> but doesn't the lack of clusters of high-quality > inexpensive broadband in our urban areas
Lack of clusters? What does that mean?
Typically US neighborhoods have either coax or fiber or adsl, and only rarely are there more than one choice in any given area.
Someone has a franchise on any given cable plant. If you are in a comcast neighborhood thats what you use.
This again goes back to size.
You simply can not afford to wire entire cities with multiple independent cable plants.
The only why this works is in countries where there were state owned telcos which owned the cable plants. They can rent bandwidth to multiple providers, and risk the tragedy of the commons.
I fail to see how this is different than the "clusters" you mention, or how the "clusters" supply rural areas.
> If you really need to go so far as that to get > more than one computer to share your connection.. > Change your ISP to someone with sane terms as > soon as possible!
Changing ISPs is more of a problem than you might think, especially with all the triple-play providers in large US metro areas.
Typically these ISPs have entire neighborhoods if not entire cities tied up and you have a choice of provider X or Dialup (which is often Provider X again).
In most of these areas people use cheap routers to hang more machines on their connection.
My prior ISP allowed 8 connections (the max mac address slots they had in the modem). After a move I'm in an area where I get precisely one.
> If I pass my internet safety class, do I get an > internet license? And must I present proof of > license to get internet service?
Yes, to both.
See the same vice-Principal that gave you your sex license after you passed Sex-Ed. He will take you to the same back room where he gave you your sex license and final exam, and then you are free to surf the net and his video collection, where you will find your own Sex-Ed final exam published.
The fault lies not with the teachers or the students. It lies with C++ itself.
The language is an abomination, with over 65 different data types (beyond all need and reason) each capable of being abused in at least 7 different unique and novel ways.
Its a disaster waiting to happen, and there are precious few tools that are capable of finding abuse of best practices, let alone common sense (which proves to be not that common in practice).
There is simply no need for this many data types.
Further the structures commonly constructed in the syntax are not at all humanly intuitive nor necessary for the task at hand.
People may not install firefox, but hundreds of thousands installed seti at home, and various other cooperative project software.
There is no requirement for precise location. You over state your case.
Simply giving your zip code (or your county's equivalent) would be quite sufficient. When all the laptops in 98210 start signaling thats a pretty good hint. Most people would have no problem giving that level of precision or vagueness as the case may be.
Traditional seismometer technology can produce better results. But who can afford it? And who would install it and who would support it? Free is a good price. And if laptop users offer the service for free why not take them up on in?
Oh, yeah, spyware. Ooooo, scary. What part of open source don't you understand?
If you volunteered your machine for this, why would you have a problem telling them (in general terms) where you live?
It seems to me that precision down to the city would be close enough, but I suspect most people would have no problem giving somewhat more precise measurements, such as from google maps or some such.
> Privacy for ordinary citizens is a right, but our officials that WE ELECT, > their job is our business and we should have the right to know what they do.
Really? You have a "right" to know the Military GO Codes, etc? This is planet earth. It doesn't work that way. It never has. It was never intended.
I would be willing to bet you came down on exactly the opposite side of the issue of people "snooping" into presidential candidate's passport files. I bet you thought that was a gross injustice.
> the state has absolutely no right to interfere in any way whatsoever with a > citizen who is going about his legal business.
What part of looking constitutes interference ?
They have to present this passport to government officials upon arrival in every country they visit. Why should they expect privacy in this matter?
Your argument is more valid with regard to the requirement for passports in the first place, but seems wide of the mark for those expecting privacy once they have bought into the requirement to hold a passport.
Why should anyone running for a public office (or holding one) have any assumption of privacy for a US passport?
I would think entry/exit data should be public information, as well as each country visited using that passport, which after all, was provided at public expense, backed by the tax payers, carries with it an expectation of the US government using its influence to secure the safe travel of these people who are de-facto targets of people who would harm the US.
I could make the same case for anyone, really, why should you expect your world travels to be a private matter? What could be more public than world travel?
At most these workers would seem to have violated an unauthorized use of computing resource rules. The fact that it was a political candidate LESSENS the infraction in my opinion.
The fact that they WERE ABLE TO access the information means heads should roll, but not their heads. Why aren't the IT folks being keel hauled instead of these drones? What kind of security does this agency have where the biggest impediment to access is a "thou shalt not"?
I would add a number 5) Mandatory licensing. If you put a song in the public market in any form you MUST agree to this kind of license and accept the funding from this sort of mechanism, from all buyers without discrimination.
The idea that the Beatles (or any one else) can license a radio station to play it, but withhold a internet streaming service or mp3 sales is the major part of the problem.
In the end it would seem far wiser to get any private organization out of the picture.
The idea that anyone deserves compensation from everybody just because it might be possible for their product to be stolen is a real slippery slope, and one that could only be loved by thieves.
Shall I expect demands from all book publishers simply because I purchased an all-in-one printer Scanner Copier?
Try as I might I couldn't come up with anything less likely to be stolen and transported on the highway. Still there are some who do steal these things, and I think a one time fee of $2.38 per road user would be enough to compensate myself and the little old lady down the street with the fiberglass flamingos.
> This actually seems like a modern, cost effective and fair distribution model to me. > Out of curiosity, what about it doesn't meet that criteria?
How about the bit where they have no content I am interested in, but I still have to pay? How about the bit that a private group now gains the right to tax all broadband users just
on a suspicion that they might some day download something?
You MIGHT transport my stolen lawn sculptures in your car. Therefore, I want the right to be paid
$2.35 for all users of the public roadways. Now can you see the problem?
It doesn't mean that each and every individual phone will be up 99.999 percent of the time, it means that the system as a whole will be up 99.999% of the time.
Its quite possible for an entire town to be down for an entire year and still meet this criteria.
Yet modern cell operators STILL can not come close.
Quote " 'five nines' of uptime is a ridiculous and exaggerated expectation for pretty much anything technological for anything that is not life threatening."
Your statement might ring true were it not for the inconvenient fact that 5 nines was and still is common in the wired land-line telephone industry. It was common when you were growing up, it was common for your parents' generation.
Most websites have little to say, and take all day to say it. Having a detailed graphical analysis of the blather seems unlikely to improve the situation. GI,GO.
It would seem spending just a tad more time writing for HUMANS would be way more productive than writing for machines. Having a thousand computers watching your 100 monkeys seems unlikely to bring enlightenment or useful knowledge out of a pile of garbage and human blathering that passes for information on the web these days.
People used to write web pages. Now they write software to write web pages. Its not surprising they now need to write software to understand the web pages. Whats the point?
Slashdot Mirror
> but doesn't the lack of clusters of high-quality
> inexpensive broadband in our urban areas
Lack of clusters? What does that mean?
Typically US neighborhoods have either coax or fiber or adsl, and only rarely are there more than one choice in any given area.
Someone has a franchise on any given cable plant. If you are in a comcast neighborhood thats what you use.
This again goes back to size.
You simply can not afford to wire entire cities with multiple independent cable plants.
The only why this works is in countries where there were state owned telcos which owned the cable plants. They can rent bandwidth to multiple providers, and risk the tragedy of the commons.
I fail to see how this is different than the "clusters" you mention, or how the "clusters" supply rural areas.
> If you really need to go so far as that to get
> more than one computer to share your connection..
> Change your ISP to someone with sane terms as
> soon as possible!
Changing ISPs is more of a problem than you might think, especially with all the triple-play providers in large US metro areas.
Typically these ISPs have entire neighborhoods if not entire cities tied up and you have a choice of provider X or Dialup (which is often Provider X again).
In most of these areas people use cheap routers to hang more machines on their connection.
My prior ISP allowed 8 connections (the max mac address slots they had in the modem). After a move I'm in an area where I get precisely one.
> If I pass my internet safety class, do I get an
> internet license? And must I present proof of
> license to get internet service?
Yes, to both.
See the same vice-Principal that gave you your sex license after you passed Sex-Ed. He will take you to the same back room where he gave you your sex license and final exam, and then you are free to surf the net and his video collection, where you will find your own Sex-Ed final exam published.
Surf carefully now....
What if it was for her?
Just on the chance, neither of us answered.
Why would tagging members of Parliament affect the US's future?
Do you really think some county's Parliament some how affects the US, or are you so stupid you think the US has a Parliament?
The fault lies not with the teachers or the students. It lies with C++ itself.
The language is an abomination, with over 65 different data types (beyond all need and reason) each capable of being abused in at least 7 different unique and novel ways.
Its a disaster waiting to happen, and there are precious few tools that are capable of finding abuse of best practices, let alone common sense (which proves to be not that common in practice).
There is simply no need for this many data types.
Further the structures commonly constructed in the syntax are not at all humanly intuitive nor necessary for the task at hand.
People may not install firefox, but hundreds of thousands installed seti at home, and various other cooperative project software.
There is no requirement for precise location. You over state your case.
Simply giving your zip code (or your county's equivalent) would be quite sufficient. When all the laptops in 98210 start signaling thats a pretty good hint. Most people would have no problem giving that level of precision or vagueness as the case may be.
Traditional seismometer technology can produce better results. But who can afford it? And who would install it and who would support it? Free is a good price. And if laptop users offer the service for free why not take them up on in?
Oh, yeah, spyware. Ooooo, scary. What part of open source don't you understand?
Why should that be a show stopper?
If you volunteered your machine for this, why would you have a problem telling them (in general terms) where you live?
It seems to me that precision down to the city would be close enough, but I suspect most people would have no problem giving somewhat more precise measurements, such as from google maps or some such.
C001. Ch1n33s l33t !!!
But the only reference to Molybdenum in that wiki article was
to a artificial process discovered in 2003, NOT to natural fixation.
> Read up on the nitrogen cycle.
I did. and molybdenum was not mentioned anywhere.
Oddly enough, none of the articles on nitrogen fixation even mention moly....
Whats that all about?
> Privacy for ordinary citizens is a right, but our officials that WE ELECT,
> their job is our business and we should have the right to know what they do.
Really? You have a "right" to know the Military GO Codes, etc?
This is planet earth. It doesn't work that way. It never has. It was never intended.
I would be willing to bet you came down on exactly the opposite side of the issue of people "snooping" into presidential candidate's passport files. I bet you thought that was a gross injustice.
You really can't have it both ways.
> the state has absolutely no right to interfere in any way whatsoever with a
> citizen who is going about his legal business.
What part of looking constitutes interference ?
They have to present this passport to government officials upon arrival in every country they visit.
Why should they expect privacy in this matter?
Your argument is more valid with regard to the requirement for passports in the first place, but seems wide of the mark for those expecting privacy once they have bought into the requirement to hold a passport.
Why should anyone running for a public office (or holding one) have any assumption of privacy for a US passport?
I would think entry/exit data should be public information, as well as each country visited using that passport, which after all, was provided at public expense, backed by the tax payers, carries with it an expectation of the US government using its influence to secure the safe travel of these people who are de-facto targets of people who would harm the US.
I could make the same case for anyone, really, why should you expect your world travels to be a private matter? What could be more public than world travel?
At most these workers would seem to have violated an unauthorized use of computing resource rules. The fact that it was a political candidate LESSENS the infraction in my opinion.
The fact that they WERE ABLE TO access the information means heads should roll, but not their heads. Why aren't the IT folks being keel hauled instead of these drones? What kind of security does this agency have where the biggest impediment to access is a "thou shalt not"?
Some one just drove off with another elf!
I would add a number 5)
Mandatory licensing. If you put a song in the public market in any form you MUST agree to this kind of license and
accept the funding from this sort of mechanism, from all buyers without discrimination.
The idea that the Beatles (or any one else) can license a radio station to play it, but withhold a internet
streaming service or mp3 sales is the major part of the problem.
In the end it would seem far wiser to get any private organization out of the picture.
The idea that anyone deserves compensation from everybody just because it might be possible for their product to be stolen is a real slippery slope, and one that could only be loved by thieves.
Shall I expect demands from all book publishers simply because I purchased an all-in-one printer Scanner Copier?
Exactly. Thank you.
Try as I might I couldn't come up with anything less likely to be stolen and transported on the highway. Still there are some who do steal these things, and I think a one time fee of $2.38 per road user would be enough to compensate myself and the little old lady down the street with the fiberglass flamingos.
Did you read between the lines?
This means they will demand the right to monitor (or own) all p2p sites.
That "answer" poses more questions than it answers.
> This actually seems like a modern, cost effective and fair distribution model to me.
> Out of curiosity, what about it doesn't meet that criteria?
How about the bit where they have no content I am interested in, but I still have to pay?
How about the bit that a private group now gains the right to tax all broadband users just
on a suspicion that they might some day download something?
You MIGHT transport my stolen lawn sculptures in your car. Therefore, I want the right to be paid
$2.35 for all users of the public roadways. Now can you see the problem?
Somebody mod parent Troll.
> It's why there's a surcharge on "Music" CDRs. It's not actually legalizing it, it's just their way getting more money.
It is my understanding that the surcharge DID legalize duplicating music CDs in Canada.
But you are right of course, its just a money grab.
It always amazes me that people will post the most slimmed down third party
summation of a detailed article that appears on a non-commercial site:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/mro20080303a.html
You totally misunderstand the 5 9s concept.
It doesn't mean that each and every individual phone will be up 99.999 percent of the time, it means that the system as a whole will be up 99.999% of the time.
Its quite possible for an entire town to be down for an entire year and still meet this criteria.
Yet modern cell operators STILL can not come close.
Quote "
'five nines' of uptime is a ridiculous and exaggerated expectation for pretty much anything technological for anything that is not life threatening."
Your statement might ring true were it not for the inconvenient fact that 5 nines was and still is common in the wired land-line telephone industry. It was common when you were growing up, it was common for your parents' generation.
So I need this WHY?
Most websites have little to say, and take all day to say it.
Having a detailed graphical analysis of the blather seems unlikely to improve the situation. GI,GO.
It would seem spending just a tad more time writing for HUMANS would be way more productive than writing for machines. Having a thousand computers watching your 100 monkeys seems unlikely to bring enlightenment or useful knowledge out of a pile of garbage and human blathering that passes for information on the web these days.
People used to write web pages.
Now they write software to write web pages.
Its not surprising they now need to write software to understand the web pages.
Whats the point?