He's not stealing anything unless he's tapped into someone else's WAP without paying, and then reselling that
A slight misunderstanding here: it's not the git opening up his network that's stealing, it's whoever takes advantage of it.
As far as your other point goes, ISP's work under the same restrictions as the telcos do about monitoring/censoring the data going through their networks and get the same benefits from doing so. Imagine what would happen if you let random strangers use your phone for local calls; if they made obscene phone calls over your line would you be a common carrier and not liable for what they did? I doubt it, and this is the same type of situation.
So if he doesn't charge for the service, he could still technically be considered a business.
Not unless he's gotten a business license, and fulfilled any other legal requirements, such as getting permission from his ISP to resell their bandwidth. Just calling yourself a business doesn't make you one anymore than calling yourself a common carrier does.
No, he isn't a service provider, because he has no legal right to allow others to use that bandwidth. All he's doing is allowing others to steal bandwidth or use an IP they're not entitled to and that in iteslf doesn't make him a service provider. You have to meet certain legal requirements, and he's done nothing of the sort. All the law you cite refers to, btw, is the liability restrictions on a service provider and says nothing about what you have to do to be one.
Yes, the same laws apply. However, just because he allows people to use his bandwidth doesn't mean he's a common carrier. In order to become one he has to satisfy certain legal requirements, such as being in the business of providing communications. Not only isn't he in such a business, his TOS certainly forbids his using his personal account in such a way. He isn't a common carrier, and can't become one just by letting anybody that wants to use his network.
This guy is behaving just like Comcast. He's the pipe and he doesn't know what goes on in that pipe. Unless the Judge were to determine that the pipe owner is responsible (and Comcast will certainly help him fight _that_ kind of fight) then he's ok.
Wrong. Comcast is a business, and their business is transmitting information. That makes them a common carrier. The twitiot who wrote the article isn't in that business, and his TOS says that he can't use it that way. That means that he isn't a common carrier, can't use their protections and that if it gets to court, Comcast will not only not help him, they'll be doing everything they can to help the other side.
It is a fact after you do open your net up there is no way for them to proove that you commited the illegal acts. The fact that you did this opening up by stupidity or on purpose does not change that fact.
And that matters how? All your ISP needs to do is prove that the acts were committed on your IP, and they can pull the plug. It doesn't matter if somebody on your network did it or if somebody hacked in. And, unless you can prove that it wasn't your fault, you're not getting your service back. Kinda hard after you've disabled logging, and disabling it can be considered evidence of intent, but if that's what you want, go ahead. Hope you like changing ISP's every month or two.
What's my point? My point was that not only is the parent poster right, but NanoLimp Winderz is a textbook example of the problem. Even after getting a bigger, faster computer, Win2K will be slower than 98, and XP even slower. Micro$not has taken Winderz way past the point where faster computers can compensate for the pessimized bloatware they slap out and don't care.
Actually, wouldn't the clear and simple way to code this be to use a single "switch" statement and not twenty "if" statements ?
If it still needed the twenty statements, yes. In this case I tested to see if the input was within the right limits, and if so, set the variable to (input + offset). That changed twenty if's to one. Clear, consise, simple, maintainable.
If you write clear and simple code the compiler or interpreter does all the other work.
I remember looking over something once that was clear, simple and very slow. It was a set of at least twenty if statements, testing the input and setting a variable. The input was tested against values in numeric order, and the variable was set the same way. Not even else if's so that the code had to go through every statement no matter the value. I re-wrote it to a single if, testing to see if the input were in the appropriate range and calculating the variable's value. No compiler is going to do that. Brute force can be clear, simple and slow.
The thing is that a lot of programmers today have grown NOT to respect the need for performance - they just assume that the upcoming systems would have really fast processors and infinite amounts of RAM and diskspace, and write shitty code.
That's not the only reason. Programmers usually get to use fast machines with lots of RAM and diskspace, and often end up writing programs that need everything they have.
Back in the DOS days, I worked on a project that had a better way of doing things. We had one machine with reasonable speed as the testbed. It wasn't well optimized as we didn't expect our customers to know how to do that and the programs we were writing didn't need expanded or extended memory. If what you wrote wouldn't run on that machine, it didn't matter how well it worked on your machine, you had to tweak it to use less memory.
If we replace SMTP with something more secure, as one poster suggested, it would help. Of course it would also cost quite a bit, as we'd have to have both systems running during the changeover. Once that's done, the spam drops, causing everybody to use less bandwidth on a day-to-day basis. Not only does this cut costs directly, but the time saved on legitimate net business would add to the savings. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the savings would pay for the change in short order.
Re:color me ignorant, but...
on
Titanic Saturn
·
· Score: 1
Of course, few of us define "important" the way you do in your post. Most of us understand that there's nothing more likely to be profitable in the long run than basic research into the way the universe works, and what's out there. Just because we can't point to an immediate way to profit from it doesn't mean there never will be.
Copying an old experiment
on
Titanic Saturn
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Back in the 80's, JPL changed the course of Voyager I to go behind Titan. The distance at which the signal started to drop, and the rate it dropped at gave us very good measurements of the atmosphere's depth and density. In fact, if the probe's distance from the center of Titan had been cut in half, it would have crashed. That's right, it was less than two radii out! I know, because I worked with the man who wrote the navagation system they used back then (The late Daniel J. Alderson.) and stll know, slightly, the man who used it for this, Bob Ceserone.
A word processor should be able to optimise the code by itself. Being able to fix the bugs yourself by editing hidden code might be quite nice, but it would far better if a word processor didn't ran into those problems in the first place. I've never encountered those bugs in OOo either
Sometimes, a typo will enter a code that interacts with other codes in a way that's reasonable, but just not what you want, and if you're copying something in from paper, you may not notice right away. Finding the exact place where the error occured may be difficult because it's not always obvious. With Reveal Codes, you can see just what codes are where, see which code doesn't belong and delete it. Also, it allows you to move a code from one place to another, adjusting the formatting very precisely and there are times this speeds editing up.
Back in the old DOS days, when I first learned WP 5.1, I remember working with it turned on at all times so that I could see what was happening, and learn how the codes interacted. After a few days, I stopped because I had a good enough idea of how things worked that I could understand what I saw without it unless something went wrong.
Linux on the desktop sucks due to its unorganized nature and lack of homogeneity...
Linux isn't homogenous because the people creating the various distros understand that one size only fits all if you don't care that it doesn't fit anybody very well. Each distro is designed around a specific philosophy, for people who want their OS to work in certain ways. If you don't like how one distro works, try a different one. With GatesWare, about all you can do is decide which straitjacket you want to wear, and the Mac doesn't really give you even that much choice.
Although I've never used a Mac, I have had to give phone suppport to MacUsers, and have some idea of what I'm talking about. Mac OSX is a good system, I'm not knocking it, but it does still lock you into One True Way, just like Winderz does. Linux, at least gives you the freedom to decide for yourself.
There are two things that skew the statistics a little more: people like me that have dual boot systems and those of us that build their own computers rather than buy them ready-made. Of course, some will have Windows, some Linux, some dual boot, but they'really hard to count.
"Trustworthy" doesn't always mean "secure." There may be a new version out with an important bug fix but only in source. Until whoever maintains the packages builds one based on that newest version, you can't really trust the older package, can you? If the bug causes problems with a feature you need, your only choice is to download the source and make your own.
I didn't quote you out of context to twist your words. Many people really will quit. You tried to imply that you're somehow superior to those people, which point I ignored because it's irrelevant. But I didn't twist your words - I merely emphasized the point you yourself stated.
But then, some people will quit anything if it doesn't work exactly right the first time. When I did tech support for an ISP, I had a man call to cancel his account because the software didn't install exactly right. I offered to assist him, and he responded, "No, if I have to 'tech support' my way through, it isn't worth it." As this means he never let us help him get on line, he paid the full month's charge plus the setup fee for nothing.
My point is, however, that most people will at least try to learn new things. You, however, seemed to be assuming the opposite.
Exactly. And I'll go back to Windows. And Linux will fail to be competitive on the desktop. Glad you agree with me. Now, if we could just convince the rest of the world.
Quoting out of context to twist my words. How clever. My point, which you so conveniently ignored, is that when most people find themselves using a new program, they try to learn how to use it instead of insisting that if it doesn't work exactly like their old one they can't ever learn it.
Part of the appeal of Windows is that there's One True Way to do everything and all programs must work that way; Linux is for people that don't believe this.
Even more importantly, this philosophy extended to the Macintosh API. Even Microsoft moved in this direction. Bill Gates once said, "Why should everyone in the world have to write a File-Open dialog?" The Microsoft Common Controls API was the best thing that happened to Win16 programmers back in the early '90s.
It's refreshing to see somebody on/. giving Mr. Bill the Gates credit for something. In all our bashing, we tend to forget that he didn't get everything wrong. Among other things he got right is insisting that you should be able to navigate menus without a pointing device in an emergency. One day, while talking a lady through reconfiguring her network components over the phone, her mouse stopped responding. I was able to bring up the same window (to see what I was doing) tell her how many times to hit the tab key to get to the right place, use the arrow keys to reach the needed option and how to change it. We managed to finish everything and rebooted. Yes, the mouse came back just fine. However, I was able to do this only because Bill Gates insisted that it be possible.
That isn't going to solve the issue. What happens when I use Fedora, which uses one browser, and I sit down at a Mandrake machine, which uses a different browser?
You'll probably be so confused by the differences you'll give up in disgust. I, however, will click around a little, see where the various functions are, how the keys are bound and learn to use it in a few minutes. I'd like to think that most people will do what I do in this, not what you seem to expect.
There's a flaw in your claim: as nobody in 1900 considered Mercury's orbit a mere oddity, there was no reason for me to think you were being sarcastic. Not only that, nobody today thinks that the difficulties involved in merging GR and QM are minor or unimportant. If you were aiming for sarcasm, you missed the target completely.
Slashdot Mirror
A slight misunderstanding here: it's not the git opening up his network that's stealing, it's whoever takes advantage of it.
As far as your other point goes, ISP's work under the same restrictions as the telcos do about monitoring/censoring the data going through their networks and get the same benefits from doing so. Imagine what would happen if you let random strangers use your phone for local calls; if they made obscene phone calls over your line would you be a common carrier and not liable for what they did? I doubt it, and this is the same type of situation.
Not unless he's gotten a business license, and fulfilled any other legal requirements, such as getting permission from his ISP to resell their bandwidth. Just calling yourself a business doesn't make you one anymore than calling yourself a common carrier does.
No, he isn't a service provider, because he has no legal right to allow others to use that bandwidth. All he's doing is allowing others to steal bandwidth or use an IP they're not entitled to and that in iteslf doesn't make him a service provider. You have to meet certain legal requirements, and he's done nothing of the sort. All the law you cite refers to, btw, is the liability restrictions on a service provider and says nothing about what you have to do to be one.
Yes, the same laws apply. However, just because he allows people to use his bandwidth doesn't mean he's a common carrier. In order to become one he has to satisfy certain legal requirements, such as being in the business of providing communications. Not only isn't he in such a business, his TOS certainly forbids his using his personal account in such a way. He isn't a common carrier, and can't become one just by letting anybody that wants to use his network.
Wrong. Comcast is a business, and their business is transmitting information. That makes them a common carrier. The twitiot who wrote the article isn't in that business, and his TOS says that he can't use it that way. That means that he isn't a common carrier, can't use their protections and that if it gets to court, Comcast will not only not help him, they'll be doing everything they can to help the other side.
And that matters how? All your ISP needs to do is prove that the acts were committed on your IP, and they can pull the plug. It doesn't matter if somebody on your network did it or if somebody hacked in. And, unless you can prove that it wasn't your fault, you're not getting your service back. Kinda hard after you've disabled logging, and disabling it can be considered evidence of intent, but if that's what you want, go ahead. Hope you like changing ISP's every month or two.
Spamhaus Barbie says, "Spammers are stupid."
What's my point? My point was that not only is the parent poster right, but NanoLimp Winderz is a textbook example of the problem. Even after getting a bigger, faster computer, Win2K will be slower than 98, and XP even slower. Micro$not has taken Winderz way past the point where faster computers can compensate for the pessimized bloatware they slap out and don't care.
If it still needed the twenty statements, yes. In this case I tested to see if the input was within the right limits, and if so, set the variable to (input + offset). That changed twenty if's to one. Clear, consise, simple, maintainable.
I remember looking over something once that was clear, simple and very slow. It was a set of at least twenty if statements, testing the input and setting a variable. The input was tested against values in numeric order, and the variable was set the same way. Not even else if's so that the code had to go through every statement no matter the value. I re-wrote it to a single if, testing to see if the input were in the appropriate range and calculating the variable's value. No compiler is going to do that. Brute force can be clear, simple and slow.
That's not the only reason. Programmers usually get to use fast machines with lots of RAM and diskspace, and often end up writing programs that need everything they have.
Back in the DOS days, I worked on a project that had a better way of doing things. We had one machine with reasonable speed as the testbed. It wasn't well optimized as we didn't expect our customers to know how to do that and the programs we were writing didn't need expanded or extended memory. If what you wrote wouldn't run on that machine, it didn't matter how well it worked on your machine, you had to tweak it to use less memory.
Tell that to Micro$oft. Every version of Windows since 95 has needed more memory and speed and still works slower.
I don't know if it's still true, but at one time Apple Computers was paying royalties for the name to Apple Records.
If we replace SMTP with something more secure, as one poster suggested, it would help. Of course it would also cost quite a bit, as we'd have to have both systems running during the changeover. Once that's done, the spam drops, causing everybody to use less bandwidth on a day-to-day basis. Not only does this cut costs directly, but the time saved on legitimate net business would add to the savings. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the savings would pay for the change in short order.
Of course, few of us define "important" the way you do in your post. Most of us understand that there's nothing more likely to be profitable in the long run than basic research into the way the universe works, and what's out there. Just because we can't point to an immediate way to profit from it doesn't mean there never will be.
Back in the 80's, JPL changed the course of Voyager I to go behind Titan. The distance at which the signal started to drop, and the rate it dropped at gave us very good measurements of the atmosphere's depth and density. In fact, if the probe's distance from the center of Titan had been cut in half, it would have crashed. That's right, it was less than two radii out! I know, because I worked with the man who wrote the navagation system they used back then (The late Daniel J. Alderson.) and stll know, slightly, the man who used it for this, Bob Ceserone.
Sometimes, a typo will enter a code that interacts with other codes in a way that's reasonable, but just not what you want, and if you're copying something in from paper, you may not notice right away. Finding the exact place where the error occured may be difficult because it's not always obvious. With Reveal Codes, you can see just what codes are where, see which code doesn't belong and delete it. Also, it allows you to move a code from one place to another, adjusting the formatting very precisely and there are times this speeds editing up.
Back in the old DOS days, when I first learned WP 5.1, I remember working with it turned on at all times so that I could see what was happening, and learn how the codes interacted. After a few days, I stopped because I had a good enough idea of how things worked that I could understand what I saw without it unless something went wrong.
Linux isn't homogenous because the people creating the various distros understand that one size only fits all if you don't care that it doesn't fit anybody very well. Each distro is designed around a specific philosophy, for people who want their OS to work in certain ways. If you don't like how one distro works, try a different one. With GatesWare, about all you can do is decide which straitjacket you want to wear, and the Mac doesn't really give you even that much choice.
Although I've never used a Mac, I have had to give phone suppport to MacUsers, and have some idea of what I'm talking about. Mac OSX is a good system, I'm not knocking it, but it does still lock you into One True Way, just like Winderz does. Linux, at least gives you the freedom to decide for yourself.
There are two things that skew the statistics a little more: people like me that have dual boot systems and those of us that build their own computers rather than buy them ready-made. Of course, some will have Windows, some Linux, some dual boot, but they'really hard to count.
"Trustworthy" doesn't always mean "secure." There may be a new version out with an important bug fix but only in source. Until whoever maintains the packages builds one based on that newest version, you can't really trust the older package, can you? If the bug causes problems with a feature you need, your only choice is to download the source and make your own.
But then, some people will quit anything if it doesn't work exactly right the first time. When I did tech support for an ISP, I had a man call to cancel his account because the software didn't install exactly right. I offered to assist him, and he responded, "No, if I have to 'tech support' my way through, it isn't worth it." As this means he never let us help him get on line, he paid the full month's charge plus the setup fee for nothing.
My point is, however, that most people will at least try to learn new things. You, however, seemed to be assuming the opposite.
Quoting out of context to twist my words. How clever. My point, which you so conveniently ignored, is that when most people find themselves using a new program, they try to learn how to use it instead of insisting that if it doesn't work exactly like their old one they can't ever learn it.
Part of the appeal of Windows is that there's One True Way to do everything and all programs must work that way; Linux is for people that don't believe this.
It's refreshing to see somebody on /. giving Mr. Bill the Gates credit for something. In all our bashing, we tend to forget that he didn't get everything wrong. Among other things he got right is insisting that you should be able to navigate menus without a pointing device in an emergency. One day, while talking a lady through reconfiguring her network components over the phone, her mouse stopped responding. I was able to bring up the same window (to see what I was doing) tell her how many times to hit the tab key to get to the right place, use the arrow keys to reach the needed option and how to change it. We managed to finish everything and rebooted. Yes, the mouse came back just fine. However, I was able to do this only because Bill Gates insisted that it be possible.
You'll probably be so confused by the differences you'll give up in disgust. I, however, will click around a little, see where the various functions are, how the keys are bound and learn to use it in a few minutes. I'd like to think that most people will do what I do in this, not what you seem to expect.
There's a flaw in your claim: as nobody in 1900 considered Mercury's orbit a mere oddity, there was no reason for me to think you were being sarcastic. Not only that, nobody today thinks that the difficulties involved in merging GR and QM are minor or unimportant. If you were aiming for sarcasm, you missed the target completely.