I really don't understand where all this paranoia is coming from all of a sudden. ISPs are service providers, not content providers. In the cases where they actually provide content, such as New England Cable News (Comcast), they haven't suddenly stopped serving up other local news (your ABCs, NBCs, etc.). As for the internet, well sure, each one of these ISPs seems to have their own web portal, but they haven't blocked access to yahoo or even the websites of other ISPs. Why the heck does everybody think that:
1) ISPs are going to suddenly reverse everything they've ever done before and start blocking competing sites. 2) More companies entering the market (telcos getting into TV) will somehow cause Google Video to stop working. 3) People in the federal government that have no knowledge whatsoever of the technology should be passing net neutrality bills.
Video franchising is relevant because those that would benefit from a change in the law would be laying down fiber optic lines that also provide internet at speeds much higher than most people are used to getting at home. There's already an "internet gap" between the USA and many other industrialized nations, anything to speed up the process of getting companies to lay down fiber optics is good for the consumer.
Currently video franchising is done through local municipalities, except in the few states that have recently passed state-wide video franchises (Texas was the first, but there have been others). That means that in most places, a company like Verizon has to go to each county or town to get a franchise, an expensive and time-consuming process. Ultimately that means that fiber to the home is still many months (if not years) away from getting to a lot of people. And meanwhile cable companies are enjoying their nice virtual monopolies on paid TV services.
If you don't like your job, find a new one. Why spend years of your life in misery? There's no reason why you can't enjoy your work as much as you enjoy the rest of your life. The best way to balance work and home life, is to enjoy both.
It's always the crazy ideas that change the world. Of course not every crazy idea is a good one, and there are thousands of business that have gone under for thinking a little too outside the box. If you look around, there's really only one Amazon, only one Google, only one Apple. Companies that operate in more traditional ways seem to last longer on average, but nowadays they're often not leading things.
What I don't get is why Bill Gates would care either way about when Vista is released. He's already turned over all the day-to-day stuff and is spending his time on charity (which he deserves some credit for, regardless as to how people feel about this company). It's not like he really needs any more money from Vista sales. If I was him, I'd say sure, delay it all you want for whatever reason, just don't bother me about it.
Well that's what I mean. This is all speculation on a not-so-clear quote, but it sounded like that by indexing these websites, it was making these malicious sites available to those who would use them for evil. But again, he was saying that this was not really a concern.
I really have no idea why this was included in the article at all.
It's not really Google that's doing it, it's Websense using a Google tool.
In any case, the only thing I can figure about the quote is that Google indexing these sites helps to spread the malware around. Somebody could type in "l337 hax0rs hax" and end up at a malware site.
The real issue is efficiency at the server level. If your email server was running something like this you'd have protection just as good, but doesn't bog down with the thousands of emails going through it.
Of course servers are getting faster all the time, but the whole point of computer science is to make things work more efficiently regardless of the actual hardware it runs on.
It really is the only way to go. Don't leave all your eggs in one basket. Sooner or later, be it asteroid, disease, out-of-control war, or the sun exploding, the human species will be wiped out if it stays on Earth. Or in our solar system. A species isn't really safe (as safe as it can get) until it's colonized many other star systems and has space stations in deep empty space.
You need more than just a few weapons to destroy the ecosystem. Look at how many nuclear weapons tests we've done since the 40s.
The only way that nuclear war could actually wipe out every single human being would be to use thousands of warheads, all at once, across every landmass. And something like that will not happen so quickly that at least a few people wouldn't get to some bomb shelters deep enough and with enough suplies to outlast the fallout. Sure, you may have only a few thousand people survive (I'd expect far more), and they'd be fairly scattered, but you'd still have some new babies on the way for a while.
Yeah, but then everyone will complain about violence in video games causing violence in the real world. All those gang members will be corrupted by the video game and go out and join a gang!
Here's the NY Times take on this.
Of particular interest is that this move will probably anger the hardware companies that were convinced to use Microsoft's software. Now Microsoft is turning around and competing with them.
While I admit, I've found myself lately wondering what I did with my computer before I had the internet. But I did find myself coming up with a fairly substantial list:
1) Play games. There are tons of games out there that aren't multiplayer, or can be played without internet access. 2) Listen to or create music. 3) Write. Be it for pleasure or work, there's almost always a word processor open on my computer for some reason or another. 4) Code. If I'm writing a program or webpage, I don't usually need net access to do it (for webpage development all files should be local anyway). 5) Watch movies. A Netflix subscription means I almost always have DVDs to watch. 6) Photoshop/3D Graphics. and so on...
While being on irc and AIM and email and surfing the 'net has become a large part of my computing use, I don't *need* an internet connection to use my computer. I'm not an internet addict yet.
Anything that requires a steady reliable internet connection is not going to work, at least not the way things are now. The internet is not as wide-reaching as it needs to be, not as reliable as it should be, and is plagued with far too many security problems.
We don't have any kind of global (or even national) wireless internet access. This means that a laptop with local data and programs will win out in many many places.
Most people aren't on super-reliable guarenteed 99.999% uptime connections. This means there'd be some times when you just can't get your data, again, a normal computer OS wins out.
What happens when a hacker or virus nukes a GoogleOS server farm? Sure, there might be back-ups somewhere, but how many people's lives will get seriously messed up in the meantime?
2) Access to applications and your own data whether at your own PC, in the library or at the airport across the country, without carrying around a laptop.
But that's really the problem with InternetOS. Mobile computing by way of laptops, palmtops, and even cell phones these days is really going to make everything else irrelevant. People don't need an InternetOS, they've already got very powerful computers with them all the time, or will soon. And while some hardware requirements are getting rather extreme, the vast majority of applications don't require all that much hardware. These mobile CPUs that are all over the place these days are more than enough, so take your data with you, offline, and get a much more personal private solution.
I think a lot of people don't trust the internet enough to put their entire computing lives on somebody else's server. People like knowing, even if they don't understand the technology, their files are in that box somewhere. It's a privacy issue to. I still know a lot of people who won't use Gmail because they don't trust Google to read their messages. And what about copyright issues?
Oh good, at least one person is actually talking about the article. Do you have a link to whatever it was you were reading a few days ago?
I should think that 10 years would be enough, assuming capacities keep going up at about the same rate they have been. However, is this is average usage, or heavy? I tend to give my hard drives a pretty heavy workout, and if that cut the time down to 5 years, I'd be pretty upset.
I don't, actually. If somebody wants to give money to terrorists enough, they will undoubtably find a way.
No matter how many tax dollars you throw at the problem, terrorism is a tactic that can not be fully countered.
Exactly. Terrorism is a tactic. You can't fight a war against terrorism any more than you can fight a war against air superiority or naval bombardment. You can discourage it, you can make it ineffectual, you can go after the people who use the tactic, but a tactic is not something you can fight. It always drives me nuts when I hear "war on terror". It should be "war on x group of terrorists", if anything.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't understand where all this paranoia is coming from all of a sudden. ISPs are service providers, not content providers. In the cases where they actually provide content, such as New England Cable News (Comcast), they haven't suddenly stopped serving up other local news (your ABCs, NBCs, etc.). As for the internet, well sure, each one of these ISPs seems to have their own web portal, but they haven't blocked access to yahoo or even the websites of other ISPs. Why the heck does everybody think that:
1) ISPs are going to suddenly reverse everything they've ever done before and start blocking competing sites.
2) More companies entering the market (telcos getting into TV) will somehow cause Google Video to stop working.
3) People in the federal government that have no knowledge whatsoever of the technology should be passing net neutrality bills.
Video franchising is relevant because those that would benefit from a change in the law would be laying down fiber optic lines that also provide internet at speeds much higher than most people are used to getting at home. There's already an "internet gap" between the USA and many other industrialized nations, anything to speed up the process of getting companies to lay down fiber optics is good for the consumer.
Currently video franchising is done through local municipalities, except in the few states that have recently passed state-wide video franchises (Texas was the first, but there have been others). That means that in most places, a company like Verizon has to go to each county or town to get a franchise, an expensive and time-consuming process. Ultimately that means that fiber to the home is still many months (if not years) away from getting to a lot of people. And meanwhile cable companies are enjoying their nice virtual monopolies on paid TV services.
I disagree. A change in video franchising law will permit additional competition in the marketplace.
If you don't like your job, find a new one. Why spend years of your life in misery? There's no reason why you can't enjoy your work as much as you enjoy the rest of your life. The best way to balance work and home life, is to enjoy both.
It's always the crazy ideas that change the world. Of course not every crazy idea is a good one, and there are thousands of business that have gone under for thinking a little too outside the box. If you look around, there's really only one Amazon, only one Google, only one Apple. Companies that operate in more traditional ways seem to last longer on average, but nowadays they're often not leading things.
What I don't get is why Bill Gates would care either way about when Vista is released. He's already turned over all the day-to-day stuff and is spending his time on charity (which he deserves some credit for, regardless as to how people feel about this company). It's not like he really needs any more money from Vista sales. If I was him, I'd say sure, delay it all you want for whatever reason, just don't bother me about it.
Well that's what I mean. This is all speculation on a not-so-clear quote, but it sounded like that by indexing these websites, it was making these malicious sites available to those who would use them for evil. But again, he was saying that this was not really a concern.
I really have no idea why this was included in the article at all.
It's not really Google that's doing it, it's Websense using a Google tool.
In any case, the only thing I can figure about the quote is that Google indexing these sites helps to spread the malware around. Somebody could type in "l337 hax0rs hax" and end up at a malware site.
The real issue is efficiency at the server level. If your email server was running something like this you'd have protection just as good, but doesn't bog down with the thousands of emails going through it.
Of course servers are getting faster all the time, but the whole point of computer science is to make things work more efficiently regardless of the actual hardware it runs on.
It really is the only way to go. Don't leave all your eggs in one basket. Sooner or later, be it asteroid, disease, out-of-control war, or the sun exploding, the human species will be wiped out if it stays on Earth. Or in our solar system. A species isn't really safe (as safe as it can get) until it's colonized many other star systems and has space stations in deep empty space.
You need more than just a few weapons to destroy the ecosystem. Look at how many nuclear weapons tests we've done since the 40s. The only way that nuclear war could actually wipe out every single human being would be to use thousands of warheads, all at once, across every landmass. And something like that will not happen so quickly that at least a few people wouldn't get to some bomb shelters deep enough and with enough suplies to outlast the fallout. Sure, you may have only a few thousand people survive (I'd expect far more), and they'd be fairly scattered, but you'd still have some new babies on the way for a while.
Yeah, but then everyone will complain about violence in video games causing violence in the real world. All those gang members will be corrupted by the video game and go out and join a gang!
What about pwn?
Here's the NY Times take on this. Of particular interest is that this move will probably anger the hardware companies that were convinced to use Microsoft's software. Now Microsoft is turning around and competing with them.
While I admit, I've found myself lately wondering what I did with my computer before I had the internet. But I did find myself coming up with a fairly substantial list:
1) Play games. There are tons of games out there that aren't multiplayer, or can be played without internet access.
2) Listen to or create music.
3) Write. Be it for pleasure or work, there's almost always a word processor open on my computer for some reason or another.
4) Code. If I'm writing a program or webpage, I don't usually need net access to do it (for webpage development all files should be local anyway).
5) Watch movies. A Netflix subscription means I almost always have DVDs to watch.
6) Photoshop/3D Graphics.
and so on...
While being on irc and AIM and email and surfing the 'net has become a large part of my computing use, I don't *need* an internet connection to use my computer. I'm not an internet addict yet.
Does this mean that Apple won't be using Intel chips in their Xseve's for a while?
Anything that requires a steady reliable internet connection is not going to work, at least not the way things are now. The internet is not as wide-reaching as it needs to be, not as reliable as it should be, and is plagued with far too many security problems.
We don't have any kind of global (or even national) wireless internet access. This means that a laptop with local data and programs will win out in many many places.
Most people aren't on super-reliable guarenteed 99.999% uptime connections. This means there'd be some times when you just can't get your data, again, a normal computer OS wins out.
What happens when a hacker or virus nukes a GoogleOS server farm? Sure, there might be back-ups somewhere, but how many people's lives will get seriously messed up in the meantime?
Ah, but then the glorious return of the mythological internet appliance will be at hand!
I think a lot of people don't trust the internet enough to put their entire computing lives on somebody else's server. People like knowing, even if they don't understand the technology, their files are in that box somewhere. It's a privacy issue to. I still know a lot of people who won't use Gmail because they don't trust Google to read their messages. And what about copyright issues?
Because it's better to educate people than leave them in ignorance. That's why we have public education.
This whole thing is a little bit scary. Maybe not cult-scary, but at least wasted-life-scary.
In other news, Electric Sheep Company writes in to slashdot to tell everyone about themselves.
Oh good, at least one person is actually talking about the article. Do you have a link to whatever it was you were reading a few days ago?
I should think that 10 years would be enough, assuming capacities keep going up at about the same rate they have been. However, is this is average usage, or heavy? I tend to give my hard drives a pretty heavy workout, and if that cut the time down to 5 years, I'd be pretty upset.