You'd still end up with an outbound notification. And checking the upstream router wouldn't work in all cases since a lot of home users "upstream router" is just the gateway. Some companies are even using private ranges at the head end, so you don't end up with a real IP address until you're beyond that. If you really want to test for a live internet connection, you need to go to a known good site. If you're Microsoft, you're going to use microsoft.com.
Why don't you put a packet analyzer and see what kind of data explorer.exe was really sending (if any)? It may have even been checking for new updates (or do you have automatic updates turned off).
Linux does this. I'm sure Apple does this (there's no other way to automatically check for updates afaik). But when Microsoft does it, it's "OMG! It's phoning home! Those bastards!"
That's the "walled garden" bit. You're not refuting the parent post.
If I put it this way then? Was it Apple or MS that implemented Kerberos and then "extended" it just enough to break compatibility with other implementations? (hint: the answer is MS).
You're going to blame that on MS? How about blaming the idiots that designed the Kerberos standard and made extensions optional? MS just happen to require the optional extensions that they implemented. They may not have followed the "spirit" of the standard, but they followed the standard.
That's the difference between Apple and MS, Apple has actually increasingly been using standard tech behind the scenes (which means if you know anything about *nix it's a lot easier to deal with interoperability than it is with Windows), MS otoh is still trying to push various MS standards.
Bullshit. A friend of mine put it very well (and he happens to own and like Apple products). "Apple products are great until you have to plug them into something else". I had to get extra software to get the lone Mac at work to join and talk to the domain (alternatively I could disable some of the security on the domain, but why would I want to do that?). The Linux box that I had to setup was difficult, but I managed to find a how to on how to do it and no extra software was needed.
Or to put it another way: When some new cool tech comes out Apple will adopt it and build and integrate into OS X their own simplified GUI tool but will generally leave the underlying bits in place and even contribute back to whatever OSS projects they've taken code from. MS will create a competing standard or an standards-incompatible implementation to try to push the original/standards-compliant version(s) into obscurity.
Name something recent where MS has been able to do this. Like in the last 5 years. From IE7 to IE8 and now IE9, MS has been trying to become more and more standards compliant with their browser (they don't really do hardware).
Contrast with Apple. They put a notch on their keyboard USB cables that has to be filed down if you want to use it anywhere else. They've recently adopted a bleeding edge standard from Intel that's meant to replace all other connectors. I think it's cool personally, but you'll need to get adapters for everything else you own to use them with the iPad 2. They don't allow Flash on the iPod Touch or iPhone despite the fact that the market clearly wants it.
In short, Gates may have wanted to steer standards and users a certain way, but Jobs flat out puts up a wall.
That's why Apple isn't as bad as MS in my eyes anyway (although with some of their design choices for OS X 10.7 "Lion" I may end up eventually switching back to Linux on the desktop but I'm waiting until I get a chance to try it out).
If MS is a software monopoly, Apple is a hardware and software monopoly. Apple controls all aspects of the device unless you jailbreak it. That's what makes Apple worse than MS.
It's that they're the best marketers in the entire world.
Correction. Steve Jobs doesn't let anything out the door that doesn't "just work". Bill Gates is the best marketer in the world though. How many times did people upgrade their Windows OS because it was "better"? A lot. Contrast that with Apple. They were floundering until Jobs returned.
Steve Jobs is Apple and without him they are nothing.
"Should we" is the better question. They are a sovereign nation and wishes should be respected. How you would you feel about a bunch of outsiders pushing their agenda on your fellow citizens, which is exactly what this entails if you boil it down to the basics?
'Internet' isn't a basic human right.
Trolling?
Qaddaffi is a poster child for war crimes. The international community has an obligation to oppose, subvert, and eventually put to trial leaders who send armies to fire upon unarmed citizens.
This isn't some game. This isn't something that can be rationalized and boiled down to basics unless you have the express goal of sticking your head in the sand. If you believe the few western news reports trickling out of the country, people have been routinely slaughtered and the war crimes covered up.
And maybe you haven't been paying attention to the things Qaddaffi has already done? Seriously, take a few minutes to read up. This man is a terrorist who is hell-bent on repressing his citizens as well as attacking the rest of the non-Arab world. Moreover, unlike many other leaders, he isn't all talk: he has committed substantial violent acts both domestically and internationally. This man needs to be removed from power and tried in The Hague and leave the Libyans to select their own desired form of government. Again, this is not a domestic Libyan issue, this is an international issue.
All that not withstanding, the parent posters final statement is correct. 'Internet' isn't a basic human right and the Ask Slashdot question is asking if the "International Community" (which really comes down to the US and some other countries in the UN) could go in and set it up. You're more likely to get killed and have all your equipment stolen. Internet is the last thing on the average Libyan's mind right now. They want weapons, either for attacking the current regime or defending it. They have no interest in surfing the net or using twitter or facebook. Enough of them have cameras that are recording what they need which can be transmitted out later.
That's what everyone said about Hamas and look what happened there.
Do not put it past them to use other groups to get a majority win. The ends justify the means and there are many socialist groups teaming up with them because they think it'll help the people. As soon as they're in power, it's game over.
Because the story isn't over yet. Mubarak may have stepped down, but that doesn't mean Egypt is free. If they aren't careful, they will end up like Iran. Lots of signs are pointing to exactly that happening.
Gaza had free and open elections. Hamas was elected. That doesn't mean they're free.
The entire Middle East is on fire right now. They all want Sharia law. You're about to see what it looks like to have a Caliphate in a large part of the world.
Why not add in the right to a car and the right to drive (driving is a privilege, remember?). How about the right to own a home? How about the right to a job? Where do you draw the line?
The ability to communicate electronically is not a necessity. Plenty of people still communicate just fine using pen and paper (ever heard of a postcard?) and even speech (oh the horror of having to actually talk to someone). The ability to communicate is a necessity. The medium you choose to use doesn't matter. You have no right to anything other than the ability to speak and write words.
Besides, as has been mentioned here plenty of times, cutting off the Internet in Egypt didn't really stop anything, did it?
As much as I'm opposed to the idea, I think we need to put the thing into context. This is being pushed by politicians not in an attempt to block Free Speech (like Egypt did) but because they fear some massive hacking attack.
LOL! Yeah, sure it is. And I have a nice bridge to sell you.
Your statement would've been better if you had just ended it at "This is being pushed by politicians". That's all you need to know to know that this is a bad idea.
By your own anecdotal evidence, the People of that town would likely take up arms against any would be terrorist invader if the govt announced some "need" to shut down the Internet for some pending attack. They most certainly would not let some govt thugs (dressed in nice suits of course) block their access to putting themselves up on YouTube.
Take a look at where Ohio sits on an electoral map sometime. It may have gone for Obama in 08, but it's pretty firmly in red state territory. That means get the govt out of my face and off my land.
Then the west started fucking with them from all sides (and from within), in order to get at their tasty oil, and since then things have gone to pot.
And I'm sure this had nothing to do with environmentalists in the US getting laws passed to keep us from drilling on our own soil. It's not like we don't have enough oil on our soil or off our shores to power ourselves. As we've passed more laws, we've imported more oil.
What? Did people really think the oil companies wouldn't find alternate sources if they couldn't drill on US soil?
They, along with Syria, are (allegedly) a major source of funding and weapons for Hezballah. So Israel cares, which makes the US Government care. But I really don't give a shit. If they're powering their country with nukes, then they can burn less oil, which means more can be available on the market. It's simple Scarface economics -- "don't get high off your own supply."
Hahahaha. Yes, because I'm sure they'll make that oil available "on the market". Or maybe they'll just decide to stop outputting oil and bring the world to it's knees.
Iran is not the crazy state that you hear about in the media.
Really? So Mahmoud Ahmadinajed (and I don't care if it is spelled wrong) doesn't want to see the destruction of Israel and doesn't deny the holocaust happened? I think Iran is the crazy state we hear about.
Maybe, just maybe, if this wasn't about weapons, they'd let inspectors from the IAEA check the facilities out and they'd disclose all of the facilities. You are aware that one of their nuclear plants was only "disclosed" after it was accidentally found, right?
Yes, there are some nitwits who try and conflate net neutrality as being in conflict with QoS or Tiered ISP service levels like offering (slower lite vs regular vs higher speed connections), etc, etc, but that's not the "net neutrality" that net neutrality advocates are interested in.
It may not be, but reading the FCCs request for comments on proposed rules seemed to say exactly that.
You see how conflating two network management issues that are unrelated creates FUD about the unrelated issue? People like you are as bad as the do-gooders.
Yes, because a law written by politicians and lawyers (in other words, not network guys) will surely keep the two network management issues separate. Or maybe standard QoS will just end up caught in the "for your own good" law and it'll die a quick painful death.
This prioritizing of gaming traffic would be illegal if Net Neutrality existed.
Would that be such a bad thing? Instead of prioritizing gaming traffic over other kinds of traffic, or doing the same for VOIP, or YouTube, or whatever else an ISP decides is more important than other protocols, why not adopt a QoS scheme that ensures equitable access to available bandwidth while allowing customers to set their own priorities within those equitable access constraints?
Yes, it would be a bad thing because they wouldn't do what you're suggesting either.
In just a few posts we're already seeing the differences of opinion as to whether or not this violates net neutrality. Five different people here can't agree on it and you guys all want the government to make a law for it? The ISP simply wouldn't bother with any kind of QoS due to fear of being accused of violating the law and then all traffic would suffer.
Personally, if someone wants to pay more for higher priority gaming traffic (or any kind of traffic), more power to them. A friend of mine use to game on a 56k modem and did better than people on cable and DSL (at the time). Having a higher priority on your traffic won't help you if you still suck.
Additionally, this is in a sense a method of cheating, you're putting down extra money to have an in game advantage, It doesn't take a genius to see that it puts pressure on other players to pony up for it as well, whether it would otherwise be necessary or not.
So you're saying this is no different than the guy that works 60-80 hours a week and buys items off eBay to give himself an advantage in WoW? He ends up with an in game advantage over the people that don't have those items or that have to spend a lot of time earning them because they don't have the cash to outright buy them from someone else.
Our society is moving inexorably toward greater acceptance of sexuality in the public square.
And where do you see this happening? Sure, there's a coffee shop here and there where people are served by women in bikini's or lingerie, but by and large it isn't happening. Movies are still getting R ratings for showing a boob. Maybe cable channels are getting more racy. Not that I care much about any of it since I just keep it off the TV when the kids are up (I even have to pay closer attention to some morning news shows since they decided to show the lingerie shoots of the last Miss America contest at 7am).
Hurd didn't resign for violating any law. In fact, he would have been found not guilty of violating any sexual harrasment laws. He resigned because he was violating HP's own standards of conduct policy. These are internal policies that are likely far more strict than any law on the books.
The real conclusion from that is you have to CYA. Not only be innocent, but be able to prove it if you do anything that can be misinterpreted.
That's funny, I thought it was up to the accuser to prove you were guilty, not the other way around.
My situation wasn't NSFW material, but I once, not to long ago, had a guy at work accuse me of changing one of the reports in his Access database. He did this in an email that was CC'ed to quite a few managers. Since I had done nothing but open his Access database (I hadn't actually changed the report, just looked at it), I told him to provide proof that I'd changed his report or keep his accusations to himself. Since the guy doesn't know nearly what he thinks he does (he's "locked down" his database by having the VBScript disable a bunch of things and put a password on the VB area, not that a cheap password cracker couldn't bypass it:P) that's where the whole thing stopped.
The sad part about that whole situation is that I've repeatedly told management that his database is a mess (hacks on top of hacks on top of hacks with no real maintenance ever done). Even though I'm the IT Manager and I can show how much of a mess his system is, they continue to use it and allow him to set the rules. This is even after they told me that I need to "work with him". I said I had no problem with that, but the guy doesn't like any criticism of his system whatsoever. Even when I tried to link it up to some other systems, he was completely against it. And yes, from time to time his database gets corrupted and he has to restore from backup (then again, I think that just happens with every Access database). I even tried to clean it up and show that I could make it quicker and that went nowhere. And even when the guy messes something up, he still tries to blame me, and then quickly covers it up with "I fixed it" without bothering to explain what happened.
Luckily, we'll eventually be throwing his whole system out (this would not be a bad thing) and replacing it with a system that is designed much better.
we know what kind of 'news' we can expect from the US 'news' channels.
at one point, MANY years ago, CNN used to be a news channel. they have had significant bias for well over a decade, now. fox, the opposite bias.
we cannot get unbiased news from any single source. but the News Machine(tm) is just that, single sourced.
kids today pretty much know this. everyone now gets their news from various sources; the more varied, the better.
game's up, big news ceo. your kind is gonna vanish, perhaps even during your own lifetime. deal with it, gracefully, if you can.
If you cannot get unbiased news from any single source and everyone gets their news from multiple sources, how is losing an extra source of news a good thing? Or are you one of the those people that simply bash Fox News and never watches it? You do know that there are plenty of left leaning people at Fox News just as there are right leaning ones. Just because the three biggest names from Fox are O'Reilly (who I would argue is actually a lefty, whether he wants to admit it or not), Hannity, and Beck, doesn't mean they don't have left leaning people (like Shephard Smith and Chris Wallace).
Also, since O'Reilly is the only one of the big three that calls himself a "Journalist" (the other two consistently call themselves commentators, just like The Daily Show isn't a news show either), I think it's pretty unfair to label Fox News as not a news channel. The only difference between Fox News and the ones on the left (CNN, MSNBC, etc) is that Fox doesn't toe the Presidential line. Thankfully, the others are starting to question this President's policies as well.
Disagree that Keynesian economics relies completely on "rationality", at least as defined as "free individual rational choice". Keynesian policies such as FDR used to help the US out of the great depression
FDRs policies did not get us out of the Great Depression (which was only called that in the US). What got us out of the Great Depression was getting into a war. Pulling millions of men out of the labor market had the obvious effect of lowering unemployment.
Nobody ever got rich by spending more money than they have. If an individual can't get out of debt that way, it is irrational to believe that a nation can. In fact, no nation has ever done it and ever single nation that tries it ends up in revolution or has their money inflated out of existence.
The current bubble collapse we're experiencing was caused by policies provided by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (under a Republican congress). So at least there I agree with you.
In other words, the above research points towards falsifying the primary economic ideology that has been used to govern America since 1787.
There, fixed that for you. And in all seriousness, Reagan's ideas weren't new. JFK did the same thing (actually, he was able to cut both taxes and spending) and so did the President back in 1920 (which staved off an ecomonic depression as well). The idea of low taxes, low spending, and few, if any, Federal regulations was a primary purpose in 1787. This is exactly why Federal powers were enumerated but State powers were not. The Founders wanted the Feds to be limited to a small set of named powers and nothing else. The States would have much more power and then if a State did something you didn't like, you could pick up a move to a State you did like.
What the above research shows is that monkeys are stupid. People do sometimes do stupid things too. The reality is that in a free society, people (and businesses) have to be allowed to fail. If they don't, they never learn what they did wrong.
Having a strong central government that "guides" the marketplace has never worked and always leads to high unemployment and little to no growth. Putting high taxes on businesses does the exact opposite of what you might expect. FDR did it during the late 30's (remember the Great Depression?) and it caused unemployment to go even higher. In fact, his own treasury secretary even said that they'd spent money for years and the unemployment rate hadn't changed. The only thing they had to show for all the spending was a mountain of debt.
You need to cut spending, cut taxes, and reduce regulation. Only then will businesses hire more people and then the economy will grow.
I have a $500 PC. It's has a quad-core AMD with 2GB DDR3, 250GB HD and a nice ATI card that can play CoD4 at 1280x1024, max settings. You're way off on PC prices, they've really come down, unless you buy gaming laptops.
Which means your PC is a below average gaming PC. Average gaming PCs these days have at least 4 GB of RAM. Most hardcore gamers have twice that. Throw in a dual output video card and dual monitors and now you're in the "$2500 overclocked gaming" crowd. You'll need to have a separate boot drive as well, preferably a RAID 0 setup just to squeeze out that last millisecond of bootup.
In short, you have a decent PC that can play CoD4, but I certainly wouldn't call it a gaming PC and I definitely wouldn't put it into the "overclocked gaming" category. Prices may have come down enough to play CoD4 at that price, but they haven't come down enough to play the latest and greatest games at that price (CoD4 was released 3 years ago).
By contrast, the Pirate Bay Edition has been disinfected and works just like any other program in your computer.
Assuming you grab the right one and don't get one that has a virus.
It's superior value and as an added bonus costs nothing.
It only costs nothing if your time is worthless. Most cracked copies of games require at least replacing a dll or something else. It's not as easy as simply running an installer. And again, if you catch a virus from it, you also have to do cleanup.
Myself and another consultant I know at work make way more money from people trying to run pirated copies of software than we do from people that want legit stuff. Their systems get hosed and they pay us to clean it up. They end up buying legit copies in the end, but at 3-4x what it would have cost them due to what we charge to clean it up.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd still end up with an outbound notification. And checking the upstream router wouldn't work in all cases since a lot of home users "upstream router" is just the gateway. Some companies are even using private ranges at the head end, so you don't end up with a real IP address until you're beyond that. If you really want to test for a live internet connection, you need to go to a known good site. If you're Microsoft, you're going to use microsoft.com.
Why don't you put a packet analyzer and see what kind of data explorer.exe was really sending (if any)? It may have even been checking for new updates (or do you have automatic updates turned off).
Linux does this. I'm sure Apple does this (there's no other way to automatically check for updates afaik). But when Microsoft does it, it's "OMG! It's phoning home! Those bastards!"
That's the "walled garden" bit. You're not refuting the parent post.
If I put it this way then? Was it Apple or MS that implemented Kerberos and then "extended" it just enough to break compatibility with other implementations? (hint: the answer is MS).
You're going to blame that on MS? How about blaming the idiots that designed the Kerberos standard and made extensions optional? MS just happen to require the optional extensions that they implemented. They may not have followed the "spirit" of the standard, but they followed the standard.
That's the difference between Apple and MS, Apple has actually increasingly been using standard tech behind the scenes (which means if you know anything about *nix it's a lot easier to deal with interoperability than it is with Windows), MS otoh is still trying to push various MS standards.
Bullshit. A friend of mine put it very well (and he happens to own and like Apple products). "Apple products are great until you have to plug them into something else". I had to get extra software to get the lone Mac at work to join and talk to the domain (alternatively I could disable some of the security on the domain, but why would I want to do that?). The Linux box that I had to setup was difficult, but I managed to find a how to on how to do it and no extra software was needed.
Or to put it another way: When some new cool tech comes out Apple will adopt it and build and integrate into OS X their own simplified GUI tool but will generally leave the underlying bits in place and even contribute back to whatever OSS projects they've taken code from. MS will create a competing standard or an standards-incompatible implementation to try to push the original/standards-compliant version(s) into obscurity.
Name something recent where MS has been able to do this. Like in the last 5 years. From IE7 to IE8 and now IE9, MS has been trying to become more and more standards compliant with their browser (they don't really do hardware).
Contrast with Apple. They put a notch on their keyboard USB cables that has to be filed down if you want to use it anywhere else. They've recently adopted a bleeding edge standard from Intel that's meant to replace all other connectors. I think it's cool personally, but you'll need to get adapters for everything else you own to use them with the iPad 2. They don't allow Flash on the iPod Touch or iPhone despite the fact that the market clearly wants it.
In short, Gates may have wanted to steer standards and users a certain way, but Jobs flat out puts up a wall.
That's why Apple isn't as bad as MS in my eyes anyway (although with some of their design choices for OS X 10.7 "Lion" I may end up eventually switching back to Linux on the desktop but I'm waiting until I get a chance to try it out).
If MS is a software monopoly, Apple is a hardware and software monopoly. Apple controls all aspects of the device unless you jailbreak it. That's what makes Apple worse than MS.
It's that they're the best marketers in the entire world.
Correction. Steve Jobs doesn't let anything out the door that doesn't "just work". Bill Gates is the best marketer in the world though. How many times did people upgrade their Windows OS because it was "better"? A lot. Contrast that with Apple. They were floundering until Jobs returned.
Steve Jobs is Apple and without him they are nothing.
"Should we" is the better question. They are a sovereign nation and wishes should be respected. How you would you feel about a bunch of outsiders pushing their agenda on your fellow citizens, which is exactly what this entails if you boil it down to the basics?
'Internet' isn't a basic human right.
Trolling?
Qaddaffi is a poster child for war crimes. The international community has an obligation to oppose, subvert, and eventually put to trial leaders who send armies to fire upon unarmed citizens.
This isn't some game. This isn't something that can be rationalized and boiled down to basics unless you have the express goal of sticking your head in the sand. If you believe the few western news reports trickling out of the country, people have been routinely slaughtered and the war crimes covered up.
And maybe you haven't been paying attention to the things Qaddaffi has already done? Seriously, take a few minutes to read up. This man is a terrorist who is hell-bent on repressing his citizens as well as attacking the rest of the non-Arab world. Moreover, unlike many other leaders, he isn't all talk: he has committed substantial violent acts both domestically and internationally. This man needs to be removed from power and tried in The Hague and leave the Libyans to select their own desired form of government. Again, this is not a domestic Libyan issue, this is an international issue.
All that not withstanding, the parent posters final statement is correct. 'Internet' isn't a basic human right and the Ask Slashdot question is asking if the "International Community" (which really comes down to the US and some other countries in the UN) could go in and set it up. You're more likely to get killed and have all your equipment stolen. Internet is the last thing on the average Libyan's mind right now. They want weapons, either for attacking the current regime or defending it. They have no interest in surfing the net or using twitter or facebook. Enough of them have cameras that are recording what they need which can be transmitted out later.
Maybe because that is their stated goal.
That's what everyone said about Hamas and look what happened there.
Do not put it past them to use other groups to get a majority win. The ends justify the means and there are many socialist groups teaming up with them because they think it'll help the people. As soon as they're in power, it's game over.
LOL!
Because the story isn't over yet. Mubarak may have stepped down, but that doesn't mean Egypt is free. If they aren't careful, they will end up like Iran. Lots of signs are pointing to exactly that happening.
Gaza had free and open elections. Hamas was elected. That doesn't mean they're free.
The entire Middle East is on fire right now. They all want Sharia law. You're about to see what it looks like to have a Caliphate in a large part of the world.
Why not add in the right to a car and the right to drive (driving is a privilege, remember?). How about the right to own a home? How about the right to a job? Where do you draw the line?
The ability to communicate electronically is not a necessity. Plenty of people still communicate just fine using pen and paper (ever heard of a postcard?) and even speech (oh the horror of having to actually talk to someone). The ability to communicate is a necessity. The medium you choose to use doesn't matter. You have no right to anything other than the ability to speak and write words.
Besides, as has been mentioned here plenty of times, cutting off the Internet in Egypt didn't really stop anything, did it?
As much as I'm opposed to the idea, I think we need to put the thing into context. This is being pushed by politicians not in an attempt to block Free Speech (like Egypt did) but because they fear some massive hacking attack.
LOL! Yeah, sure it is. And I have a nice bridge to sell you.
Your statement would've been better if you had just ended it at "This is being pushed by politicians". That's all you need to know to know that this is a bad idea.
By your own anecdotal evidence, the People of that town would likely take up arms against any would be terrorist invader if the govt announced some "need" to shut down the Internet for some pending attack. They most certainly would not let some govt thugs (dressed in nice suits of course) block their access to putting themselves up on YouTube.
Take a look at where Ohio sits on an electoral map sometime. It may have gone for Obama in 08, but it's pretty firmly in red state territory. That means get the govt out of my face and off my land.
Then the west started fucking with them from all sides (and from within), in order to get at their tasty oil, and since then things have gone to pot.
And I'm sure this had nothing to do with environmentalists in the US getting laws passed to keep us from drilling on our own soil. It's not like we don't have enough oil on our soil or off our shores to power ourselves. As we've passed more laws, we've imported more oil.
What? Did people really think the oil companies wouldn't find alternate sources if they couldn't drill on US soil?
The vast majority of muslims (remember there are about 2 billion world wide) just want to get on with their lives the same as everybody else.
Yeah, the problem is the other 1% or 20 million worldwide.
They, along with Syria, are (allegedly) a major source of funding and weapons for Hezballah. So Israel cares, which makes the US Government care. But I really don't give a shit. If they're powering their country with nukes, then they can burn less oil, which means more can be available on the market. It's simple Scarface economics -- "don't get high off your own supply."
Hahahaha. Yes, because I'm sure they'll make that oil available "on the market". Or maybe they'll just decide to stop outputting oil and bring the world to it's knees.
Iran is not the crazy state that you hear about in the media.
Really? So Mahmoud Ahmadinajed (and I don't care if it is spelled wrong) doesn't want to see the destruction of Israel and doesn't deny the holocaust happened? I think Iran is the crazy state we hear about.
Maybe, just maybe, if this wasn't about weapons, they'd let inspectors from the IAEA check the facilities out and they'd disclose all of the facilities. You are aware that one of their nuclear plants was only "disclosed" after it was accidentally found, right?
Yes, there are some nitwits who try and conflate net neutrality as being in conflict with QoS or Tiered ISP service levels like offering (slower lite vs regular vs higher speed connections), etc, etc, but that's not the "net neutrality" that net neutrality advocates are interested in.
It may not be, but reading the FCCs request for comments on proposed rules seemed to say exactly that.
You see how conflating two network management issues that are unrelated creates FUD about the unrelated issue? People like you are as bad as the do-gooders.
Yes, because a law written by politicians and lawyers (in other words, not network guys) will surely keep the two network management issues separate. Or maybe standard QoS will just end up caught in the "for your own good" law and it'll die a quick painful death.
Would that be such a bad thing? Instead of prioritizing gaming traffic over other kinds of traffic, or doing the same for VOIP, or YouTube, or whatever else an ISP decides is more important than other protocols, why not adopt a QoS scheme that ensures equitable access to available bandwidth while allowing customers to set their own priorities within those equitable access constraints?
Yes, it would be a bad thing because they wouldn't do what you're suggesting either.
In just a few posts we're already seeing the differences of opinion as to whether or not this violates net neutrality. Five different people here can't agree on it and you guys all want the government to make a law for it? The ISP simply wouldn't bother with any kind of QoS due to fear of being accused of violating the law and then all traffic would suffer.
Personally, if someone wants to pay more for higher priority gaming traffic (or any kind of traffic), more power to them. A friend of mine use to game on a 56k modem and did better than people on cable and DSL (at the time). Having a higher priority on your traffic won't help you if you still suck.
Additionally, this is in a sense a method of cheating, you're putting down extra money to have an in game advantage, It doesn't take a genius to see that it puts pressure on other players to pony up for it as well, whether it would otherwise be necessary or not.
So you're saying this is no different than the guy that works 60-80 hours a week and buys items off eBay to give himself an advantage in WoW? He ends up with an in game advantage over the people that don't have those items or that have to spend a lot of time earning them because they don't have the cash to outright buy them from someone else.
Our society is moving inexorably toward greater acceptance of sexuality in the public square.
And where do you see this happening? Sure, there's a coffee shop here and there where people are served by women in bikini's or lingerie, but by and large it isn't happening. Movies are still getting R ratings for showing a boob. Maybe cable channels are getting more racy. Not that I care much about any of it since I just keep it off the TV when the kids are up (I even have to pay closer attention to some morning news shows since they decided to show the lingerie shoots of the last Miss America contest at 7am).
Hurd didn't resign for violating any law. In fact, he would have been found not guilty of violating any sexual harrasment laws. He resigned because he was violating HP's own standards of conduct policy. These are internal policies that are likely far more strict than any law on the books.
The real conclusion from that is you have to CYA. Not only be innocent, but be able to prove it if you do anything that can be misinterpreted.
That's funny, I thought it was up to the accuser to prove you were guilty, not the other way around.
My situation wasn't NSFW material, but I once, not to long ago, had a guy at work accuse me of changing one of the reports in his Access database. He did this in an email that was CC'ed to quite a few managers. Since I had done nothing but open his Access database (I hadn't actually changed the report, just looked at it), I told him to provide proof that I'd changed his report or keep his accusations to himself. Since the guy doesn't know nearly what he thinks he does (he's "locked down" his database by having the VBScript disable a bunch of things and put a password on the VB area, not that a cheap password cracker couldn't bypass it :P) that's where the whole thing stopped.
The sad part about that whole situation is that I've repeatedly told management that his database is a mess (hacks on top of hacks on top of hacks with no real maintenance ever done). Even though I'm the IT Manager and I can show how much of a mess his system is, they continue to use it and allow him to set the rules. This is even after they told me that I need to "work with him". I said I had no problem with that, but the guy doesn't like any criticism of his system whatsoever. Even when I tried to link it up to some other systems, he was completely against it. And yes, from time to time his database gets corrupted and he has to restore from backup (then again, I think that just happens with every Access database). I even tried to clean it up and show that I could make it quicker and that went nowhere. And even when the guy messes something up, he still tries to blame me, and then quickly covers it up with "I fixed it" without bothering to explain what happened.
Luckily, we'll eventually be throwing his whole system out (this would not be a bad thing) and replacing it with a system that is designed much better.
we know what kind of 'news' we can expect from the US 'news' channels.
at one point, MANY years ago, CNN used to be a news channel. they have had significant bias for well over a decade, now. fox, the opposite bias.
we cannot get unbiased news from any single source. but the News Machine(tm) is just that, single sourced.
kids today pretty much know this. everyone now gets their news from various sources; the more varied, the better.
game's up, big news ceo. your kind is gonna vanish, perhaps even during your own lifetime. deal with it, gracefully, if you can.
If you cannot get unbiased news from any single source and everyone gets their news from multiple sources, how is losing an extra source of news a good thing? Or are you one of the those people that simply bash Fox News and never watches it? You do know that there are plenty of left leaning people at Fox News just as there are right leaning ones. Just because the three biggest names from Fox are O'Reilly (who I would argue is actually a lefty, whether he wants to admit it or not), Hannity, and Beck, doesn't mean they don't have left leaning people (like Shephard Smith and Chris Wallace).
Also, since O'Reilly is the only one of the big three that calls himself a "Journalist" (the other two consistently call themselves commentators, just like The Daily Show isn't a news show either), I think it's pretty unfair to label Fox News as not a news channel. The only difference between Fox News and the ones on the left (CNN, MSNBC, etc) is that Fox doesn't toe the Presidential line. Thankfully, the others are starting to question this President's policies as well.
Disagree that Keynesian economics relies completely on "rationality", at least as defined as "free individual rational choice". Keynesian policies such as FDR used to help the US out of the great depression
FDRs policies did not get us out of the Great Depression (which was only called that in the US). What got us out of the Great Depression was getting into a war. Pulling millions of men out of the labor market had the obvious effect of lowering unemployment.
Nobody ever got rich by spending more money than they have. If an individual can't get out of debt that way, it is irrational to believe that a nation can. In fact, no nation has ever done it and ever single nation that tries it ends up in revolution or has their money inflated out of existence.
The current bubble collapse we're experiencing was caused by policies provided by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (under a Republican congress). So at least there I agree with you.
In other words, the above research points towards falsifying the primary economic ideology that has been used to govern America since 1787.
There, fixed that for you. And in all seriousness, Reagan's ideas weren't new. JFK did the same thing (actually, he was able to cut both taxes and spending) and so did the President back in 1920 (which staved off an ecomonic depression as well). The idea of low taxes, low spending, and few, if any, Federal regulations was a primary purpose in 1787. This is exactly why Federal powers were enumerated but State powers were not. The Founders wanted the Feds to be limited to a small set of named powers and nothing else. The States would have much more power and then if a State did something you didn't like, you could pick up a move to a State you did like.
What the above research shows is that monkeys are stupid. People do sometimes do stupid things too. The reality is that in a free society, people (and businesses) have to be allowed to fail. If they don't, they never learn what they did wrong.
Having a strong central government that "guides" the marketplace has never worked and always leads to high unemployment and little to no growth. Putting high taxes on businesses does the exact opposite of what you might expect. FDR did it during the late 30's (remember the Great Depression?) and it caused unemployment to go even higher. In fact, his own treasury secretary even said that they'd spent money for years and the unemployment rate hadn't changed. The only thing they had to show for all the spending was a mountain of debt.
You need to cut spending, cut taxes, and reduce regulation. Only then will businesses hire more people and then the economy will grow.
I have a $500 PC. It's has a quad-core AMD with 2GB DDR3, 250GB HD and a nice ATI card that can play CoD4 at 1280x1024, max settings. You're way off on PC prices, they've really come down, unless you buy gaming laptops.
Which means your PC is a below average gaming PC. Average gaming PCs these days have at least 4 GB of RAM. Most hardcore gamers have twice that. Throw in a dual output video card and dual monitors and now you're in the "$2500 overclocked gaming" crowd. You'll need to have a separate boot drive as well, preferably a RAID 0 setup just to squeeze out that last millisecond of bootup.
In short, you have a decent PC that can play CoD4, but I certainly wouldn't call it a gaming PC and I definitely wouldn't put it into the "overclocked gaming" category. Prices may have come down enough to play CoD4 at that price, but they haven't come down enough to play the latest and greatest games at that price (CoD4 was released 3 years ago).
By contrast, the Pirate Bay Edition has been disinfected and works just like any other program in your computer.
Assuming you grab the right one and don't get one that has a virus.
It's superior value and as an added bonus costs nothing.
It only costs nothing if your time is worthless. Most cracked copies of games require at least replacing a dll or something else. It's not as easy as simply running an installer. And again, if you catch a virus from it, you also have to do cleanup.
Myself and another consultant I know at work make way more money from people trying to run pirated copies of software than we do from people that want legit stuff. Their systems get hosed and they pay us to clean it up. They end up buying legit copies in the end, but at 3-4x what it would have cost them due to what we charge to clean it up.
They're probably leeching off their neighbors wireless at home though.