Sort of like Britain "owned" India, or the U.S. before the revolution? I generally assume that the people actually living in an area "own" it, if nothing else due to squatters rights if they've been there their entire life.
Actually doing it for anyone at all is illegal (and carries a criminal penalty). Doing it for the sitting, or any ex-president raises the maximum penalty to the death penalty.
Well, not quite. Everyone can advocate the death of Bin Ladin, or Saddam, or any other "terrorist" we've identified.
And sorry to add this word, but you really deserve it... Obviously. Does it really need to be explained that violence or advocacy of violence against political parties has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in a democracy ? I mean come on.
But it's a perfectly legitimate way to start a democracy, as the war in Iraq shows.
It's amusing watching the U.S. try to keep its hypocritical head out of its ass when it applies circular logic to everything.
Now the problem with P2P is that it expands to fill all available bandwidth. At one time, after Kazaa first appeared we saw our lines starting to become congested, so we doubled our bandwidth. That relieved the problem for almost 10 days. Other ISP's I've talked to agree, increasing bandwidth doesn't solve the P2P/bandwidth hog problem.
That just means your networks were undersized to begin with;) (that, and most P2P clients are brain dead and don't try to find peers within their own local subnets to alleviate inter-ISP traffic)
In all seriousness, I think the real answer is to split every user's traffic into two tiers, one that's guaranteed bandwidth and another for best effort traffic. Let the user decide which packets get the highest priority so even the bandwidth hogs can have low latency WoW or VOIP sessions, but all the traffic above the guaranteed bandwidth can be throttled based on how much each user is transferring. The more bandwidth used in the last X minutes, the lower the priority for best effort routing. Much more fair and honest, since you can advertise 20Kb/s guaranteed speed, with bursting up to X Mb/s. Your normal users get good burst speeds, you don't have to piss off the bandwidth hogs who will understand their traffic takes lower priority, since they can still transfer 600 GB/month or whatever during off-peak hours, and the total cost to you for providing pipes is the same.
Unfortunately the support for user-specified QoS is completely lacking in any applications that it would matter to use it for, and there are no established standards for making it work with any ISP and software combination. It's a good long term goal, though.
However nowhere else would you have someone who uses 100 times more of something pay the same price as someone else.
Except public libraries, sidewalks, bike trails, public roads (to a limited extent due to gas taxes, but people can always choose to drive a civic 100,000 miles versus a hummer for 10,000), sunlight, and dozens of other things. The key difference is that if it costs X dollars per unit of resource created, then generally it's charged for by usage. Anything that's built and paid for once is generally easier to charge a flat fee for any level of use.
Why should I, as a modest bandwidth user, subsidise someone who saturates their connection 24/7?
For the same reason you pay a fixed property and income tax to fund varying usage of public resources by other people. It's simple, and mostly fair.
If an ISP charged people directly for their bandwidth, they would ultimately be screwing the little guy, not the bandwidth hogs. Say an ISP pays $30,000/month for a Gb/s connection. The cost of bandwidth is about $.10/gigabyte, but the link is never up 100% of the day, so they have to overcharge based on their demographics. If they have a lot of bursty users (download an app, check their email, pay their bills, shop online, then go to bed) each user is using a fraction of their daily allotment of bandwidth, but all the customers on a 1Gb/s link still have to bring in over $30,000 a month. Depending on how oversold the network is, a base charge is necessary to cover physical connectivity and operating costs. The effective price per gigabyte jumps dramatically for low or moderate bandwidth users.
Amazon's web services pricing directly reflects this: Low users pay $.17/GB, medium users pay $.13/GB, and high users only pay $.11 or $.10 per GB. A network has to have enough capacity to satisfy all its customers all the time, especially during peak demand. Since routers don't get paid overtime, off-peak bandwidth is essentially free. I agree that traffic prioritizing based on how much of a bandwidth hog would be a good idea, it would let moderate users get their full bandwidth whenever they needed it a few times a day at expense of the bandwidth of people who download all day. That makes perfect sense, but for a home user ISP to try to charge for bandwidth like Amazon does would probably not work. The base charge for connectivity and operations would all but eat up any difference between the tiers. We're talking about only a ~$15 difference between users who download 100 GB/month and granny using ancestry.com, which is usually just covered in the real world by selling a faster service to the bandwidth hog, and a slower one to granny. It's just as possible to download 100 GB/month on a 320/128 kb/s connection as a 10 Mb/s connection, but very few people actually do that, so it balances out.
You're overlooking an even simpler way of filtering large transfers: Prioritize bandwidth by a running load average on each connection. If a user has been downloading 5 Mb/s for the last 10 minutes, make every packet to and from that user have the lowest priority. That ensures that the protocol used for transferring lots of data doesn't matter and it's purely based on the amount of data transferred, which is what directly impacts other users on the system. No one would care if 5% of users used 99% of the bandwidth because such a scheme guarantees that when one of the 95% of users gets on the Internet, their packets take priority and they don't notice any slowness.
To make it even fairer, bandwidth should be split into two tiers; guaranteed and best effort. Let the user choose which packets up to a certain maximum that the ISP can supply to each of its customers at the same time, and guarantee this bandwidth. All other packets are best effort and subject to prioritizing using the scheme above. Having two tiers allows bandwidth hogs to still suck down torrents while being able to choose a subset of their traffic (VOIP, Wow, etc.) to have normal priority. If everyone uses all their guaranteed bandwidth at the same time, only the best effort traffic suffers.
Sorry, all you have to do is look at Canadian broadband to understand that land area or distance don't really have an effect on what a country can provide.
Amazon is currently charging $.15 per gigabyte downloaded (unless you move terabytes of data every month) for its web services, so a 1 or 2 GB movie should really cost about $.30 or so.
"Male enhancement" is still a false claim, because there's literally no part of the body enhanced by this stuff.
What about self confidence and the placebo affect? People pay for all sorts of things of no practical value that only improve self confidence. Expensive cars, houses, clothes, and other toys are in the same boat as male enhancement pills. The benefit is entirely mental.
This is simply false. There are a few duds out there, and there are certainly plenty of 'formulas' that you will overpay for but there are thousands of very effective supplements. Walk into GNC and the man at the counter will not only show you effective supplements but will be happy to let you know what studies have been done on the effects of the supplement in question.
Ah, which supplement should I take to deal with a staph infection then? How about strep throat? What about yeast infections? Anti-seizure supplements? Any supplement that will keep me from getting chicken pox, polio, rubella, hpv, measles, or tuberculosis?
When is https://slashdot.org/ going to be anything more than a redirect to http://slashdot.org? How many subscriptions would pay for the beefier hardware to support SSL for most of the users?
If 95% of your code is in the critical path for optimization, why use C++ instead of dedicated hardware or assembly language? Perhaps if it's all numeric you can get autovectorization to pick up the slack without resorting to other languages. How much memory management do you have to worry about?
1. Just treat HTTP as a message passing facility and build a connectionless layer on top of it when you need to.
2. Client side privileges are *impossible* to control, period.
3. Turn on gzip compression for server responses, and send your own requests compressed if you really care about it that much. Or simplify the requests.
4. The semantics of "open" is not standardized across all operating systems. You may or may not have file locking, 64-bit offset support, long file name support, case insensitivity, extended attributes, ACLs, alternate data streams, or a host of other features. Welcome to programming.
But the real kicker is that you can't really trust it anyway (for validation and/or screen flow) so you have to do the work on the server anyway. ...
For a web application, use it as it is intended. If you need a rich client, just use a client-server architecture.
Guess what, "rich" clients can't be trusted either! Just ask Blizzard or any other company that makes MMORPGs. All the "glitz" is in the client in those games too, while the real work gets done on the server.
I'm always appalled to see how many traditional (e.g. rich client) database applications have a SA level database account and password embedded in the client so that they can perform direct queries against the database. Would you include the database username and password in the HTML you send out to the browser?
saw a number being tossed around of $1 billion that NBC paid for exclusive broadcast rights. Visa paid hundreds of millions for exclusive credit card rights, to the detriment of the people that actually attend the games, and find they can't use their credit cards.
"...But they won't take any card from American Express. Because we told them not to, and made them sign an illegal tying agreement." on the new Visa ads?
Now take Daniel, one of the figures we read about in the Old Testament. Among the predictions he made, long before it happened, was that there would be a succession of three world empires. He described the power and extent of each of these empires. In other prophecies of the Bible, also long before it happened, even the names of the ruler to come were given. The ancient Hebrew text was translated into Greek, put down in black and white, long before these things took place.
Completely ignoring the Chinese, Indians, Northern Europeans, Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, and other native islanders, of course. Daniel said there would be four beasts (possibly empires), and there were at least the babylonians, persians, medes, lydians, greeks, spartans, romans, parthians, byzantines, and several minor countries which prevented the existence of a true world empire even in the palestine area, up until the modern time.
One of the prophecies that has been fulfilled in our time is the state of Israel. It is prophesied that the Jewish people would be scattered and all nations of the world.
And it's no wonder that a mostly Christian western world decided to carve up Palestine to make a Jewish state, and no wonder that Hebrew was chosen as the official language. Look up self-fulfilling prophesies. Manifest Destiny is another good one.
There has never been a language that had become extinct for almost 20 centuries and then become a life again as a living language used every day. This is only a tiny example of the many predictions in the Bible.
Ancient Egyptian could qualify for that in the future, as well as ancient Babylonian, if anyone cares to do it. Also, Hebrew is not quite the same anymore with the addition of vowel indicators, and no one is exactly sure of the pronunciation of the words. Also, are you arguing for the Bible or the Torah here? If anything, the survival of Judaism would seem to indicate some sort of weakness in Christianity.
However, asking yourself why you believe what you believe, if done with sincerity, i think you will find it's much more rewarding. It's a lot harder to do, and quite a bit more scary to challenge ones beliefs no matter what they may be.
I agree. I tried it and ended up with mathematical realism (or modal realism [or pantheistic solopsism]) before I realized other people had thought up the same idea before and gave it their own name. I was attempting to encourage others to similar introspection, since I've found it pretty interesting.
String thoery does 2 through 5, which is why it infuriates some people. It's so generic that it specifies *lots* of possible universes, including our own.
1) probably requires backward time travel (or any kind of FTL information transfer that allows causal loops) in order to create an event that would be a paradox in a single universe. A machine that reads a single bit from its past, flips it, and sends it back in time to itself, etc. There might be some other kind of trick done with quantum entanglement, but I doubt it. Such an experiment is not necessarily possible in any given universe within a multiverse.
1) Interestingly, all the artists complaining about piracy seem to make plenty of money to begin with.
2) Usury is oppressive whether people willingly sign up for it or not. Just because people are stupid or unable to do better is no reason to oppress them with a monopoly.
3) We wanted the RIAA to go after individual file sharers precisely because we knew it was un-winnable. There's no way you can prosecute half of the population for an activity of lower impact than shoplifting. Speaking of which, shoplifting carries a much smaller punishment than even one act of "copyright infringement", hence the unfairness and evilness of prosecuting individuals for sharing music.
4) Music "piracy" is a market reality caused by overpriced goods (created by artificial shortage) and lack of a modern distribution infrastructure. Music is playing constantly over the radio for free, but somehow has a $250,000 value for every 3 minutes that get copied over the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Sort of like Britain "owned" India, or the U.S. before the revolution? I generally assume that the people actually living in an area "own" it, if nothing else due to squatters rights if they've been there their entire life.
"What an awesome future, tragic that it's only fiction."
The future is what we make it. Isn't that the point of scifi?
Yeah, but who did the Jews take Israel from?
Actually doing it for anyone at all is illegal (and carries a criminal penalty). Doing it for the sitting, or any ex-president raises the maximum penalty to the death penalty.
Well, not quite. Everyone can advocate the death of Bin Ladin, or Saddam, or any other "terrorist" we've identified.
And sorry to add this word, but you really deserve it ... Obviously. Does it really need to be explained that violence or advocacy of violence against political parties has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in a democracy ? I mean come on.
But it's a perfectly legitimate way to start a democracy, as the war in Iraq shows.
It's amusing watching the U.S. try to keep its hypocritical head out of its ass when it applies circular logic to everything.
After all, they are definitely encouraging people to go commit violence in Afghanistan and Iraq and (in their wet dreams) Iran.
Same with all the footage of U.S. helicopters shooting people with 30 mm cannons, or dropping 500 lb bombs on weddings.
You could do a bottom end rebuild from inside the vehicle on those.
Heh. You can do that on a few modern cars (I just finished a 99 escort), but it probably isn't the best way to do a rebuild.
Now the problem with P2P is that it expands to fill all available bandwidth. At one time, after Kazaa first appeared we saw our lines starting to become congested, so we doubled our bandwidth. That relieved the problem for almost 10 days. Other ISP's I've talked to agree, increasing bandwidth doesn't solve the P2P/bandwidth hog problem.
That just means your networks were undersized to begin with ;) (that, and most P2P clients are brain dead and don't try to find peers within their own local subnets to alleviate inter-ISP traffic)
In all seriousness, I think the real answer is to split every user's traffic into two tiers, one that's guaranteed bandwidth and another for best effort traffic. Let the user decide which packets get the highest priority so even the bandwidth hogs can have low latency WoW or VOIP sessions, but all the traffic above the guaranteed bandwidth can be throttled based on how much each user is transferring. The more bandwidth used in the last X minutes, the lower the priority for best effort routing. Much more fair and honest, since you can advertise 20Kb/s guaranteed speed, with bursting up to X Mb/s. Your normal users get good burst speeds, you don't have to piss off the bandwidth hogs who will understand their traffic takes lower priority, since they can still transfer 600 GB/month or whatever during off-peak hours, and the total cost to you for providing pipes is the same.
Unfortunately the support for user-specified QoS is completely lacking in any applications that it would matter to use it for, and there are no established standards for making it work with any ISP and software combination. It's a good long term goal, though.
However nowhere else would you have someone who uses 100 times more of something pay the same price as someone else.
Except public libraries, sidewalks, bike trails, public roads (to a limited extent due to gas taxes, but people can always choose to drive a civic 100,000 miles versus a hummer for 10,000), sunlight, and dozens of other things. The key difference is that if it costs X dollars per unit of resource created, then generally it's charged for by usage. Anything that's built and paid for once is generally easier to charge a flat fee for any level of use.
Why should I, as a modest bandwidth user, subsidise someone who saturates their connection 24/7?
For the same reason you pay a fixed property and income tax to fund varying usage of public resources by other people. It's simple, and mostly fair.
If an ISP charged people directly for their bandwidth, they would ultimately be screwing the little guy, not the bandwidth hogs. Say an ISP pays $30,000/month for a Gb/s connection. The cost of bandwidth is about $.10/gigabyte, but the link is never up 100% of the day, so they have to overcharge based on their demographics. If they have a lot of bursty users (download an app, check their email, pay their bills, shop online, then go to bed) each user is using a fraction of their daily allotment of bandwidth, but all the customers on a 1Gb/s link still have to bring in over $30,000 a month. Depending on how oversold the network is, a base charge is necessary to cover physical connectivity and operating costs. The effective price per gigabyte jumps dramatically for low or moderate bandwidth users.
Amazon's web services pricing directly reflects this: Low users pay $.17/GB, medium users pay $.13/GB, and high users only pay $.11 or $.10 per GB. A network has to have enough capacity to satisfy all its customers all the time, especially during peak demand. Since routers don't get paid overtime, off-peak bandwidth is essentially free. I agree that traffic prioritizing based on how much of a bandwidth hog would be a good idea, it would let moderate users get their full bandwidth whenever they needed it a few times a day at expense of the bandwidth of people who download all day. That makes perfect sense, but for a home user ISP to try to charge for bandwidth like Amazon does would probably not work. The base charge for connectivity and operations would all but eat up any difference between the tiers. We're talking about only a ~$15 difference between users who download 100 GB/month and granny using ancestry.com, which is usually just covered in the real world by selling a faster service to the bandwidth hog, and a slower one to granny. It's just as possible to download 100 GB/month on a 320/128 kb/s connection as a 10 Mb/s connection, but very few people actually do that, so it balances out.
You're overlooking an even simpler way of filtering large transfers: Prioritize bandwidth by a running load average on each connection. If a user has been downloading 5 Mb/s for the last 10 minutes, make every packet to and from that user have the lowest priority. That ensures that the protocol used for transferring lots of data doesn't matter and it's purely based on the amount of data transferred, which is what directly impacts other users on the system. No one would care if 5% of users used 99% of the bandwidth because such a scheme guarantees that when one of the 95% of users gets on the Internet, their packets take priority and they don't notice any slowness.
To make it even fairer, bandwidth should be split into two tiers; guaranteed and best effort. Let the user choose which packets up to a certain maximum that the ISP can supply to each of its customers at the same time, and guarantee this bandwidth. All other packets are best effort and subject to prioritizing using the scheme above. Having two tiers allows bandwidth hogs to still suck down torrents while being able to choose a subset of their traffic (VOIP, Wow, etc.) to have normal priority. If everyone uses all their guaranteed bandwidth at the same time, only the best effort traffic suffers.
Sorry, all you have to do is look at Canadian broadband to understand that land area or distance don't really have an effect on what a country can provide.
Amazon is currently charging $.15 per gigabyte downloaded (unless you move terabytes of data every month) for its web services, so a 1 or 2 GB movie should really cost about $.30 or so.
"Male enhancement" is still a false claim, because there's literally no part of the body enhanced by this stuff.
What about self confidence and the placebo affect? People pay for all sorts of things of no practical value that only improve self confidence. Expensive cars, houses, clothes, and other toys are in the same boat as male enhancement pills. The benefit is entirely mental.
This is simply false. There are a few duds out there, and there are certainly plenty of 'formulas' that you will overpay for but there are thousands of very effective supplements. Walk into GNC and the man at the counter will not only show you effective supplements but will be happy to let you know what studies have been done on the effects of the supplement in question.
Ah, which supplement should I take to deal with a staph infection then? How about strep throat? What about yeast infections? Anti-seizure supplements? Any supplement that will keep me from getting chicken pox, polio, rubella, hpv, measles, or tuberculosis?
When is https://slashdot.org/ going to be anything more than a redirect to http://slashdot.org? How many subscriptions would pay for the beefier hardware to support SSL for most of the users?
If 95% of your code is in the critical path for optimization, why use C++ instead of dedicated hardware or assembly language? Perhaps if it's all numeric you can get autovectorization to pick up the slack without resorting to other languages. How much memory management do you have to worry about?
1. Just treat HTTP as a message passing facility and build a connectionless layer on top of it when you need to.
2. Client side privileges are *impossible* to control, period.
3. Turn on gzip compression for server responses, and send your own requests compressed if you really care about it that much. Or simplify the requests.
4. The semantics of "open" is not standardized across all operating systems. You may or may not have file locking, 64-bit offset support, long file name support, case insensitivity, extended attributes, ACLs, alternate data streams, or a host of other features. Welcome to programming.
But the real kicker is that you can't really trust it anyway (for validation and/or screen flow) so you have to do the work on the server anyway.
...
For a web application, use it as it is intended. If you need a rich client, just use a client-server architecture.
Guess what, "rich" clients can't be trusted either! Just ask Blizzard or any other company that makes MMORPGs. All the "glitz" is in the client in those games too, while the real work gets done on the server.
I'm always appalled to see how many traditional (e.g. rich client) database applications have a SA level database account and password embedded in the client so that they can perform direct queries against the database. Would you include the database username and password in the HTML you send out to the browser?
saw a number being tossed around of $1 billion that NBC paid for exclusive broadcast rights. Visa paid hundreds of millions for exclusive credit card rights, to the detriment of the people that actually attend the games, and find they can't use their credit cards.
"...But they won't take any card from American Express. Because we told them not to, and made them sign an illegal tying agreement." on the new Visa ads?
Now take Daniel, one of the figures we read about in the Old Testament. Among the predictions he made, long before it happened, was that there would be a succession of three world empires. He described the power and extent of each of these empires. In other prophecies of the Bible, also long before it happened, even the names of the ruler to come were given. The ancient Hebrew text was translated into Greek, put down in black and white, long before these things took place.
Completely ignoring the Chinese, Indians, Northern Europeans, Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, and other native islanders, of course. Daniel said there would be four beasts (possibly empires), and there were at least the babylonians, persians, medes, lydians, greeks, spartans, romans, parthians, byzantines, and several minor countries which prevented the existence of a true world empire even in the palestine area, up until the modern time.
One of the prophecies that has been fulfilled in our time is the state of Israel. It is prophesied that the Jewish people would be scattered and all nations of the world.
And it's no wonder that a mostly Christian western world decided to carve up Palestine to make a Jewish state, and no wonder that Hebrew was chosen as the official language. Look up self-fulfilling prophesies. Manifest Destiny is another good one.
There has never been a language that had become extinct for almost 20 centuries and then become a life again as a living language used every day. This is only a tiny example of the many predictions in the Bible.
Ancient Egyptian could qualify for that in the future, as well as ancient Babylonian, if anyone cares to do it. Also, Hebrew is not quite the same anymore with the addition of vowel indicators, and no one is exactly sure of the pronunciation of the words. Also, are you arguing for the Bible or the Torah here? If anything, the survival of Judaism would seem to indicate some sort of weakness in Christianity.
However, asking yourself why you believe what you believe, if done with sincerity, i think you will find it's much more rewarding. It's a lot harder to do, and quite a bit more scary to challenge ones beliefs no matter what they may be.
I agree. I tried it and ended up with mathematical realism (or modal realism [or pantheistic solopsism]) before I realized other people had thought up the same idea before and gave it their own name. I was attempting to encourage others to similar introspection, since I've found it pretty interesting.
String thoery does 2 through 5, which is why it infuriates some people. It's so generic that it specifies *lots* of possible universes, including our own.
1) probably requires backward time travel (or any kind of FTL information transfer that allows causal loops) in order to create an event that would be a paradox in a single universe. A machine that reads a single bit from its past, flips it, and sends it back in time to itself, etc. There might be some other kind of trick done with quantum entanglement, but I doubt it. Such an experiment is not necessarily possible in any given universe within a multiverse.
It is perfectly possible to be both correct and partisan noisy at the same time.
I think the partisan bit may have been to balance out the "LINUX IS A THIEF!!@#OMG!@! YUO OWE US MONEY!!" statements coming out of SCO headquarters.
1) Interestingly, all the artists complaining about piracy seem to make plenty of money to begin with.
2) Usury is oppressive whether people willingly sign up for it or not. Just because people are stupid or unable to do better is no reason to oppress them with a monopoly.
3) We wanted the RIAA to go after individual file sharers precisely because we knew it was un-winnable. There's no way you can prosecute half of the population for an activity of lower impact than shoplifting. Speaking of which, shoplifting carries a much smaller punishment than even one act of "copyright infringement", hence the unfairness and evilness of prosecuting individuals for sharing music.
4) Music "piracy" is a market reality caused by overpriced goods (created by artificial shortage) and lack of a modern distribution infrastructure. Music is playing constantly over the radio for free, but somehow has a $250,000 value for every 3 minutes that get copied over the Internet.
Hi, I'm (nominally) a Christian, could you point out the star from when Jesus was born?
A picture would be fine. Try to fit in the big rays shining off at 90 degree angles, if it's not too much trouble.