I would much rather be proactive with threats to the nation and our people and stop attacks before they happen
And that's a worthy goal. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea, in the longer term, to increasingly put more and more power into the hands of the government. There is no way to be certain that the government will always continue to work in your best interests - the government of tomorrow may very well be not, and in fact man's history reveals that such organizations with too much power are prone to corruption and abuse. And remember, it's going to be a damn side harder to get those powers away from the government again when you, or your children or grandchildren, really need to.
This is not paranoia. Study a little world history. This is the norm.
Sad that you don't understand what it really means. What you are doing is giving extraordinary powers to a government whose motives in ten or twenty years time are completely unknown to you. Just think about that for a while. Or are you really naive enough to believe that the US government not only currently has only pure motives, but always will, for hundreds of years to come, long after you've already given them the powers to prevent you from doing against their interests? You'd have to be clueless about the history of man's activities on this planet to really believe that is a good idea.
By "we all", I assume you mean the tiny percentage of people who are computer literate? No, wait, I know many computer-literate people who actually don't realise e-mail is insecure, so scratch that, it's actually fewer.
Come on, let's see some real figures about what percentage of the online population is consciously and explicitly that their e-mails are open game for monitoring. I'd be surprised if it's even 5% of people.
Re:Good... down with Real
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I agree, it's not a bad idea. Unicast is actually disturbingly inefficient for streaming videos with a large audience (e.g. breaking news on CNN?); multicast would help the situation. One could scale things down depending on the content, the audience and your hardware setup, e.g. if I have 'lesser' hardware than cnn.com I could e.g. have a show start "every 15 minutes".
But the problem remains: a lot of network hardware does not support IP multicast well, one cannot ignore this problem, nor can you just tell the whole world to upgrade all their equipment. (Again, the problem has nothing to do with the Windows TCP/IP stack, which does have other problems (e.g. with certain ICMP packet behaviour, which has nothing to do with IGMP, ICMP!=IGMP), but it does support multicast).
Re:Good... down with Real
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 1
The Windows stack is not the problem with IP multicast. Network switches are. Most switches do not support it because it adds a lot of complexity to the electronics, which would raise the price, so since most people do not use multicast, hardware manufacturers build cheaper switches that don't support it.
Sure, it's probably a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Most switches don't support it because it's not commonly used, and one reason it's not commonly used is lack of hardware support. If IP multicast was common for streaming video, more people would need switches that do IGMP snooping, demand would increase, and critical mass and economies of scale would kick in to make it cheap again.
Re:Good... down with Real
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 1
Multicast is excellent for streaming on local networks
Only when everyone on the LAN is watching the same thing. That is almost never the case if people are casually browsing and watching online streamed videos such as newsvideos etc (e.g. at workplaces, universities etc).
Re:Good... down with Real
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 1
So how about example.com? Ah.. owned by Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
I usually use anon@anon.com.
Re:Good... down with Real
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Stream it with multicast? Great, I'll be all over it.
Multicast? Are you sure? For this to be advantageous, basically everyone has to watch the stream at the same time. To stream to different users at different times (which is usually the case) then you're basically talking about unicast again, which is the current model.
Furthermore, a lot of network hardware doesn't handle multicast well. For example, the majority of network switches treat IP Multicast packets as broadcast, because they don't do IGMP snooping, so they don't know who is part of the session. So if you're watching a streamed session, everyone on your LAN segment is getting flooded.
My experience has been that a clean install of Windows (XP or 2K) loads pretty quickly, but once you install a few basic apps (even just a few basics like e.g. Office and VS.NET) boot-up time slows down a lot (startup time both before and after logon, i.e. total time until computer becomes useful).
Sounds to me like a good opportunity to continually generate targeted ads. So maybe it will be more like Clippy popping up and saying "I see you have bug 1565 again. Why not try the latest Visual Studio.NET debugging tools?" or maybe "I see you have a bug problem, why not try Doom bugspray?".
Doesn't seem silly to me. Is it inaccurate? No, in fact it's a perfectly valid/correct analogy. Maybe a tad extreme (i.e. indentured servitude is arguably somewhat worse than giving up online privacy), but certainly not wrong. Point is quite clear: invasion of privacy is wrong, regardless of whether or not people are willing to deliberately give it up in exchange for commercial service/goods.
I assume you mean Win98... what has Win98 got to do with the price of eggs? NTSP4 has nothing to do with '98, which came out in August 1998. '98 had notably slower I/O performance than NT/2k.
It would increase people's ability to store fruit, so they could shop around longer and further from home and stock up if they find a cheaper vendor, thus forcing down high-price outliers
Moreover, if less fruit is going bad, less money needs to be spent to get the same amount of fruit, hence a family gains a slight increase in disposable income. This can either be useful for people (i.e. if the economy is internally competitive, prices of fruit would remain low and the money could be used to buy other products to improve their lives, or invest in development of local skills etc.), or worst case can simply lead to conditions staying the same (i.e. if the economy contains little competition, the excess disposable income will drive up inflation, making fruit vendors slightly richers but other people not explicitly poorer). Thus worst case, things stay about the same. As long as there is competition in an economy though, excess wealth generated by technologies that improve peoples lives will usually in the long run lead to upward spiral of improvements.
Anyone who has ever tried to start, and many other intelligent people, would realise that, no, it most definitely does not. It's damn difficult to start a business, and almost impossible without something called "capital" (startup capital, investment capital etc). Moreover, even once the business starts to get off the ground, it still usually takes *years* to get to a point where you are generating enough excess profit to, say, expand into other areas. Of course it's hard enough for, say, the average middle-class American to get enough capital to start a business and raise it to the point of profitability; it's orders of magnitude more difficult for a poor person in a developing country. By rewarding those who are successful as entrepreneurs with a bit of $$, you give them extra capital to grow their businesses faster, and thus to produce more products that improve the lives of others. You also promote role models for others out there to start businesses, as well as provide additional incentives for others out there to try start businesses. This Nigerian 'low-tech fridge' businessman plans to use the money to invest in growing his business ventures more. This doesn't mean the primary goal is to just make $$$ - the primary goal is to help people, making $$$ is a secondary goal, and an enabler for the primary goal. (This is of course the foundation of capitalism.)
Being original isn't the damn point. The award wasn't for innovation, it's an entrepreneurial award for building a company on this idea (and improving people's lives by selling a well-made implementation of the product, what capitalism is actually about - in other words, to put it bluntly, this is an "award for learning to be a good capitalist", probably an unusual concept in (white male) American capitalism, but probably comparable to e.g. 'businesswoman of the year' type awards that still reward female capitalist success stories in developed countries).
Check this link: it's called the "THE ROLEX AWARDS FOR ENTERPRISE". Quote, "He has already sold 12,000".
Of course there are thousands of things MS could do to make their current software more secure, but Microsoft wants their current crop of software to be insecure, so that they can use the current 'insecure state of computing' (lots of viruses etc) to convince people to switch to new technologies/protocols etc. that give them more control (e.g. DRM, perhaps in future their own proprietary network protocols etc). The basic strategy is, let viruses etc. run amok on your deliberately (= leave known exploits for six months unpatched) insecure systems (aka "release your lion into town square"), then "rescue" everyone from the resulting mess by hooking them on something new (aka "catching your own lion").
That is why these stupid defaults are still the stupid defaults.
In a few years, the sheeple will go around saying how "Microsoft saved everyone from that huge mess of viruses/hackers etc" (forgetting that MS created the mess to begin with), just like sheeple today think that MS "first made PCs usable for the man on the street".
Hmm... I'm not convinced that the 'marketplace' will always be able to 'resist'... can anyone think of some obvious examples where producers have historically been successful in enforcing some sort of regulation/restriction on (say, say, greater than 90% of) some market?
Also, my first thought was "why copies Windows XP, now only is it's default look really ugly, but it is full of usability problems that are confusing to new computer users and could and should be fixed - surely better to design something good rather than copy something bad. But then I thought, many people already know Windows XP and its many idiosyncrasies (sp?), so helping those people 'feel at home' is a good thing.
E-mail addresses can easily be masked so as to be human-readable but not readable to most spambots, dumbass. Many popular sites with e-mail address publishing requirements (e.g. freshmeat) do this, and it's easy to do, so there is no real reason not to do it.
You want to learn to think for yourself, or just blindly mimic other sheep? If you are arguing that Total_Wimp's comments were incorrect, then you'd better do a damn side better at actually logically refuting his arguments rather than just stupid snice comments about Judge Jackson. Oh, and read the damn findings.
Slashdot Mirror
I would much rather be proactive with threats to the nation and our people and stop attacks before they happen
And that's a worthy goal. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea, in the longer term, to increasingly put more and more power into the hands of the government. There is no way to be certain that the government will always continue to work in your best interests - the government of tomorrow may very well be not, and in fact man's history reveals that such organizations with too much power are prone to corruption and abuse. And remember, it's going to be a damn side harder to get those powers away from the government again when you, or your children or grandchildren, really need to.
This is not paranoia. Study a little world history. This is the norm.
Sad that you don't understand what it really means. What you are doing is giving extraordinary powers to a government whose motives in ten or twenty years time are completely unknown to you. Just think about that for a while. Or are you really naive enough to believe that the US government not only currently has only pure motives, but always will, for hundreds of years to come, long after you've already given them the powers to prevent you from doing against their interests? You'd have to be clueless about the history of man's activities on this planet to really believe that is a good idea.
Email, which we all know is completely insecure
By "we all", I assume you mean the tiny percentage of people who are computer literate? No, wait, I know many computer-literate people who actually don't realise e-mail is insecure, so scratch that, it's actually fewer.
Come on, let's see some real figures about what percentage of the online population is consciously and explicitly that their e-mails are open game for monitoring. I'd be surprised if it's even 5% of people.
Yes, I agree, it's not a bad idea. Unicast is actually disturbingly inefficient for streaming videos with a large audience (e.g. breaking news on CNN?); multicast would help the situation. One could scale things down depending on the content, the audience and your hardware setup, e.g. if I have 'lesser' hardware than cnn.com I could e.g. have a show start "every 15 minutes".
But the problem remains: a lot of network hardware does not support IP multicast well, one cannot ignore this problem, nor can you just tell the whole world to upgrade all their equipment. (Again, the problem has nothing to do with the Windows TCP/IP stack, which does have other problems (e.g. with certain ICMP packet behaviour, which has nothing to do with IGMP, ICMP!=IGMP), but it does support multicast).
The Windows stack is not the problem with IP multicast. Network switches are. Most switches do not support it because it adds a lot of complexity to the electronics, which would raise the price, so since most people do not use multicast, hardware manufacturers build cheaper switches that don't support it.
Sure, it's probably a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Most switches don't support it because it's not commonly used, and one reason it's not commonly used is lack of hardware support. If IP multicast was common for streaming video, more people would need switches that do IGMP snooping, demand would increase, and critical mass and economies of scale would kick in to make it cheap again.
Multicast is excellent for streaming on local networks
Only when everyone on the LAN is watching the same thing. That is almost never the case if people are casually browsing and watching online streamed videos such as newsvideos etc (e.g. at workplaces, universities etc).
So how about example.com? Ah .. owned by Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
I usually use anon@anon.com.
Stream it with multicast? Great, I'll be all over it.
Multicast? Are you sure? For this to be advantageous, basically everyone has to watch the stream at the same time. To stream to different users at different times (which is usually the case) then you're basically talking about unicast again, which is the current model.
Furthermore, a lot of network hardware doesn't handle multicast well. For example, the majority of network switches treat IP Multicast packets as broadcast, because they don't do IGMP snooping, so they don't know who is part of the session. So if you're watching a streamed session, everyone on your LAN segment is getting flooded.
My experience has been that a clean install of Windows (XP or 2K) loads pretty quickly, but once you install a few basic apps (even just a few basics like e.g. Office and VS .NET) boot-up time slows down a lot (startup time both before and after logon, i.e. total time until computer becomes useful).
Sounds to me like a good opportunity to continually generate targeted ads. So maybe it will be more like Clippy popping up and saying "I see you have bug 1565 again. Why not try the latest Visual Studio .NET debugging tools?" or maybe "I see you have a bug problem, why not try Doom bugspray?".
Ah, sorry, didn't see the modded down parent. Still, Windows 98 came out in August '98.
Doesn't seem silly to me. Is it inaccurate? No, in fact it's a perfectly valid/correct analogy. Maybe a tad extreme (i.e. indentured servitude is arguably somewhat worse than giving up online privacy), but certainly not wrong. Point is quite clear: invasion of privacy is wrong, regardless of whether or not people are willing to deliberately give it up in exchange for commercial service/goods.
I assume you mean Win98 ... what has Win98 got to do with the price of eggs? NTSP4 has nothing to do with '98, which came out in August 1998. '98 had notably slower I/O performance than NT/2k.
It would increase people's ability to store fruit, so they could shop around longer and further from home and stock up if they find a cheaper vendor, thus forcing down high-price outliers
Moreover, if less fruit is going bad, less money needs to be spent to get the same amount of fruit, hence a family gains a slight increase in disposable income. This can either be useful for people (i.e. if the economy is internally competitive, prices of fruit would remain low and the money could be used to buy other products to improve their lives, or invest in development of local skills etc.), or worst case can simply lead to conditions staying the same (i.e. if the economy contains little competition, the excess disposable income will drive up inflation, making fruit vendors slightly richers but other people not explicitly poorer). Thus worst case, things stay about the same. As long as there is competition in an economy though, excess wealth generated by technologies that improve peoples lives will usually in the long run lead to upward spiral of improvements.
Anyone who has ever tried to start, and many other intelligent people, would realise that, no, it most definitely does not. It's damn difficult to start a business, and almost impossible without something called "capital" (startup capital, investment capital etc). Moreover, even once the business starts to get off the ground, it still usually takes *years* to get to a point where you are generating enough excess profit to, say, expand into other areas. Of course it's hard enough for, say, the average middle-class American to get enough capital to start a business and raise it to the point of profitability; it's orders of magnitude more difficult for a poor person in a developing country. By rewarding those who are successful as entrepreneurs with a bit of $$, you give them extra capital to grow their businesses faster, and thus to produce more products that improve the lives of others. You also promote role models for others out there to start businesses, as well as provide additional incentives for others out there to try start businesses. This Nigerian 'low-tech fridge' businessman plans to use the money to invest in growing his business ventures more. This doesn't mean the primary goal is to just make $$$ - the primary goal is to help people, making $$$ is a secondary goal, and an enabler for the primary goal. (This is of course the foundation of capitalism.)
Being original isn't the damn point. The award wasn't for innovation, it's an entrepreneurial award for building a company on this idea (and improving people's lives by selling a well-made implementation of the product, what capitalism is actually about - in other words, to put it bluntly, this is an "award for learning to be a good capitalist", probably an unusual concept in (white male) American capitalism, but probably comparable to e.g. 'businesswoman of the year' type awards that still reward female capitalist success stories in developed countries).
Check this link: it's called the "THE ROLEX AWARDS FOR ENTERPRISE". Quote, "He has already sold 12,000".
Oops, forgot a close italics tag there, sorry.
Of course there are thousands of things MS could do to make their current software more secure, but Microsoft wants their current crop of software to be insecure, so that they can use the current 'insecure state of computing' (lots of viruses etc) to convince people to switch to new technologies/protocols etc. that give them more control (e.g. DRM, perhaps in future their own proprietary network protocols etc). The basic strategy is, let viruses etc. run amok on your deliberately (= leave known exploits for six months unpatched) insecure systems (aka "release your lion into town square"), then "rescue" everyone from the resulting mess by hooking them on something new (aka "catching your own lion").
That is why these stupid defaults are still the stupid defaults.
In a few years, the sheeple will go around saying how "Microsoft saved everyone from that huge mess of viruses/hackers etc" (forgetting that MS created the mess to begin with), just like sheeple today think that MS "first made PCs usable for the man on the street".
Hmm ... I'm not convinced that the 'marketplace' will always be able to 'resist' ... can anyone think of some obvious examples where producers have historically been successful in enforcing some sort of regulation/restriction on (say, say, greater than 90% of) some market?
Also, my first thought was "why copies Windows XP, now only is it's default look really ugly, but it is full of usability problems that are confusing to new computer users and could and should be fixed - surely better to design something good rather than copy something bad. But then I thought, many people already know Windows XP and its many idiosyncrasies (sp?), so helping those people 'feel at home' is a good thing.
I don't understand your comment, are you saying that it is immoral to try to prevent spam?
E-mail addresses can easily be masked so as to be human-readable but not readable to most spambots, dumbass. Many popular sites with e-mail address publishing requirements (e.g. freshmeat) do this, and it's easy to do, so there is no real reason not to do it.
So as your first contribution, submit a patch for the changelog publishing system that masks the e-mail addresses from bots :)
You want to learn to think for yourself, or just blindly mimic other sheep? If you are arguing that Total_Wimp's comments were incorrect, then you'd better do a damn side better at actually logically refuting his arguments rather than just stupid snice comments about Judge Jackson. Oh, and read the damn findings.
Do you really feel such a strong, continual need to conform to "norms" relentlessly and endlessly for the rest of your life?