyond what you want or need is about making a statement. It is also about collecting but the reason for choosing that particular collection goes back to civil disobedience.
Be it conscious or not amassing such a collection is an active statement of disrespect and outrage.
It worked for Gandhi, it worked for black americans, perhaps it can work for copyright restriction as well.
"Essentially, this stems from the concept that juries are intended to be finders of fact, not judges of law."
Which is ridiculous. The entire point of a jury is to determine if it is just to apply a black and white law in a specific full color world scenario.
This is the only direct power the people have to check government. Well that and the right to bear arms but both have been subverted at this point.
The power of juries has been subverted by the courts who decided they no longer had to inform juries of their rights and obligations in this area (a recent development in truth) and the right to bear arms by both the legislative and the executive.
According to U.S. law U.S. courts assume jurisdiction in pretty much all cases they hear. They usually justify it with particulars but that is the bottom line.
Just ask anyone who is stupid enough to draw a trust document under foreign jurisdiction and gets dragged into a U.S. court.
Hell, in trust cases where the trust is U.S based the courts will generally ignore U.S. law in favor of screwing over a trust in any instance where it isn't being used by the rich to control their children's lives or to dodge estate taxes.
You keep saying that. I don't think it means what you think it means.
The relevant definition in the context of business (in other uses it refers to a group or collaboration of some sort) is this from Merriam-webster:
"3 a : a chartered commercial organization or medieval trade guild"
Or perhaps given the nature this from investorwords.com is most relevant:
"Any entity engaging in business, such as a proprietorship, partnership, or corporation."
Or maybe Wikipedia gives the best view of popular usage which is the true definition of a word in language:
"A company is an incorporated association, which is an artificial person created by law, having a separate legal entity, with a perpetual succession & a common seal."
A corporation is one method of organizing a company. A corporation by definition is always a company. A company (in the context of business) does NOT a group and can be formed and operated by a single individual.
Whether operated by one or multiple individuals a company does work toward one overall goal and in that sense is a singularity. Much as a bee hive, an ant colony, or a nation there is a form of emergence taking place.
Like I said, bloat. Next you'll be claiming VB is fit for actual use.
"and in many frameworks for Java, Ruby, Python, etc... "
That wouldn't be included in the language any more than PHP which is far more tuned to the web than any of those languages.
"As for sites that can scale to these levels of traffic: Just about everything Microsoft does is in ASP.NET."
It claims to be. Microsoft jumps through a lot of hoops to run their own software and they aren't above hacks to make it happen. Just look back at when they were caught running all their web services using BSD.
"There's nothing really bloated about any of these features. The code only needs to be generated once."
The overhead isn't in code generation, the overhead is in the bloated inefficient code that is generated. Targeted granular usage tailored and specific code is always going to be more efficient than general purpose code. The more general and larger the function the general purpose code is supposed to fit, the more bloated and less efficient it needs to be to be. Every potential scenario that code needs to cover requires trade offs in performance an efficiency.
In a small site that may not matter, but that bloat and inefficiency adds overhead that increases as the site scales.
I don't think I would WANT that level of generic coding applied. The bloat would be phenomenal. I seriously doubt you could name such as platform/framework that could scale to slashdot or facebook level traffic.
I mean hell, why not just skip all that and have a language with a complete CMS library built in. At some point your language isn't a language anymore, its a script for an application.
Perhaps the reasons for his differences can be found in this quote from that same page then:
"* Apache does not work well with persistent connections. When it receives a request from a new client, instead of using one of the available children which already has a persistent connection open, it tends to spawn a new child, which must then open a new database connection. This causes excess processes which are just sleeping, wasting resources, and causing errors when you reach your maximum connections, plus it defeats any benefit of persistent connections. (See comments below on 03-Feb-2004, and the footnote at http://devzone.zend.com/node/view/id/686#fn1)"
He clearly said that he was not using apache but custom c to handle requests.
In any case. He is obviously talking about a completely custom server app, load balancing, etc. That is a far different debate than writing server side cgi in php vs the same in c.
It's always baffled me. I can piece together a box with the same chipsets and the same specs and load stock windows on it and a dell and the dell will still be very noticably slower.
What do they do, go out of their way to deliberately engineer their boxes to perform poorly?
"What? Your logic is circular. PHP did not have standard libraries for XML (etc.) until after it existed, obviously.
PHP was invented as a lightweight server-side preprocessor as an alternative to CGI, not as a general-purpose systems-engineering low-level compiled language."
Which of his examples has anything to do with non-web related tasks? XML certainly wasn't such an example.
Maybe I started looking at PHP late but I don't remember PHP ever not having its web related built-ins?
Slashdot Mirror
That is easily solved by semi-randomizing the feed volunteers view. Make sure it is another city (based on requester ID) and otherwise randomize. Every 15 mins, switch feed. And of course don't set the cameras up to show building numbers or street numbers.
It might be possible to trace a feed, but it would take a lot of effort and there is no guarantee which feed you are tracing.
It would be pretty useless for tracking specific people.
"""Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"" [wikipedia.org]
"
That is next to Ellis Island where legal immigrants could register when they came into the country. There really isn't much barrier for someone to come here legally. When we set the bar so low, how should we respond to those who enter in violation of our laws so they won't be on the radar when they then proceed to violate the labor laws we have established?
Diversity is one thing, diversity is promoted by controlled diverse immigration. Change over a hundred years is one thing. Opening the border to Mexico outright would hand political control of the entire southwest of our nation to Mexicans, subjecting the entire existing population to their rule. That wouldn't take a hundred years, it might take as much as ten.
I welcome latin integration into our culture. But the latino culture has already been integrated and for the better. I would not want to see the latin culture replace the American culture wholesale.
'Really, if some impoverished people want to come to your country, is it such a bad thing for you, as a "rich" person?'
If it were only a matter of rich vs poor then we could have legal crossing day every month and just let them enter legally.
There are quotas on immigration for other reasons. One very important reason is prevent mass immigration from a single place and to spread it around. This prevents people who are loyal to another nation and culture from effectively conquering by immigration. This is a very real and serious concern for the U.S. where legal immigrants can vote and have a voice equal to someone who has lived in and built up this nation their entire lives.
Mexican's in particular have a widespread belief that the American southwest was stolen from Mexico. Illegal mexican immigrants have actually staged protest marches carrying mexican flags.
The problem isn't just that we would have pockets of the U.S. in which people who consider themselves Mexican rather than American would have political power. The problem is that there are Americans living in the places were those immigrants would take over. Americans who would be displaced or submerged within a foreign culture in a short period of time. Aliens in their own country, their own homes, the communities where they were born and raised.
Part of the process of legal immigration is forswearing loyalty to your previous nation and swearing loyalty to the United States. It requires learning rudimentary English and learning some of the basics of American History. And of course it requires finding and keeping gainful employment in the U.S. That's a pretty thin security blanket as it is.
I would support raising immigration quotas somewhat if some sort of placement were applied to spread the immigrants out instead of allowing them to band together. Obviously there would be no such restriction on their offspring or even after they gained citizenship but it would provide a good chance for them to gain some sense of America and loyalty for it.
"That way other workers could report their employer for hiring cheap illegals."
No luck there. First of all, the actual people involved have protection from liability as a business so the business gets fined and nobody goes to jail. Second, in the US the accused has the right to face the accuser. WHO reported the company will be in the paperwork and will also be a matter of public record.
By the way it is already a crime to hire illegals, and to pay them less than american workers, and it is already a criminal affair. The system doesn't work particularly well.
You can anonymously report a crime, but you can not anonymously accuse someone of a crime. No employee is going to lose their job by reporting their employer for anything.
So in other words it would be a relatively trivial task for our military if we weren't trying to police the world and engage in holy wars.
'And when dozens of cattle and feral horses are left maimed or dead, we'll just say "serves those stupid animals right! They should learn to read!"'
For the wild animals it doesn't much matter and for the domestic ones it is the responsibility of ranchers to track and herd their own animals. No reason to be concerned about this unless you are a PETA nutter.
'Or, for that matter, how desperate some people are when they're trying to escape severe poverty or starvation? Or do you just not care?'
I certainly don't care. Not when there are legal routes for the poor and starving to take to enter. Or they could get off their asses and work to improve their economic situation. Even Mexico has internet these days and that means they have more knowledge than any first rate university in the world at their fingertips.
Its an entire nation, you're going to tell me that with the global store of information at their fingertips and millions of people to search Google they can't figure out a way to make money?
'A rudimentary knowledge of fairly recent history would have told you land mines don't deter the very poor from attempting to use land'
That is what we refer to as natural selection.
The problem is that landmines are expensive we couldn't pepper the area with enough landmines.
I picture something more like two chain link fences with barbed wire and pressure sensors rather than landmines between them. The fences keep out animals and the pressure sensors alert border patrol. At regular intervals you have an autonomous motion sensing machine gun mounted. They can cover a greater range than landmines. They also help to protect against a Mexican military invasion.
Somehow I doubt many Mexicans in the illegal border crossing business are afraid of U.S. law enforcement framing them for kiddie porn.
Actually liability generally runs the other way. You are a service provider and enjoy common carrier and safe harbors provisions so long as you DON'T know what is running through your network.
If you access someone elses server you could be held liable for what it is serving as well as for the breach of the confidential data on the machine. For instance that server might hold credit card details, you could be held liable for identity theft.
You are right and wrong. An example of something I can't do is give you permission via contract to kill me. I can't do this even via a power of attorney where you are acting on my behalf since suicide is illegal. In this case, the crime does not depend on my consent.
But in any case where the action is only a crime without my consent, the contract constitutes the consent. Breaking and Entering is only breaking and entering if you don't have a legal right to access the property/home for instance, that right can be conveyed via contract. The same is true of accessing a computer system. You can sign a contract that grants someone permission to access your computer.
All in all a simple rule of thumb is to ask if you yourself can do the thing legally. If so, you can generally give someone else permission to the do the thing via contract. A notable exception would be a power/permission you yourself acquired via non transferable contract.
The Jim Jones south would be Guyana. You are right of course I was referring to the Jim Crow south.
Mod this AC up.
Just mentioning these rights or having literature that mentions them can result in a judge declaring a mistrial. That is because in this instance the jury not only checks the legislature, it checks the judicial.
Judges don't like the fact that juries outrank them and jumped on the first excuse to subvert the power of the people (juries abused this power in the Jim Jones south).
I think you are getting a little wrapped up in the details. Contrary to tv shows full of technicalities legal issues generally come down to the bottom line. Who ended up with the money. Was there actually anything exchanged. Was there a meeting of minds on the contract terms.
I doubt you'll find many judges who would rule based on the intricate details of the protocols the PC's used to transfer the data.
Similar scenerios are Canadian (and other) Cannabis seed banks, both mail order and online. As well as online canadian pharmacies. You can buy pot seeds or medicine that is unrestricted in Canada from your PC in the U.S. in these cases it is the person who is doing the ordering and not the site that is responsible for these actions (seeds are illegal to import, some of the medications are and some are not).
Another example of this is allofmp3.com. I don't know of this hitting a courtroom but the allofmp3.com legal argument that the sale occurs in Russia and is then imported was solid enough the music industry's powerful lawyers didn't dare fight it in court. In fact, they actually used political leverage to force russia to shut down the site in order to join the WTO. Somehow I doubt they would have used that route if they had any ground to stand on legally.
I think it is more of a case of seeing injustice inspiring a psychological rebellion which in turn ultimately manifests in the form of civil disobedience.
Do you download 20gb of mp3's because you want them or need them? Is it to show off to others? Perhaps, in vary degrees from individual to individual. But for most people, that is reason to download an album or even a few. Escalating that beyond what you want or need is about making a statement. It is also about collecting but the reason for choosing that particular collection goes back to civil disobedience.
Be it conscious or not amassing such a collection is an active statement of disrespect and outrage.
It worked for Gandhi, it worked for black americans, perhaps it can work for copyright restriction as well.
"Essentially, this stems from the concept that juries are intended to be finders of fact, not judges of law."
Which is ridiculous. The entire point of a jury is to determine if it is just to apply a black and white law in a specific full color world scenario.
This is the only direct power the people have to check government. Well that and the right to bear arms but both have been subverted at this point.
The power of juries has been subverted by the courts who decided they no longer had to inform juries of their rights and obligations in this area (a recent development in truth) and the right to bear arms by both the legislative and the executive.
People may be illegally importing said material into the U.S. but ISOHunt is doing what its doing in Canada and therefore falls under their laws.
If you download a file from a Canadian server then you acquired the material in Canada and imported into the U.S. That's on you, the importer.
According to U.S. law U.S. courts assume jurisdiction in pretty much all cases they hear. They usually justify it with particulars but that is the bottom line.
Just ask anyone who is stupid enough to draw a trust document under foreign jurisdiction and gets dragged into a U.S. court.
Hell, in trust cases where the trust is U.S based the courts will generally ignore U.S. law in favor of screwing over a trust in any instance where it isn't being used by the rich to control their children's lives or to dodge estate taxes.
That reminds me of an old joke. What do you call a smiling roman with hair between his teeth?
A glad-'e-ate-'er
The real question on everyone's mind is when can we start having sex with the exotic natives?
"Well, it was written by Cory Doctorow. And he's from Canada, one of the United States."
And it is about the BBC which is a UK entity, another of the United of the United States.
You keep saying that. I don't think it means what you think it means.
The relevant definition in the context of business (in other uses it refers to a group or collaboration of some sort) is this from Merriam-webster:
"3 a : a chartered commercial organization or medieval trade guild"
Or perhaps given the nature this from investorwords.com is most relevant:
"Any entity engaging in business, such as a proprietorship, partnership, or corporation."
Or maybe Wikipedia gives the best view of popular usage which is the true definition of a word in language:
"A company is an incorporated association, which is an artificial person created by law, having a separate legal entity, with a perpetual succession & a common seal."
A corporation is one method of organizing a company. A corporation by definition is always a company. A company (in the context of business) does NOT a group and can be formed and operated by a single individual.
Whether operated by one or multiple individuals a company does work toward one overall goal and in that sense is a singularity. Much as a bee hive, an ant colony, or a nation there is a form of emergence taking place.
"I've described features in ASP.NET"
Like I said, bloat. Next you'll be claiming VB is fit for actual use.
"and in many frameworks for Java, Ruby, Python, etc... "
That wouldn't be included in the language any more than PHP which is far more tuned to the web than any of those languages.
"As for sites that can scale to these levels of traffic: Just about everything Microsoft does is in ASP.NET."
It claims to be. Microsoft jumps through a lot of hoops to run their own software and they aren't above hacks to make it happen. Just look back at when they were caught running all their web services using BSD.
"There's nothing really bloated about any of these features. The code only needs to be generated once."
The overhead isn't in code generation, the overhead is in the bloated inefficient code that is generated. Targeted granular usage tailored and specific code is always going to be more efficient than general purpose code. The more general and larger the function the general purpose code is supposed to fit, the more bloated and less efficient it needs to be to be. Every potential scenario that code needs to cover requires trade offs in performance an efficiency.
In a small site that may not matter, but that bloat and inefficiency adds overhead that increases as the site scales.
I don't think I would WANT that level of generic coding applied. The bloat would be phenomenal. I seriously doubt you could name such as platform/framework that could scale to slashdot or facebook level traffic.
I mean hell, why not just skip all that and have a language with a complete CMS library built in. At some point your language isn't a language anymore, its a script for an application.
Perhaps the reasons for his differences can be found in this quote from that same page then:
"* Apache does not work well with persistent connections. When it receives a request from a new client, instead of using one of the available children which already has a persistent connection open, it tends to spawn a new child, which must then open a new database connection. This causes excess processes which are just sleeping, wasting resources, and causing errors when you reach your maximum connections, plus it defeats any benefit of persistent connections. (See comments below on 03-Feb-2004, and the footnote at http://devzone.zend.com/node/view/id/686#fn1)"
He clearly said that he was not using apache but custom c to handle requests.
In any case. He is obviously talking about a completely custom server app, load balancing, etc. That is a far different debate than writing server side cgi in php vs the same in c.
It's always baffled me. I can piece together a box with the same chipsets and the same specs and load stock windows on it and a dell and the dell will still be very noticably slower.
What do they do, go out of their way to deliberately engineer their boxes to perform poorly?
"What? Your logic is circular. PHP did not have standard libraries for XML (etc.) until after it existed, obviously.
PHP was invented as a lightweight server-side preprocessor as an alternative to CGI, not as a general-purpose systems-engineering low-level compiled language."
Which of his examples has anything to do with non-web related tasks? XML certainly wasn't such an example.
Maybe I started looking at PHP late but I don't remember PHP ever not having its web related built-ins?