Because the shaped packets coming from Comcast will get to the application more promptly than regular traffic. Traffic generated outside of Comcast will still take half of forever to arrive, if they arrive at all.
From your link..."A good meta-analysis of badly designed studies will still result in bad statistics." That's my biggest problem, there's no indication that the studies they used have any value. Since the premise is, possibly, flawed, the entire meta-study is flawed.
They basically came to a conclusion based on reviewing studies. There's no clear indication whether the studies were cherry-picked for one reason or another (like, say, anti-video game being a safe bandwagon to appeal for funding). There's also the question of whether the studies that they read were conducted scientifically.
I don't think he's got a shot at really getting elected, but of all the candidates he seems to be the most likely to stand up for Constitutional rights. Second to him is, for Internet privacy at least, is possibly Obama. I don't think Obama can stay away from the pull of Hollywood and various *AA's to maintain full Internet privacy though.
The rest either don't care so much about the Constitution or are so far in the pockets of special interests that the only thing I can be sure of is that it's going to continue being a bumpy ride for the next four years.
It doesn't sound like the anonymity of the prize set was broken through any fault of NetFlix. It sounds like some sampling of users made the mistake of rating movies on a site where the info is publicly available, and a site where it's not. All they did was correlate the two.
So the lesson is, basically, don't post stuff that you don't want to be public to a website that makes it public, right? This is sounds roughly like blaming the DMV for figuring out a car owners likely political leanings by the bumper stickers on their car.
Should've taken the 90 days when he could, it sounds like. With all his antics, I think a disbarment is pretty much in the cards. The biggest question is, and I don't know enough about the process to know whether this could happen, if he can get accepted into the bar anyplace else.
Seriously, what's the upside to a datacenter in Irkutsk?
The upside is you throw a lot of money at a country that's recently stepped up anti-piracy efforts (albeit biased against dissidents), thus getting a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" arrangement. Microsoft helps boost the Russian economy, possibly even throwing extra money to help offset "improvement costs" in the area, and Russia continues to make sure those nasty pirates stay away (at least the pirates engaging in double-plus ungood speech).
But then again, I am pretty cynical when it comes to money and politics.
Don't pirate software is one thing. And I'd be willing to bet they didn't intend to pirate software. Hiring enough of an IT staff to be sure you stay in compliance, and that won't bend to pressure to "just get a system up and running" before they've licensed the software (or stay after it enough to make sure you do get the license soon after) is another option. The bottom line is that most small companies won't do it. I'd be willing to bet that most businesses that pirate software in the States aren't intending to pirate software. It's the odd install of Office on a new machine to get it on someones desk, or installing XP back over Vista on your new machine because the software you need won't run on Vista (and you don't know that, in some cases, you can trade "down" to XP).
But it's true to form to only point out he's got some level of ownership when there's negative publicity. In the same way every negative story about Microsoft is going to include Bill Gates or Steve Ballmers name...regardless of whether they had anything to do with it. Positive stories (there are bound to be some, right?) don't include their names unless there's a direct quote from them. You can't continue to paint someone as evil unless you continually bring up their name in negative articles.
I do a pretty good job, mostly, of keeping what I do in my off-hours seperate from what I do during work hours. About the only thing that might come up if they searched for my name would be some tech notes, and possibly some interaction with vendors on bug submissions and fixes. But even the interaction with vendors tends to be layered under NDAs, so (ideally) wouldn't be available to just anyone anyway.
In my opinion, searching for a name is likely to be a waste of time. There's not a guarantee you'll come up with anything valid...and a fair chance you won't come up with much at all.
Yes, they did. In the SP 1 white paper. They talk a lot about some of the specific improvements, and are sort of vague on exactly why there'd be an overall performance increase. They certainly give the impression it would improve overall performance.
Microsoft has all but given up on Vista. A lot of corporate customers are going to sit it out and wait for the next iteration of the OS to come out. People who have it generally aren't that impressed, at least among the family and friends I've spoken to about it (not a large sample set, I'll grant you). Vista is the new ME, the sooner it dies and MS dumps it the better off we'll all be.
It's pretty explicit in the complaint that the failing system is a Xbox 360. Maybe the people at Kotaku figured everybody reading the article would know that the guy was trying it on a 360, so they didn't explicitly state it in their summary.
I agree it's a horrible idea to have on by default... But it's not completely useless. Geo-location will get you to the proper building, but an audible beeping might help people find you under rubble, or find which room you're in if you're in a smoke filled building.
But it should definitely be something that YOU choose to do, having it on by default is asking for trouble.
How can anyone with two brain cels to rub together cast a vote for either Democrats or Republicans?
Perhaps you haven't been following voter turn-out trends. Most people aren't voting for Democrats or Republicans. They're staying home. Congress's approval ratings are in the toilet. Citizens aren't happy with their elected officials. People are screaming at their representatives when they do something stupid. But we haven't gotten to the point where we psychically stop bills before they start. Only when it's presented can we voice our continuing displeasure, and wait for a new election cycle.
But not being restricted by the people they've partnered with. If they have the rights to the spectrum free and clear of entanglements from other companies, they aren't limited to a single carrier (or group of carriers) for their offerings. They also have a bit more freedom to play around in the sandbox. Likely the companies they've worked with in the past will get some preferential treatment, but it allows Google to have ultimate control (well, except for the FCC of course).
You want something missing off that list that's rapidly becoming a pet peeve? How about the removal of serial ports on a lot of machines? Need to configure a switch, just plug in your serial...oh crap!
Need a system to run a debug session of a crashing server/workstation? Just plug in your...d'oh!
Apple did something wrong. Admits they did something wrong and paid fines. Shareholders didn't technically lose money, so they can't sue for compensation for the wrongdoing.
You'd think the shareholders would've figure out whether they actually lost money before bringing the suit. Or waited for the volatile market to drop some so they would be losing some money arguably due to the backdating, and then sued.
Now this company might actually have some standing to say their product is being blocked.
Think about the grander scheme though. Vuze comes out discussing Comcast having, essentially, hampered the service for all users of the service. Remember, Comcast isn't throttling the bandwidth, they're shaping packets to drop connections on both ends of the pipe...Comcast customers and non-Comcast customers. If someone that participated in a service with, oh...let's say 9.3 million subscribers with each individual being able to prove that Comcast is likely to be impairing their ability to use a service provided by a third party... Vuze probably isn't suing because they don't have the revenue to sustain a lawsuit. Other companies do.
It would be in Comcast's best interest to stop now. Since that's not likely, it'll be interesting to see what some intelligent lobbying and/or lawyering can get done.
As pointed out in the article, they're killing two birds with one stone. They get to appear more pro-active against piracy after all the requests from Western governments to try to stop piracy, and they get to silence critics. Criticism from Western governments could be met with appeals for funding if they want them to come up with a better way to stop piracy. Speaking of money, there might be some money changing hands from major software vendors to support anti-piracy measures.
And don't forget the "Good news, we just made your application/database/whatever accessible to the everybody!"
I've seen a number of things cobbled together just to get a department or company through something that suddenly become available to a lot more people than the original target audience. It's a good argument for never taking short cuts when you're programming, but I'm sure there are a lot of people that have gotten something out on a deadline only to turn around and look at it later and say "What came over me to do it that way?"
Just because you CAN do something, it doesn't mean you SHOULD do something. I'm sure (or would like to believe) there was a spirited, well thought out debate on ethical issues, complete with people from all sides participating. I can't read the article to be sure because it appears to have been slashdotted.
I believe we're no longer allowed to refer to them as "kill" switches, there's an obvious implication of violence. We have to refer to them as unpower switches.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the shaped packets coming from Comcast will get to the application more promptly than regular traffic. Traffic generated outside of Comcast will still take half of forever to arrive, if they arrive at all.
From your link..."A good meta-analysis of badly designed studies will still result in bad statistics." That's my biggest problem, there's no indication that the studies they used have any value. Since the premise is, possibly, flawed, the entire meta-study is flawed.
They basically came to a conclusion based on reviewing studies. There's no clear indication whether the studies were cherry-picked for one reason or another (like, say, anti-video game being a safe bandwagon to appeal for funding). There's also the question of whether the studies that they read were conducted scientifically.
Of all the times to need mod points... This is among the most sensational, FUD filled summaries I've seen on /., and that's saying a lot.
I don't think he's got a shot at really getting elected, but of all the candidates he seems to be the most likely to stand up for Constitutional rights. Second to him is, for Internet privacy at least, is possibly Obama. I don't think Obama can stay away from the pull of Hollywood and various *AA's to maintain full Internet privacy though.
The rest either don't care so much about the Constitution or are so far in the pockets of special interests that the only thing I can be sure of is that it's going to continue being a bumpy ride for the next four years.
It doesn't sound like the anonymity of the prize set was broken through any fault of NetFlix. It sounds like some sampling of users made the mistake of rating movies on a site where the info is publicly available, and a site where it's not. All they did was correlate the two.
So the lesson is, basically, don't post stuff that you don't want to be public to a website that makes it public, right? This is sounds roughly like blaming the DMV for figuring out a car owners likely political leanings by the bumper stickers on their car.
Should've taken the 90 days when he could, it sounds like. With all his antics, I think a disbarment is pretty much in the cards. The biggest question is, and I don't know enough about the process to know whether this could happen, if he can get accepted into the bar anyplace else.
Seriously, what's the upside to a datacenter in Irkutsk?
The upside is you throw a lot of money at a country that's recently stepped up anti-piracy efforts (albeit biased against dissidents), thus getting a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" arrangement. Microsoft helps boost the Russian economy, possibly even throwing extra money to help offset "improvement costs" in the area, and Russia continues to make sure those nasty pirates stay away (at least the pirates engaging in double-plus ungood speech).
But then again, I am pretty cynical when it comes to money and politics.
Don't pirate software is one thing. And I'd be willing to bet they didn't intend to pirate software. Hiring enough of an IT staff to be sure you stay in compliance, and that won't bend to pressure to "just get a system up and running" before they've licensed the software (or stay after it enough to make sure you do get the license soon after) is another option. The bottom line is that most small companies won't do it. I'd be willing to bet that most businesses that pirate software in the States aren't intending to pirate software. It's the odd install of Office on a new machine to get it on someones desk, or installing XP back over Vista on your new machine because the software you need won't run on Vista (and you don't know that, in some cases, you can trade "down" to XP).
But it's true to form to only point out he's got some level of ownership when there's negative publicity. In the same way every negative story about Microsoft is going to include Bill Gates or Steve Ballmers name...regardless of whether they had anything to do with it. Positive stories (there are bound to be some, right?) don't include their names unless there's a direct quote from them. You can't continue to paint someone as evil unless you continually bring up their name in negative articles.
Because whoever tagged it like that lives in Russia and rather likes not being imprisoned, possibly.
I do a pretty good job, mostly, of keeping what I do in my off-hours seperate from what I do during work hours. About the only thing that might come up if they searched for my name would be some tech notes, and possibly some interaction with vendors on bug submissions and fixes. But even the interaction with vendors tends to be layered under NDAs, so (ideally) wouldn't be available to just anyone anyway.
In my opinion, searching for a name is likely to be a waste of time. There's not a guarantee you'll come up with anything valid...and a fair chance you won't come up with much at all.
Yes, they did. In the SP 1 white paper. They talk a lot about some of the specific improvements, and are sort of vague on exactly why there'd be an overall performance increase. They certainly give the impression it would improve overall performance.
Microsoft has all but given up on Vista. A lot of corporate customers are going to sit it out and wait for the next iteration of the OS to come out. People who have it generally aren't that impressed, at least among the family and friends I've spoken to about it (not a large sample set, I'll grant you). Vista is the new ME, the sooner it dies and MS dumps it the better off we'll all be.
It's pretty explicit in the complaint that the failing system is a Xbox 360. Maybe the people at Kotaku figured everybody reading the article would know that the guy was trying it on a 360, so they didn't explicitly state it in their summary.
I agree it's a horrible idea to have on by default... But it's not completely useless. Geo-location will get you to the proper building, but an audible beeping might help people find you under rubble, or find which room you're in if you're in a smoke filled building.
But it should definitely be something that YOU choose to do, having it on by default is asking for trouble.
How can anyone with two brain cels to rub together cast a vote for either Democrats or Republicans?
Perhaps you haven't been following voter turn-out trends. Most people aren't voting for Democrats or Republicans. They're staying home. Congress's approval ratings are in the toilet. Citizens aren't happy with their elected officials. People are screaming at their representatives when they do something stupid. But we haven't gotten to the point where we psychically stop bills before they start. Only when it's presented can we voice our continuing displeasure, and wait for a new election cycle.
But not being restricted by the people they've partnered with. If they have the rights to the spectrum free and clear of entanglements from other companies, they aren't limited to a single carrier (or group of carriers) for their offerings. They also have a bit more freedom to play around in the sandbox. Likely the companies they've worked with in the past will get some preferential treatment, but it allows Google to have ultimate control (well, except for the FCC of course).
You want something missing off that list that's rapidly becoming a pet peeve? How about the removal of serial ports on a lot of machines? Need to configure a switch, just plug in your serial...oh crap!
Need a system to run a debug session of a crashing server/workstation? Just plug in your...d'oh!
Apple did something wrong. Admits they did something wrong and paid fines. Shareholders didn't technically lose money, so they can't sue for compensation for the wrongdoing.
You'd think the shareholders would've figure out whether they actually lost money before bringing the suit. Or waited for the volatile market to drop some so they would be losing some money arguably due to the backdating, and then sued.
Now this company might actually have some standing to say their product is being blocked.
Think about the grander scheme though. Vuze comes out discussing Comcast having, essentially, hampered the service for all users of the service. Remember, Comcast isn't throttling the bandwidth, they're shaping packets to drop connections on both ends of the pipe...Comcast customers and non-Comcast customers. If someone that participated in a service with, oh...let's say 9.3 million subscribers with each individual being able to prove that Comcast is likely to be impairing their ability to use a service provided by a third party... Vuze probably isn't suing because they don't have the revenue to sustain a lawsuit. Other companies do.
It would be in Comcast's best interest to stop now. Since that's not likely, it'll be interesting to see what some intelligent lobbying and/or lawyering can get done.
As pointed out in the article, they're killing two birds with one stone. They get to appear more pro-active against piracy after all the requests from Western governments to try to stop piracy, and they get to silence critics. Criticism from Western governments could be met with appeals for funding if they want them to come up with a better way to stop piracy. Speaking of money, there might be some money changing hands from major software vendors to support anti-piracy measures.
And don't forget the "Good news, we just made your application/database/whatever accessible to the everybody!"
I've seen a number of things cobbled together just to get a department or company through something that suddenly become available to a lot more people than the original target audience. It's a good argument for never taking short cuts when you're programming, but I'm sure there are a lot of people that have gotten something out on a deadline only to turn around and look at it later and say "What came over me to do it that way?"
Just because you CAN do something, it doesn't mean you SHOULD do something. I'm sure (or would like to believe) there was a spirited, well thought out debate on ethical issues, complete with people from all sides participating. I can't read the article to be sure because it appears to have been slashdotted.
I believe we're no longer allowed to refer to them as "kill" switches, there's an obvious implication of violence. We have to refer to them as unpower switches.
Thankfully I'm not serious...yet.