That doesn't change the fact that after you pay the loan back you usually have a net worth less than when you started out with and the person giving you the loan has more money than they started out with.
When I make my mortgage payment each month my net worth is in substantially better shape than it would be if I had flushed that same amount of money down the toilet by paying rent.
If you're in a position to purchase a home without borrowing money, then hooray for you. Most people aren't.
As far as the NAT, check out http://www.no-ip.com./ I use their free service to ssh into my home machine on a cable network without a static IP. Been doing it for over a year and haven't had any problems yet.
I'm not sure how that's going to help him if he's behind a NAT. While not technically a requirement, a machine behind a NAT will usually have an RFC 1918 IP address (10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x, or 192.168.x.x). Since these are not routable on the public Internet, a dynamic DNS service isn't going to help him a bit.
Agreed. Even the BSD license is not truly "free", as it has restrictions. In fact, there is no need for a license that is truly free, as a much simpler alternative is already available: release the code into the public domain.
Some licenses may be more palatable than others, but to my knowledge they all have at least some restrictions, so none of them can really be considered "free".
You're absolutely right, sometimes we find ourselves simply doing what we're told. All that stuff down at the grocery store isn't free, after all.
It still doesn't strike me as such a great idea to mention his involvement with the Onion's remodel in an article while trying to establish his credibility as an expert on the subject.
No, the proper way to coax the megacorps into offering us better broadband is to make it profitable for them. This means coming up with some sort of content that A) requires extreem bandwidth and B) will generate high consumer demand.
Dial-up has nothing to do with it. He said "telecommunications", not "Internet".
What I assume he was referring to is the fact that since the US was one of the very first to lay down a telecommunication infrastructure (think "analog telephone" not "data network"), much of our existing infrastructure is aging and in need of replacement before we can implement many new technologies. Those old copper phone wires from the '20s just don't cut it anymore for a lot of things.
Compare that to countries who built their infrastructure much more recently. They obviously built it with much more current technology.
So, they are perfectly willing to let those people die if they can't get a patent and guaranteed profits?
So, based on your self-righteous rant, may I assume that you work in the medical research field, and that you decline any and all offers to be compensated?
After all, if you haven't devoted your life to assisting with such medical research, then you are just as guilty as anyone for letting these people die.
If you are in the field, but accept a paycheck, then according to your own argument you're just another evil prick who's only in it for the money.
it's crazy how many people use loose instead of lose though. All those lil kids and wikipedians online these days are so impressionable you know, and the more instances that slide through, the more the problem will propagate. Capital punishment seems to be the way to go.
Misuse of "lose" and "loose" I can live with. The people who deserve to die are the morons that use "women" as a singular noun.
I agree. I stopped reading the Onion quite some time ago when the content started sucking, so I wasn't aware that they had redesigned the site.
When I pulled it up to check out the new design, my first thought was "Huh? The guy who designed this piece of shit is being quoted as an authority on web design?"
Yes, that is clearly wrong, however the question I was responding to was "You don't say four years old, right?", implying that it was improper usage across the board. I simply provided an example where "four years old" was, in fact, the proper usage.
If you build the road on privately owned property, with privately purchased materials and labor, there would be no problem with you permitting or denying access according to your whims.
It should also be noted, that as of 4:20 EDT today, Level 3 has turned the peering connections to Cogent back up.
Cogent COULD fix it if they wanted to, but they rather have the blackout and try to blame Level 3 for it.
Well, not exactly.
Yes, Cogent could fix the problem if they wanted to, by routing through other carriers that they purchase transit from. Obviously, they want to avoid this because it would cost them a shitload more than the free peering arrangement with Level 3. To make matters worse, from a political standpoint, once they start routing this traffic over a paid route, their chances of getting Level 3 to reinstate the peering drop from "slim" to "none".
In the end Cogent will quite likely end up routing the traffic over paid-for transit, but not until they've exhausted every option they can think of for getting Level 3 to reinstate the peering.
Then again, a large corporation is probably not single homed.:)
At least not the smart ones.:)
Hell, I work for a fairly small company that is connected by a single T1 to a small local ISP. They are multi-homed to 3 separate Tier 2 ISPs, each of which is multi-homed to many places (including both of the players in the current pissing match). So we're pretty well protected against this particular sort of drama.
Seems that by going with a small, local ISP we actually have better redundancy than if I had tried to be l33t and buy our T1 from Level 3. While our T1 is obviously a single point of failure, as long as that stays up, we have several layers of multi-homing between us and the Tier 1 guys. It would take some serious pissing matches between quite a few of them before I experienced an "Internet partition".
I don't think you understand what the term "peering" means in this context. For one thing, this type of peering IS free, by definition. When Cogent and L3 peer with each other, no money changes hands between them. (Large sums of money are spent, however, on the physical links that the traffic passes through.)
You have the same "right" as any of the Tier 1 ISPs to peer with any of the others. What I suspect you do NOT have is anything to bring to the table to make peering with you an attractive option. If Level 3 agrees to carry traffic from your home to their customers for no charge, what are you offering in return? What network resources do you have to offer them for free that they might find useful? Free transit over your home network to the little blog server in your basement isn't going to cut it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, tell me about it.
As a temporary workaround until they implement web browsing, I've found that using a PC works pretty well.
Transfers between my DirecTiVos over 100 baseT are fast enough to not only watch on the fly, but actually go faster than the slowest FF speed.
That doesn't change the fact that after you pay the loan back you usually have a net worth less than when you started out with and the person giving you the loan has more money than they started out with.
When I make my mortgage payment each month my net worth is in substantially better shape than it would be if I had flushed that same amount of money down the toilet by paying rent.
If you're in a position to purchase a home without borrowing money, then hooray for you. Most people aren't.
And don't forget how chicks are always complaining about how they just HATE a guy with a sense of humor...
Um, just out of curiosity, how does the process of draining a swamp produce radiation?
As far as the NAT, check out http://www.no-ip.com./ I use their free service to ssh into my home machine on a cable network without a static IP. Been doing it for over a year and haven't had any problems yet.
I'm not sure how that's going to help him if he's behind a NAT. While not technically a requirement, a machine behind a NAT will usually have an RFC 1918 IP address (10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x, or 192.168.x.x). Since these are not routable on the public Internet, a dynamic DNS service isn't going to help him a bit.
Some of us don't buy closed-source software because we consider it immoral to so do,
Buying closed source software is IMMORAL?!?! I've just gotta hear the reasoning behind that...
I have a very hard time believing that I'm going to burn in hell for eternity as a result of stopping by CompUSA and picking up a copy of Quicken.
Agreed. Even the BSD license is not truly "free", as it has restrictions. In fact, there is no need for a license that is truly free, as a much simpler alternative is already available: release the code into the public domain.
Some licenses may be more palatable than others, but to my knowledge they all have at least some restrictions, so none of them can really be considered "free".
I was a bit frightened that I understood the "4 lights" reference.
:-)
I find the fact that you could quote all that VERY frightening.
Please tell me you had to look it up somewhere.....
You're absolutely right, sometimes we find ourselves simply doing what we're told. All that stuff down at the grocery store isn't free, after all.
It still doesn't strike me as such a great idea to mention his involvement with the Onion's remodel in an article while trying to establish his credibility as an expert on the subject.
No, the proper way to coax the megacorps into offering us better broadband is to make it profitable for them. This means coming up with some sort of content that A) requires extreem bandwidth and B) will generate high consumer demand.
That's the way the game is played.
Dial-up has nothing to do with it. He said "telecommunications", not "Internet".
What I assume he was referring to is the fact that since the US was one of the very first to lay down a telecommunication infrastructure (think "analog telephone" not "data network"), much of our existing infrastructure is aging and in need of replacement before we can implement many new technologies. Those old copper phone wires from the '20s just don't cut it anymore for a lot of things.
Compare that to countries who built their infrastructure much more recently. They obviously built it with much more current technology.
So, they are perfectly willing to let those people die if they can't get a patent and guaranteed profits?
So, based on your self-righteous rant, may I assume that you work in the medical research field, and that you decline any and all offers to be compensated?
After all, if you haven't devoted your life to assisting with such medical research, then you are just as guilty as anyone for letting these people die.
If you are in the field, but accept a paycheck, then according to your own argument you're just another evil prick who's only in it for the money.
Nope, I caught that, too.
So, I guess what they mean is that it scratches about as easily as cold butter, rather than warm? Or something...
Really? Silly me, I thought it started sucking when it stopped being funny.
it's crazy how many people use loose instead of lose though. All those lil kids and wikipedians online these days are so impressionable you know, and the more instances that slide through, the more the problem will propagate. Capital punishment seems to be the way to go.
Misuse of "lose" and "loose" I can live with. The people who deserve to die are the morons that use "women" as a singular noun.
I agree. I stopped reading the Onion quite some time ago when the content started sucking, so I wasn't aware that they had redesigned the site.
When I pulled it up to check out the new design, my first thought was "Huh? The guy who designed this piece of shit is being quoted as an authority on web design?"
Yes, that is clearly wrong, however the question I was responding to was "You don't say four years old, right?", implying that it was improper usage across the board. I simply provided an example where "four years old" was, in fact, the proper usage.
What's wrong with this sentence?
"My neighbor's daughter is four years old."
Yes, actually, I do.
If you build the road on privately owned property, with privately purchased materials and labor, there would be no problem with you permitting or denying access according to your whims.
It should also be noted, that as of 4:20 EDT today, Level 3 has turned the peering connections to Cogent back up.
http://status.cogentco.com/
Cogent COULD fix it if they wanted to, but they rather have the blackout and try to blame Level 3 for it.
Well, not exactly.
Yes, Cogent could fix the problem if they wanted to, by routing through other carriers that they purchase transit from. Obviously, they want to avoid this because it would cost them a shitload more than the free peering arrangement with Level 3. To make matters worse, from a political standpoint, once they start routing this traffic over a paid route, their chances of getting Level 3 to reinstate the peering drop from "slim" to "none".
In the end Cogent will quite likely end up routing the traffic over paid-for transit, but not until they've exhausted every option they can think of for getting Level 3 to reinstate the peering.
Then again, a large corporation is probably not single homed. :)
:)
At least not the smart ones.
Hell, I work for a fairly small company that is connected by a single T1 to a small local ISP. They are multi-homed to 3 separate Tier 2 ISPs, each of which is multi-homed to many places (including both of the players in the current pissing match). So we're pretty well protected against this particular sort of drama.
Seems that by going with a small, local ISP we actually have better redundancy than if I had tried to be l33t and buy our T1 from Level 3. While our T1 is obviously a single point of failure, as long as that stays up, we have several layers of multi-homing between us and the Tier 1 guys. It would take some serious pissing matches between quite a few of them before I experienced an "Internet partition".
I don't think you understand what the term "peering" means in this context. For one thing, this type of peering IS free, by definition. When Cogent and L3 peer with each other, no money changes hands between them. (Large sums of money are spent, however, on the physical links that the traffic passes through.)
You have the same "right" as any of the Tier 1 ISPs to peer with any of the others. What I suspect you do NOT have is anything to bring to the table to make peering with you an attractive option. If Level 3 agrees to carry traffic from your home to their customers for no charge, what are you offering in return? What network resources do you have to offer them for free that they might find useful? Free transit over your home network to the little blog server in your basement isn't going to cut it.
Would you REALLY want your Internet connectivity to be at the mercy of a /. style moderating system?
You've seen how well it works here.