If it were possible, I'd choose option three, but the problem is that it's not! These two companies have a monopoly on their relative level 1 transports, so unless you're talking about launching a satellite (which gives bad latency) or running wireless (which I'll admit is a nice option, but the bandwidth isn't quite there yet), you're stuck being a reseller of their base service.
Good thinking. Except there are two companies that run the high-speed lines here, Rogers and Bell. Ignoring the fact that Bell Sympatico DSL is quite slower than my tier of cable for a moment, what happens if Bell also filters Bittorrent? Are you suggesting that the appropriate course of action then would be to move?
On a more practical note, use port 1720 (used by Rogers' own VoIP digital phone service, so they can't and don't deep packet filter it) and if that doesn't work (remember to restart your client and forward ports accordingly) try BitComet with the encrypted header option. Worked fine for me after a bit of fiddling.
The "duopoly" approach seems to be everywhere now. You have a choice between X cable provider, and X DSL provider. Nobody else can play at the same scale because they own the lines. So what happens when both companies start doign the same monopolistic grabbings? Under the law, you've got a choice; therefore, you have no leg to stand on.
Does that really make sense?
I think bandwidth needs to be treated as a utility and I'm completely against any sort of artificial limitations because they do absolutely nothing for the customer, they only let the provider have to pay for less, and thus make more money at the customer's expense.
That only really applies if they're looking at the traffic. I would argue that they do indeed have the right to reserve bandwidth for their own applications if and only if they are not a monopoly. If they're not a monopoly, customers can choose another provider. But if they control all the internet traffic in a certain area (i.e. the backbone), then I'd argue they're illegally using that power to gain an advantage in another market, which opens them up to huge antitrust liabilities. (IANAL)
At least, not yet. Napster and many other music stores distribute in DRM'd WMA. Windows Media Player rips CDs in DRM'd WMA by default (and to rip in MP3 you have to install a codec). If MP3 players can't read WMA, a lot of people are going to get annoyed that none of their music will play on their shiny new device, and will return it for this reason.
The solution is that someone needs to make a music store in a non-DRM format (MP3 or OGG). Unfortunately, again, record companies require draconian DRM methods on any files "officially" distributed on the internet. So in the end, what we have here is a network of large companies conspiring to keep newcomers from the market. That almost sounds like antitrust, doesn't it?
Not to mention the fact that it doesn't matter if it's a software flaw, the Starforce drivers have to permanently damage the hardware:
- After this demonstration the subject Drive must be removed from the subject PC and installed into any other computer that has no StarForce protected products or drivers installed, that has a legal version of operational system and has no third company products installed. StarForce experts have full access to the subject PC for verification of installed software.
Should the subject Drive fail to read or write CD/DVD discs in the second PC, you will be acknowledged the Winner.
FYI, in case you haven't heard about it, there is a quick Javascript fix that allows full-alpha PNGs to work in IE 5.5 and up, not break Mozilla and others, and not affect W3C validation. It's called Sleight. (And while I don't take any credit for the original, you might try using my version of Sleight to allow for Opera users mimicking IE, though remember you still need x.gif.)
The problem is that to determine if there is probable cause for arrest, they're intruding on the privacy of everyone else by searching through databases containing innocent phone conversations and private information. They did not have probable cause to search through this other information. That is where the main issue lies; the privacy and security of everyone is being compromised to seek out the few that have done something wrong.
Step 1: Search for any well-known P2P program (Kazaa, SoulSeek, et al) on Google. Step 2: Click the very top sponsored link. Step 3: Awe at the fact that they're trying to sell it and yet are STILL in business.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of companies that profit on their customers' stupidity.
I suggest anyone who believes that running a polygraph on someone delivers definitive proof of their (lack of) truthfulness read AntiPolygraph.org, specifically The Lie Behind The Lie Detector, which details how a polygraph works and why it doesn't qualify as science in any definition of the term. Granted, the site may be biased but the document does show how someone could beat the polygraph machine rather easily by artificially creating the emotional "tells" on certain questions and avoiding them on others.
Will this machine be any better? It depends how they asked the questions, but it does look like they're using control questions (Have I ever cheated on taxes, or gossiped, or deceived a loved one, where a lie is assumed) and irrelevant questions (Am I awake, is it 2004, do I like movies, which are not scored at all) according to the article. This suggests to me that it will have the same weaknesses, i.e. nervousness and fear play into the equation.
I'd still likely stay out of either machine, whether I was telling the truth or not.
I'd still rather they stood their ground, because now the Chinese government can effectively shift some of its (IMHO evil) workload onto Google, getting them to add new keywords on request and such. That they're open about the fact that the filtering is happening doesn't really fix the image in my head that they're helping the Chinese government prevent certain ideals from reaching Chinese eyes. Plus, I think the Chinese government would receive a huge backlash from blocking Google (as they likely would if they did not comply) that the light it would shed on their censorship activities would be much greater than that of a notice at the bottom of censored searches.
Did it occur to you that maybe they'll do more Good by being a western influence in China than by not being there at all?
No, no it did not. And it still doesn't.
By taking on the filtering themselves, Google is making the statement to Chinese citizens that they support their government's censorship, whereas if they stood their ground and kept the search results uncensored, at least some Chinese citizens using out-of-country proxies would be able to use the search engine to its fullest extent.
You realize, of course, that the type of filtering being done is on anything against the Chinese government's way of thinking, right? In effect, anything to do with democracy and the so-called "western influence" of which you speak. By filtering, Google is taking any "western influence" out of the results. And trust me, if there is a slip, the Chinese government will go after Google to close it, or they will shut off access to the engine.
Google is taking on the responsibility of censorship by agreeing to the Chinese government's demands. That makes them just as evil as the Chinese government by being a willing participant, in my opinion.
We just had a general election here in Canada yesterday. I voted via a paper ballot, which I personally put in the ballot box.
While I'm not against touchscreen (or otherwise) voting, I am against using it until the technology behind it is mission critical reliable.
Software using Microsoft Access is, I would argue by design, not. Access is a general purpose database that is not supposed to be used for large programs, and definitely not by more than five users at a time.
I follow the work of the Open Voting Consortium, because that's what I believe it would take to convince me that it's ready. Access to the source code of the election machines, a paper receipt / trail, and I would also want to see how exactly the election results are tabulated / reported. Diebold, and other related companies working on voting machines, have not yet satisfied my needs for these things, and I doubt they will because they have a vested interest in remaining closed and proprietary (so that governments can't, for example, just download the software's source code and run it on their own machines).
Until then, I applaud my riding, at least, for sticking with good old verifiable paper ballots.
Re:Oblig. Strong Bad
on
IE7 Leaked
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Why is this a troll? Just because someone mentions the D word doesn't mean they're against Slashdot, and even if they were, if they present a good or interesting argument they shouldn't be modded down.
I think it would look a lot better if the stories were simply bullets with a white background. There should be a way to tell if the story is on or in the Mysterious Future though, perhaps red bullets (I believe this can be done in CSS)?
Honestly, having red and grey blocks in the middle of story lists where said blocks are supposed to be for headers, really makes my eyes a bit confused and unable to simply scan down the page. When I saw this last night, I actually didn't want to read through the stories because I was tired and didn't want to have to mentally sort through the blocks.
While I'm one of those people who sees a lot of value in the UN, I have to point out that the US is on the UN Security Council, and can thus veto practically any UN proposal. So I really wouldn't say that they're bound to anything the UN says...
Right now, both the English and German Wikipedias are locked (en semi-locked, de fully locked) and have the full name in the article. It doesn't look like they're doing a lot to stay with the injunction, mostly because filtering every single input and article for the phrase "Boris Floricic" would just be absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
If it were possible, I'd choose option three, but the problem is that it's not! These two companies have a monopoly on their relative level 1 transports, so unless you're talking about launching a satellite (which gives bad latency) or running wireless (which I'll admit is a nice option, but the bandwidth isn't quite there yet), you're stuck being a reseller of their base service.
Good thinking. Except there are two companies that run the high-speed lines here, Rogers and Bell. Ignoring the fact that Bell Sympatico DSL is quite slower than my tier of cable for a moment, what happens if Bell also filters Bittorrent? Are you suggesting that the appropriate course of action then would be to move?
On a more practical note, use port 1720 (used by Rogers' own VoIP digital phone service, so they can't and don't deep packet filter it) and if that doesn't work (remember to restart your client and forward ports accordingly) try BitComet with the encrypted header option. Worked fine for me after a bit of fiddling.
You forgot terrorist.
The "duopoly" approach seems to be everywhere now. You have a choice between X cable provider, and X DSL provider. Nobody else can play at the same scale because they own the lines. So what happens when both companies start doign the same monopolistic grabbings? Under the law, you've got a choice; therefore, you have no leg to stand on.
Does that really make sense?
I think bandwidth needs to be treated as a utility and I'm completely against any sort of artificial limitations because they do absolutely nothing for the customer, they only let the provider have to pay for less, and thus make more money at the customer's expense.
That only really applies if they're looking at the traffic. I would argue that they do indeed have the right to reserve bandwidth for their own applications if and only if they are not a monopoly. If they're not a monopoly, customers can choose another provider. But if they control all the internet traffic in a certain area (i.e. the backbone), then I'd argue they're illegally using that power to gain an advantage in another market, which opens them up to huge antitrust liabilities. (IANAL)
At least, not yet. Napster and many other music stores distribute in DRM'd WMA. Windows Media Player rips CDs in DRM'd WMA by default (and to rip in MP3 you have to install a codec). If MP3 players can't read WMA, a lot of people are going to get annoyed that none of their music will play on their shiny new device, and will return it for this reason.
The solution is that someone needs to make a music store in a non-DRM format (MP3 or OGG). Unfortunately, again, record companies require draconian DRM methods on any files "officially" distributed on the internet. So in the end, what we have here is a network of large companies conspiring to keep newcomers from the market. That almost sounds like antitrust, doesn't it?
Like many others, I don't read Slashdot for the news (though that's nice too), I read it for the discussion.
Apparently software issues don't matter to them.
FYI, in case you haven't heard about it, there is a quick Javascript fix that allows full-alpha PNGs to work in IE 5.5 and up, not break Mozilla and others, and not affect W3C validation. It's called Sleight. (And while I don't take any credit for the original, you might try using my version of Sleight to allow for Opera users mimicking IE, though remember you still need x.gif.)
The problem is that to determine if there is probable cause for arrest, they're intruding on the privacy of everyone else by searching through databases containing innocent phone conversations and private information. They did not have probable cause to search through this other information. That is where the main issue lies; the privacy and security of everyone is being compromised to seek out the few that have done something wrong.
*insert joke about one-handed gaming here*
Step 1: Search for any well-known P2P program (Kazaa, SoulSeek, et al) on Google.
Step 2: Click the very top sponsored link.
Step 3: Awe at the fact that they're trying to sell it and yet are STILL in business.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of companies that profit on their customers' stupidity.
Yes, thank you for that. Adds so much to the discussion.
I suggest anyone who believes that running a polygraph on someone delivers definitive proof of their (lack of) truthfulness read AntiPolygraph.org, specifically The Lie Behind The Lie Detector, which details how a polygraph works and why it doesn't qualify as science in any definition of the term. Granted, the site may be biased but the document does show how someone could beat the polygraph machine rather easily by artificially creating the emotional "tells" on certain questions and avoiding them on others.
Will this machine be any better? It depends how they asked the questions, but it does look like they're using control questions (Have I ever cheated on taxes, or gossiped, or deceived a loved one, where a lie is assumed) and irrelevant questions (Am I awake, is it 2004, do I like movies, which are not scored at all) according to the article. This suggests to me that it will have the same weaknesses, i.e. nervousness and fear play into the equation.
I'd still likely stay out of either machine, whether I was telling the truth or not.
I'd still rather they stood their ground, because now the Chinese government can effectively shift some of its (IMHO evil) workload onto Google, getting them to add new keywords on request and such. That they're open about the fact that the filtering is happening doesn't really fix the image in my head that they're helping the Chinese government prevent certain ideals from reaching Chinese eyes. Plus, I think the Chinese government would receive a huge backlash from blocking Google (as they likely would if they did not comply) that the light it would shed on their censorship activities would be much greater than that of a notice at the bottom of censored searches.
:^P)
(You should post on Slashdot more
Did it occur to you that maybe they'll do more Good by being a western influence in China than by not being there at all?
No, no it did not. And it still doesn't.
By taking on the filtering themselves, Google is making the statement to Chinese citizens that they support their government's censorship, whereas if they stood their ground and kept the search results uncensored, at least some Chinese citizens using out-of-country proxies would be able to use the search engine to its fullest extent.
You realize, of course, that the type of filtering being done is on anything against the Chinese government's way of thinking, right? In effect, anything to do with democracy and the so-called "western influence" of which you speak. By filtering, Google is taking any "western influence" out of the results. And trust me, if there is a slip, the Chinese government will go after Google to close it, or they will shut off access to the engine.
Google is taking on the responsibility of censorship by agreeing to the Chinese government's demands. That makes them just as evil as the Chinese government by being a willing participant, in my opinion.
Doesn't matter, prior art doesn't mean that there has to be a previous patent. If it did, I could patent the wheel.
Prior art!
Which system, Diebold or the Canadian system? If Canadian, I'm definitely willing to believe you.
We just had a general election here in Canada yesterday. I voted via a paper ballot, which I personally put in the ballot box.
While I'm not against touchscreen (or otherwise) voting, I am against using it until the technology behind it is mission critical reliable.
Software using Microsoft Access is, I would argue by design, not. Access is a general purpose database that is not supposed to be used for large programs, and definitely not by more than five users at a time.
I follow the work of the Open Voting Consortium, because that's what I believe it would take to convince me that it's ready. Access to the source code of the election machines, a paper receipt / trail, and I would also want to see how exactly the election results are tabulated / reported. Diebold, and other related companies working on voting machines, have not yet satisfied my needs for these things, and I doubt they will because they have a vested interest in remaining closed and proprietary (so that governments can't, for example, just download the software's source code and run it on their own machines).
Until then, I applaud my riding, at least, for sticking with good old verifiable paper ballots.
And the Compy, just peed my carpet.
Why is this a troll? Just because someone mentions the D word doesn't mean they're against Slashdot, and even if they were, if they present a good or interesting argument they shouldn't be modded down.
I think it would look a lot better if the stories were simply bullets with a white background. There should be a way to tell if the story is on or in the Mysterious Future though, perhaps red bullets (I believe this can be done in CSS)?
Honestly, having red and grey blocks in the middle of story lists where said blocks are supposed to be for headers, really makes my eyes a bit confused and unable to simply scan down the page. When I saw this last night, I actually didn't want to read through the stories because I was tired and didn't want to have to mentally sort through the blocks.
While I'm one of those people who sees a lot of value in the UN, I have to point out that the US is on the UN Security Council, and can thus veto practically any UN proposal. So I really wouldn't say that they're bound to anything the UN says...
Right now, both the English and German Wikipedias are locked (en semi-locked, de fully locked) and have the full name in the article. It doesn't look like they're doing a lot to stay with the injunction, mostly because filtering every single input and article for the phrase "Boris Floricic" would just be absurd.