Actually, I think the 21st would be a drag. If you've done any traveling around the globe you start to see that within each cultural region they all have their own version of mini-malls, starbucks or dirt-trails.
How many starbucks do you need to visit?
I was in Singapore recently and I have to agree with Louis Black about the abundance of Starbucks pointing to the 'end of the universe' but I have to disagree with the location--it's in Singapore, not Houston. There are nearly 40 Starbucks in Singapore (which has a little over 4 million people for its' 637.5 sq km of land area) which is about 157 people/sq km/Starbucks. If you stand in the right spot, you can actually see a Starbucks in any field-of-vision/direction you look.
The other posters have it right about leaving this planet and doing something REALLY different. And being immortal, I wouldn't have to worry about whether I'd live to see it.
(this is a bit of an aggregate response so there are things here pointing to several posts/replies)
Actually, traffic shaping is what I was going to suggest. It's not that hard to do on a technical level. The biggest issue is the lack of technical people who understand enough about traffic shaping in order to make it work effectively.
You really don't even have to look beyond the packet (and what makes anyone think they are going to believe any IP Prec./DSCP bits you stuff in there anyhow?) and be concerned with the type of application anyone is using (let everyone use port 80 -- stupid, but so what?) since the original concern is the amount of bandwidth being used, not the application using it.
Just shape it so that any internal source IP (you, the cablemodem user) can't use more than the 'peak' amount you've been told you'd get in your contract. If you aren't trying to, then the bandwidth is effectively available for someone else. Basically a per-IP CIR. Add the equivalent of Be (burst excess) and if theres bandwidth, let 'em go (mark the excess and send)! And if there aint, sorry, your excess was marked and dropped.
Your tagline says it all. I'll tell you what it means to me: the greed of a few looking to make a quick buck have screwed the rest of us.
And that's what happens when people think they can get away without putting in some work. In order for the 'people' to benefit, someone must produce. If the 'people' produce, then the 'people' benefit.
I know there's more to life than efficiency and productivity. I enjoy my weekends like anyone else and loafing can be unproductive and fun. But I'm not asking anyone else to do my work so that I can do that.
Neither did I (have time) -- it took me months to finish 'Atlas Shrugged' and I had to put it down each time she got on a rant/diatribe (which is about every fourth page) and come back to it later.
You're right, it wasn't really a question. And if it was, it was rhetorical.
And yes, I just read the reply to your your original post. And, while I agreee in spirit with some of what you say, as you point out people are interested in what makes them feel good. If not, then the psychologists/psychiatrists in your example would be out of work.
In a perfect world, the touchy-feely 'from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs' would work great. But this isn't that world. You can't legislate it and you can't enforce it with religion (which, historically, is a lot more successful than legislation but still not a long-term solution).
The 'victims' of your psychiatrists, who are presented with something they desire (carrot) and something they fear (stick) in order to push them into specific directions, will be manipulated by whoever has the desire and ability to do so.
I don't think that's good ethics and it should not be allowed. But then, it doesn't really address the original point I was trying to make which is your stand on 'require' and 'deserve'.
Who determines what is 'required' or 'deserved'? You? If I work really hard at something, should I not benefit from the fruits of my labor? Whether physical or intellectual should make no difference, should it? (Those were all questions.)
And if the guy next to me is slacking off, then I have to work that much harder because he knows I will. If we design a system that allows that (and in many ways we have) what's the end game?
One of the problems that I was trying to point out is that by government getting in and trying to legislate how _everything_ works is, in a way, like trying to fine-tune the controls on a finite state machine to attain a set of desired results without having any clue of how the controls work.
Maybe it doesn't go without saying that anything which is damaging to someone (and not in a 'it hurt my feelings' way, but real damage) should not be allowed and one should not be allowed to profit from that, but that's a whole other conversation.
It doesn't say that you had to have paid for the license, you only need have 'acquired' it.
I worked for a company during that time that went on an upgrade binge for Win98; they visited used software outlets and picked up old copies of DOS and Windows for pennies on the dollar.
I guessing there might be a small rush on old licenses or media in the event that they require paper or media as proof of licensing.
While not an ultimate authority, she does make some sense.
If government didn't involve itself in every step of business it would be more likely to balance out. But rules and regulations that hinder one aspect open up unchecked opportunities for others.
'Require' and 'deserve' are irrelevant and have nothing to do with business. Socialism and communism determine 'require' and 'deserve' and look how well those types of societies are doing?
Our government filtered capitalistic society is the most productive, most powerful on the planet. Good, bad, or indifferent. I still want my water clean and my air unpolluted, but I want fewer tax regulations that end up unfairly benefitting big business and crazy regulations that allow some businesses to thrive like a virus and others to die on the vine.
Sony sells products in a highly-competitive market place and they don't do it at discount prices.
Are they bribing people to buy their stuff?
Every Sony product I've ever owned has become obsolete before it broke... I wish I could say the same for Microsoft products I've purchased--er, 'licensed'.
Even the the MS Trackball Explorer I bought has died within a year!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think the 21st would be a drag. If you've done any traveling around the globe you start to see that within each cultural region they all have their own version of mini-malls, starbucks or dirt-trails.
How many starbucks do you need to visit?
I was in Singapore recently and I have to agree with Louis Black about the abundance of Starbucks pointing to the 'end of the universe' but I have to disagree with the location--it's in Singapore, not Houston. There are nearly 40 Starbucks in Singapore (which has a little over 4 million people for its' 637.5 sq km of land area) which is about 157 people/sq km/Starbucks. If you stand in the right spot, you can actually see a Starbucks in any field-of-vision/direction you look.
The other posters have it right about leaving this planet and doing something REALLY different. And being immortal, I wouldn't have to worry about whether I'd live to see it.
(this is a bit of an aggregate response so there are things here pointing to several posts/replies)
Actually, traffic shaping is what I was going to suggest. It's not that hard to do on a technical level. The biggest issue is the lack of technical people who understand enough about traffic shaping in order to make it work effectively.
You really don't even have to look beyond the packet (and what makes anyone think they are going to believe any IP Prec./DSCP bits you stuff in there anyhow?) and be concerned with the type of application anyone is using (let everyone use port 80 -- stupid, but so what?) since the original concern is the amount of bandwidth being used, not the application using it.
Just shape it so that any internal source IP (you, the cablemodem user) can't use more than the 'peak' amount you've been told you'd get in your contract. If you aren't trying to, then the bandwidth is effectively available for someone else. Basically a per-IP CIR. Add the equivalent of Be (burst excess) and if theres bandwidth, let 'em go (mark the excess and send)! And if there aint, sorry, your excess was marked and dropped.
Your tagline says it all. I'll tell you what it means to me: the greed of a few looking to make a quick buck have screwed the rest of us.
And that's what happens when people think they can get away without putting in some work. In order for the 'people' to benefit, someone must produce. If the 'people' produce, then the 'people' benefit.
I know there's more to life than efficiency and productivity. I enjoy my weekends like anyone else and loafing can be unproductive and fun. But I'm not asking anyone else to do my work so that I can do that.
Neither did I (have time) -- it took me months to finish 'Atlas Shrugged' and I had to put it down each time she got on a rant/diatribe (which is about every fourth page) and come back to it later.
You're right, it wasn't really a question. And if it was, it was rhetorical.
And yes, I just read the reply to your your original post. And, while I agreee in spirit with some of what you say, as you point out people are interested in what makes them feel good. If not, then the psychologists/psychiatrists in your example would be out of work.
In a perfect world, the touchy-feely 'from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs' would work great. But this isn't that world. You can't legislate it and you can't enforce it with religion (which, historically, is a lot more successful than legislation but still not a long-term solution).
The 'victims' of your psychiatrists, who are presented with something they desire (carrot) and something they fear (stick) in order to push them into specific directions, will be manipulated by whoever has the desire and ability to do so.
I don't think that's good ethics and it should not be allowed. But then, it doesn't really address the original point I was trying to make which is your stand on 'require' and 'deserve'.
Who determines what is 'required' or 'deserved'?
You? If I work really hard at something, should I not benefit from the fruits of my labor? Whether physical or intellectual should make no difference, should it? (Those were all questions.)
And if the guy next to me is slacking off, then I have to work that much harder because he knows I will. If we design a system that allows that (and in many ways we have) what's the end game?
One of the problems that I was trying to point out is that by government getting in and trying to legislate how _everything_ works is, in a way, like trying to fine-tune the controls on a finite state machine to attain a set of desired results without having any clue of how the controls work.
Maybe it doesn't go without saying that anything which is damaging to someone (and not in a 'it hurt my feelings' way, but real damage) should not be allowed and one should not be allowed to profit from that, but that's a whole other conversation.
It doesn't say that you had to have paid for the license, you only need have 'acquired' it.
I worked for a company during that time that went on an upgrade binge for Win98; they visited used software outlets and picked up old copies of DOS and Windows for pennies on the dollar.
I guessing there might be a small rush on old licenses or media in the event that they require paper or media as proof of licensing.
Go read some Ayn Rand, please.
While not an ultimate authority, she does make some sense.
If government didn't involve itself in every step of business it would be more likely to balance out. But rules and regulations that hinder one aspect open up unchecked opportunities for others.
'Require' and 'deserve' are irrelevant and have nothing to do with business. Socialism and communism determine 'require' and 'deserve' and look how well those types of societies are doing?
Our government filtered capitalistic society is the most productive, most powerful on the planet. Good, bad, or indifferent. I still want my water clean and my air unpolluted, but I want fewer tax regulations that end up unfairly benefitting big business and crazy regulations that allow some businesses to thrive like a virus and others to die on the vine.
Sony sells products in a highly-competitive market place and they don't do it at discount prices. Are they bribing people to buy their stuff? Every Sony product I've ever owned has become obsolete before it broke... I wish I could say the same for Microsoft products I've purchased--er, 'licensed'. Even the the MS Trackball Explorer I bought has died within a year!