And that's exactly what we need now. We have a mature ecosystem with well established species. We don't need thousands of similar species being created and left behind in a few months.
What we need from now on is slow evolution. There already are software to do _most_ of the things a user want to do with a PC, let that software evolve in a stable ecosystem instead of leaving the gate open and keep starting over every time, trying to make a better wheel every time.
I understand the words in your sentence, but could you clarify why it would be harder to oversell? They ought to be encouraging people to download more, and have the infrastructure to enable profit.
Because the amount of data to download is really huge and we always seem to find new ways to use more. Think about hard disks, every time we get a new, bigger one, we think is enough but after a few months its full.
Now they have a limited amount of bandwidth, if you sum up the bandwidth they sell to all their customers you get more bandwidth than what they have because they oversell. With data there is no limited supply. The limit is in the speed
Now we pay for something we don't use, we pay for a connection 24/7 with some speed but we only use it a few hours a day. With data we would be using up to the last byte.
As a side effect the heavy bloated sites would cost more to visit. So there will be an incentive for the web developers / designers to reduce the size of their sites.
If the pricing is reasonable it wouldn't be so bad. But as we already know the pricing won't be reasonable so...
Another nice side effect is that it also would be much harder for ISP to oversell because you can always find something else to download to use your paid for bytes.
No. The capacity of the network at any given time is finite. You are using a fraction of that available bandwith for some period of time.
Bandwidth x Time = Bytes Transferred.
And that's why you pay for bandwidth, you pay for a slice of the network capacity to use as you wish. You pay for the resource that is limited, bandwidth, not the unlimited one, data.
Well, it turns out that life isn't black and white only. Most of the things you can think of don't fall into the categories: "I want someone to read it" "I do not want anyone to read it".
The problem is when you want some reduced group of people to read it, not the whole world. And more so when you want some people to read it but are not sure if you want it to remain readable for a long time.
Today we have a lot of ways to communicate something to a group of people, one of them are online social networks. They have flaws as everything else, but they are useful to a lot of people
I'd imagine it has more to do with those damn required "Security Questions", many of which use publicly available information.
Even the services which allow you to specify the question and answer are probably no match for a cracker working in conjunction with an Ex.
Please, is not so hard to just type some garbage there, long, alpha-numeric garbage.
It is clearly less free than the GPL just as the GPL is less free than BSD.
Whether it is free enough to count as free is a matter of opinion.
Less free to whom? to the end user is just the same as they don't intend to redistribute the software. To some user who wants to distribute the code, it's less free. To the original developer no, it gives him the freedom to choose how his code is being distributed.
Of course, everyone fails to mention that Japan has the lowest rape rate per capita in the world. Perhaps it has something to do with the availability of such materials to quench the urge of would be rapists?
I thought the same thing, too. At first. Then I looked a little deeper: Far more likely is endemic bias in the system, both in reporting and in prosecuting cases:
In any case, if is just about equal than the rest of the world then we can say they have more freedom without any evident cost; shound't that be considered good?
On the other hand, why is it ok to depict a crime (murder in most FPS) in some cases and not in this one? I'm against any type of abuse, even more so when it is against young children, but I believe this is something worth thinking about. I'm not saying we should ban all games that allow the players to commit fake crimes; I'd like to know why as a society we accept murder without a problem but we just can't accept anything sex related.
Wrong, a human being takes a lot of time to develop and during this time the things it can tolerate are different. As a person grows it gets stronger and best prepared to deal with the world. A child is not ready to deal with sexuality, neither his mind nor his body are ready for that.
So, a person 5 years old is not the same as a person 30 years old and is not the same as a person 90 years old. The things that can harm them are as different as the things they can take without any danger.
You can argue all day about the exact number of years to put the line but you just can't say there is no difference.
I run an unpatched machine with an obscure system that some friend of mine wrote. Probably anything but secure, knowing his code, but oddly, no spyware, no malware, no nothing. Why? Because it's no market either.
When you have a hundred systems all having an equal market share, any given threat can only infect 1% of the existing machines (provided they are not binary compatible). That is economically uninteresting for the malware businesses.
It is also uninteresting for software developers so you have a system without malware and almost useless because you just don't have any software to run on it. Also you can't comunicate with other peoples systems because yours is incompatible and different.
Unfortunately the malware is the price we have to pay for having access to such a big network. If we had hundred different incompatible systems it would be a nightmare to write any software that runs on all of them (be it good or bad software). With some sort of common standard is easy (for certain values of easy) to develop software that can run everywhere, good software and evil software.
Liberalism is more advantageous for everybody and benefits nobody in particular, while all systems we currently experiment today are attempts to favor certain groups while necessarily screwing everybody else in the process. Which is kind of why they're so popular today.:-)
Do you really believe this? I think is just the opposite. The field is not leveled, there are (and always be) few people with a lot of power and a lot of people with little power. Without rules the ones standing on the top would remain there and increase their advantage over the others.
Free markets leads to monopoly in most cases, and we know how that benefits us all.
Forget the overhead on the justice department, just tell me how can someone know if what he/she is doing is legal, should everyone ask a partner a full psicological examination before having sex?
Now let us think about the actual environment you get with each:
Linux - Arm processor... limited applications. The non-techie won't know that they've been artificially limited by the laptop manufacturer. They're just going to know that "Linux is slow" and "I can't download new apps in Linux".
I think the point of putting Linux to do quick tasks is that it can let you do those tasks faster, not slower. So even if they see Linux as the limited choice it should be the faster way of doing those tasks. Besides if people start actually using Linux they may discover two important things: the Windows way is not the only one nor the easiest one; and Linux is a usable OS for them.
You forget something really important about the average person: they don't make decisions, they just do what they are told to do. More so in areas they don't understand.
The average person goes to the store and buys a computer, he doesn't know what an OS is and doesn't care. At work he uses whatever machine the company gives him.
So when you think about what the average person uses you have to think about what the tech/boss/vendor tells him.
This is the only experiment in human history where we cannot learn from our mistakes. We have to be 100% certain it is safe, before each new step up is even attempted. (Too many mistakes have already been made and we have yet to even get into the more possible dangerous aspects of the experiments).
There are infinite mistakes they could make that won't lead to a massive destruction and we could learn from all of them.
Maybe there are some chances that something really bad happens and the earth or humanity is destroyed, there are also some chances that nothing bad happens, and then you have a lot of middle ground. We can learn from this experiment just as we learnt from many others, all of them dangerous.
Maybe because it would be the fastest, easiest and probably only way to do it.
Historically it was the only way to really expand man frontiers, to take big risks. Even to die trying. If we keep thinking the way to go is with all the safety conditions and guarantees we won't be going anywhere.
Of course everyone involved should be aware of the dangers and chances of success.
What you miss is that there are two different set of genes. One acquire the knowledge to save another one. Then the one with the less favorable genes is preserved along with the one with the more favorable genes overriding the natural selection that would have happened. The species as a whole is being selected against another species (the ones that goes extinct).
250g and you get cut off is a limitation in my book. If you don't want to use what you paid for, more power to you. I however, want to use what i purchase.
You could be using what you are paing for to contribute to a project which you (and many others) benefit from.
Meanwhile, do you think Ubuntu will be able to pony up the money for "get.ubuntu"? How will it look when "www.fedora.org" has to compete with "get.windows"?
It will look exactly the same, most of the people today don't type domain names, they just use a search engine and click on the first link. They won't even know what a domain name is or where to find it.
What Internet radio can do (and Pandora was actually doing) is delivering customized music, a different set of songs, to every listener. What they were doing was giving the listener the power to choose what to listen. The only medium that can do that is Internet 'cause you can give every listener a customized stream. You just can't do that with broadcast. With traditional radio your choices are limited at the station level, with Internet radio and services like Pandora you can choose at song level and there is little the big labels can do to force you to listen to a particular artist/song
70 million new TLDs means 70 million new registrations. The domain wars all over again. Fight for www.genericword -- That means a lot of money.
The lawyers should do nicely too.
I dare to guess it would be worth next to nothing just because most of the people don't type the urls, they just use a search engine to find the site and the search engine will keep indexing the most used site which would be the older.com.
Of course that donesn't imply a lot of people would be paing a money to get them but that would be just a waste.
The point is that you don't need a thinking machine to have something dangerous. Just a surviving machine. Imagine some autonomous robot with surviving cababilities that also has some kind of weapon and you have a really nice problem to deal with.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's exactly what we need now. We have a mature ecosystem with well established species. We don't need thousands of similar species being created and left behind in a few months. What we need from now on is slow evolution. There already are software to do _most_ of the things a user want to do with a PC, let that software evolve in a stable ecosystem instead of leaving the gate open and keep starting over every time, trying to make a better wheel every time.
I understand the words in your sentence, but could you clarify why it would be harder to oversell? They ought to be encouraging people to download more, and have the infrastructure to enable profit.
Because the amount of data to download is really huge and we always seem to find new ways to use more. Think about hard disks, every time we get a new, bigger one, we think is enough but after a few months its full.
Now they have a limited amount of bandwidth, if you sum up the bandwidth they sell to all their customers you get more bandwidth than what they have because they oversell. With data there is no limited supply. The limit is in the speed
Now we pay for something we don't use, we pay for a connection 24/7 with some speed but we only use it a few hours a day. With data we would be using up to the last byte.
As a side effect the heavy bloated sites would cost more to visit. So there will be an incentive for the web developers / designers to reduce the size of their sites.
If the pricing is reasonable it wouldn't be so bad. But as we already know the pricing won't be reasonable so...
Another nice side effect is that it also would be much harder for ISP to oversell because you can always find something else to download to use your paid for bytes.
No. The capacity of the network at any given time is finite. You are using a fraction of that available bandwith for some period of time.
Bandwidth x Time = Bytes Transferred.
And that's why you pay for bandwidth, you pay for a slice of the network capacity to use as you wish. You pay for the resource that is limited, bandwidth, not the unlimited one, data.
Well, it turns out that life isn't black and white only. Most of the things you can think of don't fall into the categories: "I want someone to read it" "I do not want anyone to read it".
The problem is when you want some reduced group of people to read it, not the whole world. And more so when you want some people to read it but are not sure if you want it to remain readable for a long time.
Today we have a lot of ways to communicate something to a group of people, one of them are online social networks. They have flaws as everything else, but they are useful to a lot of people
I'd imagine it has more to do with those damn required "Security Questions", many of which use publicly available information. Even the services which allow you to specify the question and answer are probably no match for a cracker working in conjunction with an Ex.
Please, is not so hard to just type some garbage there, long, alpha-numeric garbage.
It is clearly less free than the GPL just as the GPL is less free than BSD.
Whether it is free enough to count as free is a matter of opinion.
Less free to whom? to the end user is just the same as they don't intend to redistribute the software. To some user who wants to distribute the code, it's less free. To the original developer no, it gives him the freedom to choose how his code is being distributed.
Of course, everyone fails to mention that Japan has the lowest rape rate per capita in the world. Perhaps it has something to do with the availability of such materials to quench the urge of would be rapists?
I thought the same thing, too. At first. Then I looked a little deeper: Far more likely is endemic bias in the system, both in reporting and in prosecuting cases:
In any case, if is just about equal than the rest of the world then we can say they have more freedom without any evident cost; shound't that be considered good?
On the other hand, why is it ok to depict a crime (murder in most FPS) in some cases and not in this one? I'm against any type of abuse, even more so when it is against young children, but I believe this is something worth thinking about. I'm not saying we should ban all games that allow the players to commit fake crimes; I'd like to know why as a society we accept murder without a problem but we just can't accept anything sex related.
Wrong, a human being takes a lot of time to develop and during this time the things it can tolerate are different. As a person grows it gets stronger and best prepared to deal with the world. A child is not ready to deal with sexuality, neither his mind nor his body are ready for that.
So, a person 5 years old is not the same as a person 30 years old and is not the same as a person 90 years old. The things that can harm them are as different as the things they can take without any danger.
You can argue all day about the exact number of years to put the line but you just can't say there is no difference.
I run an unpatched machine with an obscure system that some friend of mine wrote. Probably anything but secure, knowing his code, but oddly, no spyware, no malware, no nothing. Why? Because it's no market either.
When you have a hundred systems all having an equal market share, any given threat can only infect 1% of the existing machines (provided they are not binary compatible). That is economically uninteresting for the malware businesses.
It is also uninteresting for software developers so you have a system without malware and almost useless because you just don't have any software to run on it. Also you can't comunicate with other peoples systems because yours is incompatible and different. Unfortunately the malware is the price we have to pay for having access to such a big network. If we had hundred different incompatible systems it would be a nightmare to write any software that runs on all of them (be it good or bad software). With some sort of common standard is easy (for certain values of easy) to develop software that can run everywhere, good software and evil software.
Half the world writes it 4/1 the other half 1/4, the one you use doesn't make it any better then the one they use.
Where I come from we write it dd/mm but after some thinking about it I realized that mm/dd is just easier to sort and compare.
Liberalism is more advantageous for everybody and benefits nobody in particular, while all systems we currently experiment today are attempts to favor certain groups while necessarily screwing everybody else in the process. Which is kind of why they're so popular today. :-)
Do you really believe this? I think is just the opposite. The field is not leveled, there are (and always be) few people with a lot of power and a lot of people with little power. Without rules the ones standing on the top would remain there and increase their advantage over the others. Free markets leads to monopoly in most cases, and we know how that benefits us all.
Forget the overhead on the justice department, just tell me how can someone know if what he/she is doing is legal, should everyone ask a partner a full psicological examination before having sex?
Now let us think about the actual environment you get with each:
I think the point of putting Linux to do quick tasks is that it can let you do those tasks faster, not slower. So even if they see Linux as the limited choice it should be the faster way of doing those tasks. Besides if people start actually using Linux they may discover two important things: the Windows way is not the only one nor the easiest one; and Linux is a usable OS for them.
You forget something really important about the average person: they don't make decisions, they just do what they are told to do. More so in areas they don't understand. The average person goes to the store and buys a computer, he doesn't know what an OS is and doesn't care. At work he uses whatever machine the company gives him. So when you think about what the average person uses you have to think about what the tech/boss/vendor tells him.
This is the only experiment in human history where we cannot learn from our mistakes. We have to be 100% certain it is safe, before each new step up is even attempted. (Too many mistakes have already been made and we have yet to even get into the more possible dangerous aspects of the experiments).
There are infinite mistakes they could make that won't lead to a massive destruction and we could learn from all of them. Maybe there are some chances that something really bad happens and the earth or humanity is destroyed, there are also some chances that nothing bad happens, and then you have a lot of middle ground. We can learn from this experiment just as we learnt from many others, all of them dangerous.
Maybe because it would be the fastest, easiest and probably only way to do it. Historically it was the only way to really expand man frontiers, to take big risks. Even to die trying. If we keep thinking the way to go is with all the safety conditions and guarantees we won't be going anywhere. Of course everyone involved should be aware of the dangers and chances of success.
What you miss is that there are two different set of genes. One acquire the knowledge to save another one. Then the one with the less favorable genes is preserved along with the one with the more favorable genes overriding the natural selection that would have happened. The species as a whole is being selected against another species (the ones that goes extinct).
So should we start thinking about replacing SATA with something else that can handle this?
250g and you get cut off is a limitation in my book. If you don't want to use what you paid for, more power to you. I however, want to use what i purchase.
You could be using what you are paing for to contribute to a project which you (and many others) benefit from.
Meanwhile, do you think Ubuntu will be able to pony up the money for "get.ubuntu"? How will it look when "www.fedora.org" has to compete with "get.windows"?
It will look exactly the same, most of the people today don't type domain names, they just use a search engine and click on the first link. They won't even know what a domain name is or where to find it.
If the resolution is 50cm/px how can we see the lines on the parking lots which would have, at most, 15cm wide?
What Internet radio can do (and Pandora was actually doing) is delivering customized music, a different set of songs, to every listener. What they were doing was giving the listener the power to choose what to listen. The only medium that can do that is Internet 'cause you can give every listener a customized stream. You just can't do that with broadcast. With traditional radio your choices are limited at the station level, with Internet radio and services like Pandora you can choose at song level and there is little the big labels can do to force you to listen to a particular artist/song
70 million new TLDs means 70 million new registrations. The domain wars all over again. Fight for www.genericword -- That means a lot of money.
The lawyers should do nicely too.
I dare to guess it would be worth next to nothing just because most of the people don't type the urls, they just use a search engine to find the site and the search engine will keep indexing the most used site which would be the olderThe point is that you don't need a thinking machine to have something dangerous. Just a surviving machine. Imagine some autonomous robot with surviving cababilities that also has some kind of weapon and you have a really nice problem to deal with.