Being able to connect to any port and to receive connections on any port is the definition of Internet access. I absolutely should be able to run a mail server on my home machine.
Now, if the ISP were to block incoming port 25 by default, and people who wanted it could fill out a quick form or something, maybe that would be okay.
No, doing this to people's connections is inexcusable. If they're being a problem on the network, then they should be cut off. But inserting yourself into their communications is simply wrong.
That would solve the "how to get in touch with them" problem... They'll come to you!
The method they chose for notification is to man-in-the-middle my connections? Are they injecting Javascript into sites I visit? Does this mess with protocols other than HTTP? Why can't they just send an email to the account holder, or call them with a recorded message? Why break your service in order to fix it?
PNG isn't lossy. PNG and JPEG are not competitors. For a given image and a given purpose, you wouldn't debate between PNG and JPEG. They're used in completely different scenarios.
There's nothing unreadable or difficult about IPv6 addresses. The "huge mental jump" is you worrying that the water in the pool you're about to jump into is too cold. It's fine, jump in!
And I really don't understand people who say how "easy" it would have been to simply add another byte to IPv4. You'd still have the compatibility problems we have now, except that you wouldn't have nearly as many addresses in the new scheme. All so that you don't have to read hex? What's the big deal about that anyway? Talk about shortsighted.
If you can think of a way to expand the address space without expanding the number of bits in the address, I think there's a Nobel prize in it for you.
Wouldn't you expect the winning candidate, that is, the one who had the most supporters, to also have the most campaign contributions? Most of the time, anyway.
The whole thing is a protection racket. Companies feel they MUST "buy influence", or else politicians, who now in practice have unlimited power to ruin companies or industries, might set their sights on them.
This is why you'll find that most of the time, companies are giving to BOTH parties, often to BOTH candidates in the same election.
The solution is limited government. If neither candidate could take away people's livelihoods, then suddenly corporations don't have to care anymore.
If that's the case, that people will mindlessly vote for the candidate with the most advertising, then the fix is not making a bunch of ridiculous, unconstitutional rules about who can say what. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it would be pretty drastic. Fortunately, I really don't believe that to be the case.
Lobbying can give money to politicians' campaigns, but again, that does not necessarily translate to votes.
Are you sure you're replying to the right post? Your argument is so completely bogus I'm not sure.
Secession is 100% different from the judiciary deciding that a law means something other than what the law says.
Declaring that you're no longer going to be under the law of a remote and oppressive government is NOT the same as having a mass of laws which don't mean anything.
Ah, so because extra steps were taken to ENSURE that freedom in ALL its forms is protected, that means that we can decide that it means that neither is so protected after all! Of course!
The main argument against the bill of rights was that it was entirely unnecessary; under what circumstances could the federal government want to do any of these awful things to citizens, and under what circumstances would the states and citizens allow that to happen? It was unthinkable.
But, by your logic, since these freedoms WERE have to be spelled out, perhaps they're not so core and important after all!
"participate in the voting process in all but name" - I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where corporations were voting.
All that they're doing is attempting to persuade people. That's it. Do you believe that people will simply vote for whoever spends the most on advertising?
I suppose you'd say I were just as free if the government specified that I was only allowed to criticize the government in falsetto, wearing a tutu, and addressing a potted plant.
The Citizens United case has no bearing on this one. Anyone who disagrees with the Citizens United decision is dreadfully confused about what free speech means. If a few friends can't start an organization with the goal of promoting their political views without the government telling them what they may and may not say, then we may as well just pack it in right now.
This is what a bunch of us have been saying for a while: there's no reason for those really critical things to be on the Internet. Now they're proposing that they won't be, but are calling it a "partition". (??)
Slashdot Mirror
This doesn't have anything to do with driving. It has to do with being convicted, and going to jail, without being able to mount a defense.
They're a big part of this travesty:
The DUI Exception to the Constitution"
Being able to connect to any port and to receive connections on any port is the definition of Internet access. I absolutely should be able to run a mail server on my home machine.
Now, if the ISP were to block incoming port 25 by default, and people who wanted it could fill out a quick form or something, maybe that would be okay.
No, doing this to people's connections is inexcusable. If they're being a problem on the network, then they should be cut off. But inserting yourself into their communications is simply wrong.
That would solve the "how to get in touch with them" problem... They'll come to you!
The method they chose for notification is to man-in-the-middle my connections? Are they injecting Javascript into sites I visit? Does this mess with protocols other than HTTP? Why can't they just send an email to the account holder, or call them with a recorded message? Why break your service in order to fix it?
That wasn't in Samaritan Snare.
Oh, I should also point out it was a big part of one of the best episodes evar too.
Such a heart was a big part of one of the worst episodes of Star Trek: the Next Generation evar!
PNG isn't lossy. PNG and JPEG are not competitors. For a given image and a given purpose, you wouldn't debate between PNG and JPEG. They're used in completely different scenarios.
There's nothing unreadable or difficult about IPv6 addresses. The "huge mental jump" is you worrying that the water in the pool you're about to jump into is too cold. It's fine, jump in!
And I really don't understand people who say how "easy" it would have been to simply add another byte to IPv4. You'd still have the compatibility problems we have now, except that you wouldn't have nearly as many addresses in the new scheme. All so that you don't have to read hex? What's the big deal about that anyway? Talk about shortsighted.
If you can think of a way to expand the address space without expanding the number of bits in the address, I think there's a Nobel prize in it for you.
But to answer your concern, you should look into this cool new technology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System
Wouldn't you expect the winning candidate, that is, the one who had the most supporters, to also have the most campaign contributions? Most of the time, anyway.
The whole thing is a protection racket. Companies feel they MUST "buy influence", or else politicians, who now in practice have unlimited power to ruin companies or industries, might set their sights on them.
This is why you'll find that most of the time, companies are giving to BOTH parties, often to BOTH candidates in the same election.
The solution is limited government. If neither candidate could take away people's livelihoods, then suddenly corporations don't have to care anymore.
If that's the case, that people will mindlessly vote for the candidate with the most advertising, then the fix is not making a bunch of ridiculous, unconstitutional rules about who can say what. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it would be pretty drastic. Fortunately, I really don't believe that to be the case.
Lobbying can give money to politicians' campaigns, but again, that does not necessarily translate to votes.
Are you sure you're replying to the right post? Your argument is so completely bogus I'm not sure.
Secession is 100% different from the judiciary deciding that a law means something other than what the law says.
Declaring that you're no longer going to be under the law of a remote and oppressive government is NOT the same as having a mass of laws which don't mean anything.
Ah, so because extra steps were taken to ENSURE that freedom in ALL its forms is protected, that means that we can decide that it means that neither is so protected after all! Of course!
The main argument against the bill of rights was that it was entirely unnecessary; under what circumstances could the federal government want to do any of these awful things to citizens, and under what circumstances would the states and citizens allow that to happen? It was unthinkable.
But, by your logic, since these freedoms WERE have to be spelled out, perhaps they're not so core and important after all!
"participate in the voting process in all but name" - I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where corporations were voting.
All that they're doing is attempting to persuade people. That's it. Do you believe that people will simply vote for whoever spends the most on advertising?
I suppose you'd say I were just as free if the government specified that I was only allowed to criticize the government in falsetto, wearing a tutu, and addressing a potted plant.
I'll tell you what undermines the country: simply deciding that you don't like something, and so the rule of law can go to hell.
The Citizens United case has no bearing on this one. Anyone who disagrees with the Citizens United decision is dreadfully confused about what free speech means. If a few friends can't start an organization with the goal of promoting their political views without the government telling them what they may and may not say, then we may as well just pack it in right now.
This is what a bunch of us have been saying for a while: there's no reason for those really critical things to be on the Internet. Now they're proposing that they won't be, but are calling it a "partition". (??)
You're right, thanks!
Nuts, it only works as http://www.v6.facebook.com/. Thanks to webmistressrachel for the correction.
I believe this only affected those of you stuck in the last millennium. http://v6.facebook.com
The "great leap forward" for Postgres is live replication over the network? Get with the times! MySQL has had this for literally years!