Bittorrent and most other P2P systems today are designed to avoid having a centralized database, because it was a target.
Uhh, bittorrent does have a 'centralized database' -- it's called a tracker.
Granted, there are some trackerless implementations but bittorrent wasn't "designed" to avoid having a "target". It was designed to efficiently share large files.
Multicast would do wonders on the internet for anything with a high volume.
We see some variation of this thought expressed in every p2p/bandwidth related story but would it actually help that much?
How is multicast going to reduce the bandwidth requirements of video on demand (i.e: Netflix instant view) applications? You request something, the server sends it to you. Unless somebody else is requesting that exact same movie (and requesting it at the exact same time as you) how the hell does multicast help?
It might be useful for live events (think of the Presidential Debates) that are being streamed but I don't think it's a magic bullet that's going to solve all of our bandwidth problems.
But back to your point - in Australia we have random alcohol and drug testing on the roads, and the number of drink drivers has been reduced considerably.
Here in America our law enforcement is supposed to have something called "probable cause" before they have the right to start intruding into your life. In theory anyway. I was bemoaning the loss of that.
9/11 did damage for sure. I'm not belittling that.
No, you aren't. The GP using it to bolster his neo-conservative economic arguments did. I largely agree with most of what you said (particularly the part about selling out our own interests to finance our deficit spending) but I still think his comparison was stupid and deserved scorn.
I'm getting sick and tired of seeing people use 9/11 to bolster completely unrelated arguments and/or confuse the issue at hand. I fail to see how pulling out 9/11 in the middle of an unrelated discussion is any better than pulling out Hitler or the Nazis -- hence my thought that we need a Godwin Law for terrorism/9/11 references.
Otherwise it's like hacking a cable box that was artificially restricting your channel selection, another time-honored and fully illegal activity.
I disagree. If the restrictions on content (you mentioned flash) are built into the iPhone then it's not like "hacking a cable box". If anything it would be similar to replacing a cable box.
If I pull my SIM card out of my iPhone and put it into a more advanced device that is capable of downloading flash then am I also "hacking" them?
3000 in a day is nothing compared to what your governments brings to bear on other nations.. Japan, Indonesia, Somalia
Japan? What exactly are we 'bringing to bear' on Japan?
Please tell me that you aren't going to whine about stuff that happened 60 years ago in a war that we didn't start and actually have something more substantial to offer.
We've currently got a president who the people never elected
I hate Dubya as much as the next guy but he did win 2004 fair and square. In fact he got a majority of the popular vote as I recall (something Clinton never managed to do).
And the electoral college is unnecessary and inherently undemocratic
You realize that the United States is a Republic right?
and in at the very least the last occasion it was both unwarranted and, simply, the wrong decision
Something tells me that the people who voted for Bush probably didn't view it as the "wrong" decision. And what about it was "unwarranted"? That's the way the rules were setup. If you want to blame anybody, blame Al Gore. If he had managed to win his own state or New Hampshire (good job Gore -- how the hell does a Democrat lose a state in New England?) then we wouldn't be having this conversation today. Hell, if he had asked for a statewide recount instead of cherry picking the votes that matter he would have won.
The massive attempts to make Gore look like a whiny bitch worked and distracted all the sheeple away from the reality of what was occurring.
Maybe that's because Gore allowed them to define himself as a 'whiny bitch' and ran a horrible campaign? Kinda like Kerry keeping his mouth shut while being Swift-Boated. We ran two shitty candidates and we lost with razor thin margins both time -- had we managed to run someone better I think it would have turned out quite differently.
Bin Laden has actually done LESS damage in the last ten years, than a single congresscritter in the same timespan.
That's a retarded fucking statement and you know it.
What Congresscritter killed 3,000 Americans, drove a major industry (the airlines) to the breaking point and inflicted billions of dollars of measurable damage (loss of the twin towers) and who knows how much unmeasurable damage? (post 9/11 economic fallout)
As a New Yorker let me be the first to tell you to go fuck yourself for that stupid bombastic comparison. Let me further purpose that we need a Godwin's Law for offtopic terrorism/Al Quada references.
You don't 'become' a yuppie in the same way that you become a parent bringing the kids out to dinner. One can be successful and fairly well off without being a 'yuppie'. Yuppies are the ones that won't let you forget how successful they are and look down upon anyone who isn't living the same lifestyle that they are.
I know lots of well off people that aren't yuppies. I also know some broke people that use credit cards to finance a yuppie lifestyle they can't afford. As with all things ones actions speak louder then ones situation.
Yes. The free WiFi is for your iPhone, which while more usable than most mobile phones is still not the kind of device you're going to camp out with all day at Starbucks. It is not for your keyboard equipped, large screen laptop that AT&T makes no revenue from whatsoever.
And what 'revenue' are they losing if you use a different device then your iPhone to access the network? Aren't they getting paid the same regardless of which device you use? I'd agree that it's stealing if you are entering a buddies iPhone number but you'd be hard pressed to convince me of that if you actually have an iPhone and just want to use a different device with a service that you are already paying for.
and won't bother to sue anyone about it, unless they just feel like being dicks this month.
Hey, I agree with you that it's theft of service, but how would they go about suing/charging people even if they were inclined to do so? Logs on the Access Points? What are those going to reveal besides the MAC address of the users wireless card?
Unless someone is stupid enough to use their own iPhone number I really don't see how AT&T would go about tracking them down. And no, that doesn't justify stealing their service -- though is it really 'stealing' if you actually have an iPhone and are presumably paying for the service through that?
The problem is that alcohol as a factor can mean that a pedestrian who had a beer got hit by a sober driver.
Maybe we should get together and start MADW? Mothers Against Drunk Walking. We can lobby our elected officials to pass an implied consent law for the usage of sidewalks -- after all, walking is a privilege and not a right....;)
Insanity. My parents let me drink gin & tonics in the house starting around 15, and I turned out all right.
Hey I agree with you and my kids will be introduced to wine at a fairly young age (compared to most other American households) -- was just pointing out the fact that it's not a "risk-free" activity, even in the states with exceptions for parents in their homes.
So, dozens of officers erect these 4 hour gestapo roadblocks, employing their new-found right to search every driver, and come up with 2 drivers per hundred driving drunk.
Yeah, but I bet they also busted someone for pot possession during those four hours. Clearly any success in the War on Drugs is worth it;)
This map seems to suggest otherwise. There are at least a few states where there is no "parental exception". You also run the risk of bringing CPS (child protective services or whatever your state's equivalent is) down on you even if you are in a state with a legal exception -- you think the teacher at school isn't going to call them if your kid lets slip the fact that you let him have some wine with dinner? Hell, I seem to recall a news story a few years back about some parents from Europe living in the US that got into trouble with the local CPS for doing exactly that.
Like Jack Thompson, you're making your position seem ridiculous, and thereby not helping the cause at all.
That's not a fair comparison. Even if the GP weren't 100% accurate, he made his statements in good faith and didn't resort to the typical FUD that the likes of Jack Thompson uses.
Instead of arguing with MADD solicitors, I just slur out the following: "Hold on, it's hard for me talk and drive at the same time, especially after I've had a few. OH SHIT!...I'll call you back."
Nice! You just made my friends list.
That reminds me of the last time that I had religious proselytizers show up at my house. Answered the door and saw a whole family of them -- first question they asked me "Have you seen God?". My response: "Nope, but my girlfriend kept screaming his name last night, so I think she did", whereupon Grandma put her hands over the little kids ears, Dad said "Thank you for your time" and they never came back to my house ever again;)
I'm going to hell.
Yep. First one there has to pay for the first round of drinks;)
Framing debates around whether an opinion or practice is or is not "American" really just obscures the issue.
I don't think I "framed" the debate around that single observation. My intent was to frame the debate around MADD's neo-prohibitionist activities. My observation of those activities led me to conclude that they support policies that I don't consider to be particularly American -- like police roadblocks and warrantless search and seizure.
If that observation "obscured" the issue then I apologize. I don't think it did but I can see how someone would draw that conclusion.
Perhaps a more suitable solution would be a Breathalyzer key locker required for pubs and restaurants who wish to carry a liquor license. If you order more than one drink you give up your keys to the locker, if you want them back you have to blow for them. Then the cops could patrol a wider area instead of hanging outside bars like hookers looking for cash.
That's a really dumb idea. What happens if I tell them that I walked to the bar and don't have my keys with me? Are they going to physically search me to make sure I'm not lying? And why should the bar owner have to assume responsibility for my actions?
There are some people that can't hold their liquor. A (lame) temperance union can show them that there's a path through life without alcohol. Think of it as a more active AlAnon, with picket signs; it keeps the members energized and focused on not drinking (which may very well be a good thing for society in general).
I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with it when they start trying to interfere with my right to consume alcohol -- a tradition that has been a part of humanity for thousands of years.
You want to get together in a group and hold hands and tell everyone that your an alcoholic then all the power to you. If you want to get together with a group and start trying to pass laws that interfere with my safe enjoyment of alcohol (or anything for that matter) then I'm going to oppose you.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhh, bittorrent does have a 'centralized database' -- it's called a tracker.
Granted, there are some trackerless implementations but bittorrent wasn't "designed" to avoid having a "target". It was designed to efficiently share large files.
No, but latency might be useful in trying to figure out which peer is closer to you on the network.
We see some variation of this thought expressed in every p2p/bandwidth related story but would it actually help that much?
How is multicast going to reduce the bandwidth requirements of video on demand (i.e: Netflix instant view) applications? You request something, the server sends it to you. Unless somebody else is requesting that exact same movie (and requesting it at the exact same time as you) how the hell does multicast help?
It might be useful for live events (think of the Presidential Debates) that are being streamed but I don't think it's a magic bullet that's going to solve all of our bandwidth problems.
Here in America our law enforcement is supposed to have something called "probable cause" before they have the right to start intruding into your life. In theory anyway. I was bemoaning the loss of that.
No, you aren't. The GP using it to bolster his neo-conservative economic arguments did. I largely agree with most of what you said (particularly the part about selling out our own interests to finance our deficit spending) but I still think his comparison was stupid and deserved scorn.
I'm getting sick and tired of seeing people use 9/11 to bolster completely unrelated arguments and/or confuse the issue at hand. I fail to see how pulling out 9/11 in the middle of an unrelated discussion is any better than pulling out Hitler or the Nazis -- hence my thought that we need a Godwin Law for terrorism/9/11 references.
Violating your service agreement != theft of service. It's cause for them to terminate your service if they find out but is it criminal? Doubtful.
That's cost effective.
As the Libertarians say, "Pro-choice in everything".Is that why Ron Paul supports a woman's right to choose? Oh wait......
I disagree. If the restrictions on content (you mentioned flash) are built into the iPhone then it's not like "hacking a cable box". If anything it would be similar to replacing a cable box.
If I pull my SIM card out of my iPhone and put it into a more advanced device that is capable of downloading flash then am I also "hacking" them?
Japan? What exactly are we 'bringing to bear' on Japan?
Please tell me that you aren't going to whine about stuff that happened 60 years ago in a war that we didn't start and actually have something more substantial to offer.
I hate Dubya as much as the next guy but he did win 2004 fair and square. In fact he got a majority of the popular vote as I recall (something Clinton never managed to do).
And the electoral college is unnecessary and inherently undemocraticYou realize that the United States is a Republic right?
and in at the very least the last occasion it was both unwarranted and, simply, the wrong decisionSomething tells me that the people who voted for Bush probably didn't view it as the "wrong" decision. And what about it was "unwarranted"? That's the way the rules were setup. If you want to blame anybody, blame Al Gore. If he had managed to win his own state or New Hampshire (good job Gore -- how the hell does a Democrat lose a state in New England?) then we wouldn't be having this conversation today. Hell, if he had asked for a statewide recount instead of cherry picking the votes that matter he would have won.
The massive attempts to make Gore look like a whiny bitch worked and distracted all the sheeple away from the reality of what was occurring.Maybe that's because Gore allowed them to define himself as a 'whiny bitch' and ran a horrible campaign? Kinda like Kerry keeping his mouth shut while being Swift-Boated. We ran two shitty candidates and we lost with razor thin margins both time -- had we managed to run someone better I think it would have turned out quite differently.
That's a retarded fucking statement and you know it.
What Congresscritter killed 3,000 Americans, drove a major industry (the airlines) to the breaking point and inflicted billions of dollars of measurable damage (loss of the twin towers) and who knows how much unmeasurable damage? (post 9/11 economic fallout)
As a New Yorker let me be the first to tell you to go fuck yourself for that stupid bombastic comparison. Let me further purpose that we need a Godwin's Law for offtopic terrorism/Al Quada references.
Before I became one
You don't 'become' a yuppie in the same way that you become a parent bringing the kids out to dinner. One can be successful and fairly well off without being a 'yuppie'. Yuppies are the ones that won't let you forget how successful they are and look down upon anyone who isn't living the same lifestyle that they are.
I know lots of well off people that aren't yuppies. I also know some broke people that use credit cards to finance a yuppie lifestyle they can't afford. As with all things ones actions speak louder then ones situation.
And what 'revenue' are they losing if you use a different device then your iPhone to access the network? Aren't they getting paid the same regardless of which device you use? I'd agree that it's stealing if you are entering a buddies iPhone number but you'd be hard pressed to convince me of that if you actually have an iPhone and just want to use a different device with a service that you are already paying for.
Hey, I agree with you that it's theft of service, but how would they go about suing/charging people even if they were inclined to do so? Logs on the Access Points? What are those going to reveal besides the MAC address of the users wireless card?
Unless someone is stupid enough to use their own iPhone number I really don't see how AT&T would go about tracking them down. And no, that doesn't justify stealing their service -- though is it really 'stealing' if you actually have an iPhone and are presumably paying for the service through that?
You realize that IPSec can encapsulate itself into UDP packets, right? In fact this is the primary mode of operation for clients stuck behind NAT.
Next time you might want to fire up Wireshark before you open your mouth. Or read this.
Maybe we should get together and start MADW? Mothers Against Drunk Walking. We can lobby our elected officials to pass an implied consent law for the usage of sidewalks -- after all, walking is a privilege and not a right.... ;)
Agreed.
That's what brownies are for ;)
Hey I agree with you and my kids will be introduced to wine at a fairly young age (compared to most other American households) -- was just pointing out the fact that it's not a "risk-free" activity, even in the states with exceptions for parents in their homes.
Yeah, but I bet they also busted someone for pot possession during those four hours. Clearly any success in the War on Drugs is worth it ;)
This map seems to suggest otherwise. There are at least a few states where there is no "parental exception". You also run the risk of bringing CPS (child protective services or whatever your state's equivalent is) down on you even if you are in a state with a legal exception -- you think the teacher at school isn't going to call them if your kid lets slip the fact that you let him have some wine with dinner? Hell, I seem to recall a news story a few years back about some parents from Europe living in the US that got into trouble with the local CPS for doing exactly that.
Like Jack Thompson, you're making your position seem ridiculous, and thereby not helping the cause at all.That's not a fair comparison. Even if the GP weren't 100% accurate, he made his statements in good faith and didn't resort to the typical FUD that the likes of Jack Thompson uses.
Nice! You just made my friends list.
That reminds me of the last time that I had religious proselytizers show up at my house. Answered the door and saw a whole family of them -- first question they asked me "Have you seen God?". My response: "Nope, but my girlfriend kept screaming his name last night, so I think she did", whereupon Grandma put her hands over the little kids ears, Dad said "Thank you for your time" and they never came back to my house ever again ;)
I'm going to hell.Yep. First one there has to pay for the first round of drinks ;)
I don't think I "framed" the debate around that single observation. My intent was to frame the debate around MADD's neo-prohibitionist activities. My observation of those activities led me to conclude that they support policies that I don't consider to be particularly American -- like police roadblocks and warrantless search and seizure.
If that observation "obscured" the issue then I apologize. I don't think it did but I can see how someone would draw that conclusion.
That's a really dumb idea. What happens if I tell them that I walked to the bar and don't have my keys with me? Are they going to physically search me to make sure I'm not lying? And why should the bar owner have to assume responsibility for my actions?
I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with it when they start trying to interfere with my right to consume alcohol -- a tradition that has been a part of humanity for thousands of years.
You want to get together in a group and hold hands and tell everyone that your an alcoholic then all the power to you. If you want to get together with a group and start trying to pass laws that interfere with my safe enjoyment of alcohol (or anything for that matter) then I'm going to oppose you.