This is absurd. It's no answer at all to say that either is good, and neither is bad. Yes, because every person in every situation ever is ideally served by a single ceiling height from now until ever. Don't bump your head when you stand up.
Primarily, on basic logic: Arguing ad hominem against Kucinich doesn't address the factual basis for anything he asserted. A person can be "marginal", biased, or possessive of any character or intellectual flaw and still by circumstance alone present truthful arguments.
Prove his arguments wrong, or get out of the debate.
Secondly, it's really ironic that you want your audience to "consider the source" while presenting as evidence an article crafted by Dana Milbank. Consider the source indeed...
First, let me say, "Well put." You've got a very insightful perspective on the topic.
That said...
So what's the attraction to going backwards to putting Big Brother in charge again? It boils down to an equation with resources, time, desire and effort on one side and benefit on the other.
For example, you posted a comment to/. on this article, using some amount of your computing & network resources (measurable in $) desire, time and effort to get the benefit of access to a fairly large, reasonably interested audience for your post. What amount of resources, desire, time and effort would it take to reach the same audience with the same comment if you posted it as a blog entry on your personal internet-connected computer and just externally linked the original/. summary that prompted it? You could conceivably host a popular enough blog, but it would take money for a beefy server and robust connectivity, plus administration time and effort, accompanied by the desire to accomplish all that--but it would be a supremely difficult task.
Likewise, we all may have more freedom, privacy, administrative control, access and choices if we hosted our own content servers and email servers at home, but it comes at the cost of the equipment, connectivity, time, and ease of effort.
Having your data on someone else's server, with its security only as good as the least honest person with access to the server? Having no choice over the software you use every day and being dependent on the choices, preference s and whims of the person running the server ("What? You preferred Emacs? Sorry, now you're using vi.")? Having to look at ads all day long so that you don't have to pay for software? Generally, this list of woes would get subtracted from the benefit side. Security, specifically though, is not a simple to weigh as you assert here. It's true, by using someone else's service you're trusting their security. However, the security of personally hosted service is only as good as your own abilities and diligence. For many people, the least honest external admin is still the much better option.
All these things that are supposed to be so much hipper like IMAP and googlapps just give your control over your data to someone else blindly on faith that they are trustworthy. What a crock! Do you trust your financial, insurance and healthcare providers to protect your data? Based on what?
To get this out of the way: the personal insults are a waste of your time and effort. I don't give even the slightest crap about your personal opinion of me. I just barely care enough about the technical discussion to continue this at all.
Also, if you'd stop trying to get your snark on long enough to read my posts properly, you would see that we disagree about some fine points in a fairly large swath of agreement.
Which I was not, since clearly there are major domains where "domain.com" and "www.domain.com" are not one and the same.
On this we simply disagree to the degree of commonality. That's it. You say "many", and I say "few".
Specifically, you said:
in many configurations (specially large, multi-lingual sites) that is not true.
And I said:
Second, you are correct, it is technically possible that "http://www.example.com" and "http://example.com" serve different content. Clueful folks don't set things up that way.
Third, if "http://example.com" responds to HTTP GETs, it DOES usually serve the same content as "http://www.example.com", so you're probably being pedantic for little reason. Your assertion that the opposite is common isn't my experience at all.
Moving on:
Since my position was only that such sites do exist, existence of even one example is sufficient.
Your position was that many such sites exist. So one example is not sufficient to prove your argument. I suspect that proving "many" is untenable, but feel free to try.
Again, you tried to concoct some fake "evidence" in support of the various strawmen you have created by escaping a telnet session and hoping I won't notice. And then called the process of such fakery and pretense a "sound technical methodology".
Sigh. The whole *point* of the escaped telnet session was to show you that the 2LD hosts didn't reply to HTTP GETs. Since that was my whole point, your assertion that I tried to hide it is just bizarre.
And regarding methodology, please explain how displaying different A records for the honda.com 2LD and its "www" host proved anything regarding what HTTP content they each served. Talk about fakery and pretense.
You are losing it. My point is up there at the top of this thread, well above your rant. One would hope you did notice that this establishes the precedence quite clearly.
Are you talking about that nonsensical ramble regarding virtual hosting? There's nothing coherent enough in that post to discuss, much less debate. My only reply to it would be, "What the hell does virtual-hosting have to do with whether there's matching DNS A records for a 2LD and it's 'www' host?"
Since the obvious answer is, "Very f'ing little," I didn't bother.
Err, you quoted yourself again, clearly hoping that by repeating your nonsense over and over you will somehow give it more weight. I do understand that you like the sound of your own voice and reading of your own scribblings but I have to break the sad news to you: neither does constitute "contextually relevant".
I quoted back sections of our discussion in a manner that left their context intact. And since you're either purposefullly or circumstantially obtuse, I had to repeat it several times.
1) Unless the 2LD has NS records for "www", it's a host--not a 3LD. Usually it's a host.
Something I never denied but which would never stop you from manufacturing such a wonderful strawman out of. [snip rant]
Christ man, a simple, "Sorry, I misspoke," would do.
2) Usually a responsive webserver fronting a 2LD responds with the same content as the "www" host for that 2LD.
More straw for men of straw. You do love them so. Remember, before you showed up to burn straw, I only claimed that "domain.com" and "www.domain.com" are not always one and the same.
Then you tried to defend your position, but instead provided an example of a case I explicitly covered already.
So I pointed that out to you, using sound technical methodology.
Then you repeated my own point back to me, claiming it as your own.
Then I pointed that out to you, using exact and contextually relavent quotes from our previous exchanges.
Finally, the last threads of sanity left you flailing crazily at me, rather than at any point that I've made.
Here's the salient facts:
1) Unless the 2LD has NS records for "www", it's a host--not a 3LD. Usually it's a host. 2) Usually a responsive webserver fronting a 2LD responds with the same content as the "www" host for that 2LD. 3) Your example didn't contradict (1) or (2) above. 4) Your original claim--that (2) is untrue is itself the falsehood. 5) You hate being proven wrong so much it makes you irrational. That's pathetic.
You are such a phony. Oh? How so?
164.109.25.194 responds to telnet on 80 but it does not serve any web pages (which is clearly visible from your own "rebuttal" where you are bailing out with the telnet escape sequence after it timed out on you). Pretty much my exact point.
I told you that 2LD name resolutions that reply to HTTP GETs usually reply with the same content as the "www" host in the 2LD, IF they respond to HTTP GETs at all.
Your example failed the "if" clause and my test indicated that. You confirmed it by duplicating my test and results. Thanks!
Show the complete HTTP sequence. Or even get an HTTP error 400 to your request like you got with the actual honda site. I showed the complete input and output of the only test connections I tried.
207.130.95.62 persistently times out even connecting, which you made sure to avoid showing Again, I showed you everything from my tests. What rhetorical advantage would I gain from hiding another case that just proves my point more completely?
Third, if "http://example.com" responds to HTTP GETs, it DOES usually serve the same content as "http://www.example.com"... Neither of the honda.com hosts is actually hosting a viable HTTP service Exactly. See how you failed to contradict me?
The GP is insinuating that one can "always" go to the 2nd level domain instead to its "www" sub-domain and get to the website...
First, "www" is (usually) a hostname in a (sub)domain, not a subdomain itself.
Second, you are correct, it is technically possible that "http://www.example.com" and "http://example.com" serve different content. Clueful folks don't set things up that way.
Third, if "http://example.com" responds to HTTP GETs, it DOES usually serve the same content as "http://www.example.com", so you're probably being pedantic for little reason. Your assertion that the opposite is common isn't my experience at all.
Fourth, your replies obfusicate a few unrelated underlying technical concepts. You jump from using DNS for HTTP server name resolution, drop quickly through virtual hosting and land on serving dynamic content via client-side scripting--all at the high cost of context and clarity.
Fifth, on your freefall through all those concepts you implied that large multilingual sites are more prone to respond differently to "http://example.com" and "http://www.example.com". My years of (still purely anecdotal) experience indicate the exact opposite is true. Large sites with mult-national appeal tend to be better executed.
Sorry for the late reply. I've been on a beach for a week.
Anyway, I didn't perceive the OP as making a point so much as asking a question. I answered the question.
Yes, in a strictly theoretical context, every ISP could try to shake down every content provider for money in exchange for non-choked access to end user eyeballs. No, it's not a foregone conclusion in a non-neutral world, much less even operationally reasonable.
Since unidirectional communication is rarely useful, I'm against the idea that networks charge network access providers for data that their own directly connected and directly billed customers seek from content providers.
One thing I'm confused on... is IF the ISPs were allowed to charge you a fee for your content to be downloaded faster... and suppose I'm a content provider. Does that mean I'd have to pay a fee to every ISP in the United States? Ug.
No. It means that if you are a popular content provider then an ISP several physical networks away could request that you pay them money to deliver your content to their directly connected customers or to transit their network to downstream customers.
For example, Google purchases connectivity from Global Crossing. Global Crossing peers with all other Tier 1's. Say one of those other Tier 1's (say Verizon) has a lot of customers who get content from Google. In a neutral world, Verizon gets paid by those directly connected customers and if they happen to visit Google that's fine. In a non-neutral world, Verizon knocks on Google's door with an offer to "expidite" Google's traffic to Verizon customers--for a hefty fee. Not willing to pay? Then your traffic gets our rate-limited service class, which is mighty slow--but free. See?
Actually, I remember reading about a study that indicated genius level processing in peak performing athletes. For example, an NFL quarterback can identify 3 - 5 potential receivers, track their viability, and decide how to execute a play in under a second--while avoiding defenders.
I would argue that such ability takes a level of intelligence that, if applied to other pursuits, would be widely recognized as remarkable.
I too have a father who taught middle/junior and highschool mathematics for over 40 years until recently retiring. I had him for a teacher at one point and watching him work was amazing to me. By everyone's account he was an outstanding teacher. At reunions I have had both our class valedictorian and our class "discipline case" both seek me out to find out how my father is doing, and to tell me he was the best teacher they had.
So maybe that colors my perspective a bit. But, based on observing my dad and listening to his stories, I would argue that the ability to control a classroom is less a matter of instilling discipline than it is a matter of refocusing the right kids' energies.
Even if you dropped my dad in a brand new classroom environment, it would only take him several minutes to figure out which disruptive kids--there are always a few--he needed to deal with to keep control of a classroom. He would quickly gain control by engaging them immediately in whatever the lesson was, and by then having them play a key role in what he wanted the class to do.
For example, if the concept was "Averages", then he would perhaps create a lesson where everyone's shoe size was measured, and then they'd note the mean, median and mode shoe size and then even go on to correlate that with height or age or whatever. He'd split the class into groups, and then get the otherwise disruptive kids to each take resposibility for compiling the data for one of the groups. They always went for it, because it gave them the attention and control over their environment that they craved. With them on his side, it was easy to keep the whole class on task.
He very, very rarely had discipline problems of any sort, because kids never acted out much in his classes. The discipline case I mentioned from my own class specificly told me that he never gave my dad grief because my dad made him *want* to do well in his class.
I frequently apply what I learned from my dad's classroom skills in my professional life. I recently finished managing a large network deployment that involved people throughout our business. To get it done on well and on time I had to engage several people who have a well-earned reputation for hindering productivity. I gave them near-complete ownership of some aspects of the project, and they did a great job for me.
And, frankly, I do wonder why you're homeschooling your kids. You can't convince me that they are getting the education they need and deserve. Sorry.
I blame the ISPs for allowing traffic to leave their networks with spoofed IP addresses.
All ISPs should be diligent in applying reverse-path filtering (anti-spoofing) at their edges, no argument. Actually, most of them--especially the ones who matter--already are.
Botnets spoof IP addresses to make if harder to track down the bots.
Botnets have little motive to spoof IPs anymore, for several reasons. First, most ISPs *do* take anti-spoofing measures these days. Combine that with the sheer number of bot-infected hosts--as referenced in TFA--and there's really no benefit to botnet operators to spoof addresses anymore. So, in fact, they don't.
But the IPS know where the bots are and could kill them, or filter them, if they had the testicles to do it. By pass the spoofed IP addressed traffic they make it harder for the rest of the world to filter the bots.
Again, spoofing is not the problem you think it is, and likely only a very small factor in the overall botnet problem.
Making the decision to monitor, do deep inspection and block a customer's traffic is not as simple as, "Do we have the cojones?" Do you really think it's your ISP's place to decide what traffic you want or not? What if they decide your favorite P2P traffic is bot traffic and block it?
Botnets would be a heck of a lot easier to filter, and choke, if valid IP addresses were forced on all traffic.
The real question is why do you want to blame the network (provider) for a host security problem? Should hosts not be hardened against bot infections? Shifting the blame to the network also shifts the cost of the solution, and that's hardly right either.
Forgive me for keeping this aging coversation alive, but I find this exchange interesting and worthwile.
I've never argued that some generalized classification of potential employees (such as social networkers) should be invalidated out of hand. I've argued that it's reasonable for an employer to balk at hiring an individual that has compounded bad judgement by volutarily documenting it--often in some detail--in a freely accessible public archive of information. You had originally implied that it was symptomatic of companies oppressing their employees. I argue that such oppression, is the exception not the rule--assuming its statistically significant at all.
Regarding the consistent application of standards, I assert that using the "best available evidence" regarding the judgement of potential hires and current employees is a consistent, fair and honest standard.
During hiring, one must rely on sparse documentation (such a resume), a relatively short interview process, and perhaps background checks to ascertain the quality of a candidate. In that context, any freely available online content constitutes that much more evidence regarding the candidate. Even minor red flags raised by such content may be useful for discerning one candidate from another, because they may be the best available indicators of good judgement.
There is, in most cases, no reason to be draconian regarding the private online presence(s) of an existing employee, because an employer naturally has extensive visibility into an employee's ability to perform his/her job. In this context, actual performance of duties over time is the best available evidence of an employee's professional judgement.
So it's my responsibility to "reliably demonstrate" that I can tell that your freely-offered evidence of bad judgement applies to your business life just as well as it clearly applies to your personal life? I think not.
Quite the opposite, if *you* can reliably demonstrate to me that your personal silliness will not adversely impact my business, then welcome aboard. Otherwise, I'll pass thanks.
Here's the thing. It's not really always about "The Man" oppressing the "little guy".
Employers want employees to have good judgment, y'see. And it takes several layers of bad judgement to get weeded out of a job opportunity for having idiotic social network content.
First Layer: Doing the stupid thing in the first place, be it drunkeness, lewdness, or a "brilliant" combination of those and some other stuff that's even more creatively asnine. This is a layer of irresponsibility obtained by many, many people who go on to have fine careers and leadership roles--even obtaining high-ranking gov't positions (you know who I'm talkin' about).
Second Layer: Take some pictures! Woo who! Now you're cooking! These are the moments that you'll be proud to brag about to the grand kids. Might as well put them on film. "Hey kids! Wanna see pictures of Grandma's 'swimsuit area' tatoo?" This layer is teetering on a problem, but many still get away with it okay.
Third Layer: Post those pictures (and some witty captions!) to the greatest publicly accessible information archive of all time--the interweb. There's no way *that* could be a bad idea, right? This is the layer of idiocy that tells potential employers that they have *definitely* found the right person to handle that critical contract with Acme Widgets. Or not.
From quoted portions in another post, it appears that the legalize in the letter is ambiguous--at least from a lay perspective.
It could be interpreted to read that AOL is only acknowledging the IP address's relationship to the user's account (with the plaintiff adding the accusatory clauses) or interpreted as you and others have to include the IP and illegal traffic confirmation.
If I where told that AOL did target the individual I think then I would look to see if the targeting was a authorized wire tap
"Authorized wire tap" has no meaning here, since AOL is not the government, and therefore they are not required to get warrants to watch traffic traversing their own network.
Elektra is owned by (RIAA member) Warner Music Group which is owned by Time-Warner. AOL is owned by Time-Warner too. It's essentially one company sharing data between subsidiaries.
Collectively, we've got very little idea how much information about us is available to the companies with whom we do business.
(sarcasm) Fortunately for us, apathetic ignorance is bliss.
If you offer me network access by offering access via a public radio frequency, and you have your network configured to access the internet, then you have implicitly invited me to use your internet connection, legally speaking. Is it a punk move? You bet, but it isn't illegal.
If you put a splitter on the antenna-out cable from your cable box and run that cable into my house and label it "Use Me", then I could legally watch the game on your dime--much like you broadcasting your 802.11 SSID into my house from next door.
802.11b/g both transmit and receive over unlicensed *public* frequencies by design. The public nature of those frequencies means that anyone may legally use those frequencies for any application, including sending and receiving IP encapsulated data.
To use your analogy, operating an open 802.11 network is exactly like the guy's neighbor put a sign on his open front door saying, "Come in! Make yourself at home. Grab some food and drink." And then the neighbor has him arrested for doing what the sign says.
Bottom line, public frequencies are just that, and--if you care about network access--you need to lock the door and take down the "Help yourself!" sign.
Slashdot Mirror
Primarily, on basic logic: Arguing ad hominem against Kucinich doesn't address the factual basis for anything he asserted. A person can be "marginal", biased, or possessive of any character or intellectual flaw and still by circumstance alone present truthful arguments.
Prove his arguments wrong, or get out of the debate.
Secondly, it's really ironic that you want your audience to "consider the source" while presenting as evidence an article crafted by Dana Milbank. Consider the source indeed...
That said... So what's the attraction to going backwards to putting Big Brother in charge again? It boils down to an equation with resources, time, desire and effort on one side and benefit on the other.
For example, you posted a comment to
Likewise, we all may have more freedom, privacy, administrative control, access and choices if we hosted our own content servers and email servers at home, but it comes at the cost of the equipment, connectivity, time, and ease of effort. Having your data on someone else's server, with its security only as good as the least honest person with access to the server? Having no choice over the software you use every day and being dependent on the choices, preference s and whims of the person running the server ("What? You preferred Emacs? Sorry, now you're using vi.")? Having to look at ads all day long so that you don't have to pay for software? Generally, this list of woes would get subtracted from the benefit side. Security, specifically though, is not a simple to weigh as you assert here. It's true, by using someone else's service you're trusting their security. However, the security of personally hosted service is only as good as your own abilities and diligence. For many people, the least honest external admin is still the much better option. All these things that are supposed to be so much hipper like IMAP and googlapps just give your control over your data to someone else blindly on faith that they are trustworthy. What a crock! Do you trust your financial, insurance and healthcare providers to protect your data? Based on what?
Also, if you'd stop trying to get your snark on long enough to read my posts properly, you would see that we disagree about some fine points in a fairly large swath of agreement.
Which I was not, since clearly there are major domains where "domain.com" and "www.domain.com" are not one and the same.
On this we simply disagree to the degree of commonality. That's it. You say "many", and I say "few".
Specifically, you said:
in many configurations (specially large, multi-lingual sites) that is not true.
And I said:
Second, you are correct, it is technically possible that "http://www.example.com" and "http://example.com" serve different content. Clueful folks don't set things up that way.
Third, if "http://example.com" responds to HTTP GETs, it DOES usually serve the same content as "http://www.example.com", so you're probably being pedantic for little reason. Your assertion that the opposite is common isn't my experience at all.
Moving on:
Since my position was only that such sites do exist, existence of even one example is sufficient.
Your position was that many such sites exist. So one example is not sufficient to prove your argument. I suspect that proving "many" is untenable, but feel free to try.
Again, you tried to concoct some fake "evidence" in support of the various strawmen you have created by escaping a telnet session and hoping I won't notice. And then called the process of such fakery and pretense a "sound technical methodology".
Sigh. The whole *point* of the escaped telnet session was to show you that the 2LD hosts didn't reply to HTTP GETs. Since that was my whole point, your assertion that I tried to hide it is just bizarre.
And regarding methodology, please explain how displaying different A records for the honda.com 2LD and its "www" host proved anything regarding what HTTP content they each served. Talk about fakery and pretense.
You are losing it. My point is up there at the top of this thread, well above your rant. One would hope you did notice that this establishes the precedence quite clearly.
Are you talking about that nonsensical ramble regarding virtual hosting? There's nothing coherent enough in that post to discuss, much less debate. My only reply to it would be, "What the hell does virtual-hosting have to do with whether there's matching DNS A records for a 2LD and it's 'www' host?"
Since the obvious answer is, "Very f'ing little," I didn't bother.
Err, you quoted yourself again, clearly hoping that by repeating your nonsense over and over you will somehow give it more weight. I do understand that you like the sound of your own voice and reading of your own scribblings but I have to break the sad news to you: neither does constitute "contextually relevant".
I quoted back sections of our discussion in a manner that left their context intact. And since you're either purposefullly or circumstantially obtuse, I had to repeat it several times.
1) Unless the 2LD has NS records for "www", it's a host--not a 3LD. Usually it's a host.
Something I never denied but which would never stop you from manufacturing such a wonderful strawman out of. [snip rant]
Christ man, a simple, "Sorry, I misspoke," would do.
2) Usually a responsive webserver fronting a 2LD responds with the same content as the "www" host for that 2LD.
More straw for men of straw. You do love them so. Remember, before you showed up to burn straw, I only claimed that "domain.com" and "www.domain.com" are not always one and the same.
Or...
I said you were wrong.
Then you tried to defend your position, but instead provided an example of a case I explicitly covered already.
So I pointed that out to you, using sound technical methodology.
Then you repeated my own point back to me, claiming it as your own.
Then I pointed that out to you, using exact and contextually relavent quotes from our previous exchanges.
Finally, the last threads of sanity left you flailing crazily at me, rather than at any point that I've made.
Here's the salient facts:
1) Unless the 2LD has NS records for "www", it's a host--not a 3LD. Usually it's a host.
2) Usually a responsive webserver fronting a 2LD responds with the same content as the "www" host for that 2LD.
3) Your example didn't contradict (1) or (2) above.
4) Your original claim--that (2) is untrue is itself the falsehood.
5) You hate being proven wrong so much it makes you irrational. That's pathetic.
I told you that 2LD name resolutions that reply to HTTP GETs usually reply with the same content as the "www" host in the 2LD, IF they respond to HTTP GETs at all.
Your example failed the "if" clause and my test indicated that. You confirmed it by duplicating my test and results. Thanks! Show the complete HTTP sequence. Or even get an HTTP error 400 to your request like you got with the actual honda site. I showed the complete input and output of the only test connections I tried. 207.130.95.62 persistently times out even connecting, which you made sure to avoid showing Again, I showed you everything from my tests. What rhetorical advantage would I gain from hiding another case that just proves my point more completely? Third, if "http://example.com" responds to HTTP GETs, it DOES usually serve the same content as "http://www.example.com"... Neither of the honda.com hosts is actually hosting a viable HTTP service Exactly. See how you failed to contradict me?
Now...did I figure that out okay?
The GP is insinuating that one can "always" go to the 2nd level domain instead to its "www" sub-domain and get to the website...
First, "www" is (usually) a hostname in a (sub)domain, not a subdomain itself.
Second, you are correct, it is technically possible that "http://www.example.com" and "http://example.com" serve different content. Clueful folks don't set things up that way.
Third, if "http://example.com" responds to HTTP GETs, it DOES usually serve the same content as "http://www.example.com", so you're probably being pedantic for little reason. Your assertion that the opposite is common isn't my experience at all.
Fourth, your replies obfusicate a few unrelated underlying technical concepts. You jump from using DNS for HTTP server name resolution, drop quickly through virtual hosting and land on serving dynamic content via client-side scripting--all at the high cost of context and clarity.
Fifth, on your freefall through all those concepts you implied that large multilingual sites are more prone to respond differently to "http://example.com" and "http://www.example.com". My years of (still purely anecdotal) experience indicate the exact opposite is true. Large sites with mult-national appeal tend to be better executed.
er, s/network access/content/
Sorry for the late reply. I've been on a beach for a week.
Anyway, I didn't perceive the OP as making a point so much as asking a question. I answered the question.
Yes, in a strictly theoretical context, every ISP could try to shake down every content provider for money in exchange for non-choked access to end user eyeballs. No, it's not a foregone conclusion in a non-neutral world, much less even operationally reasonable.
Since unidirectional communication is rarely useful, I'm against the idea that networks charge network access providers for data that their own directly connected and directly billed customers seek from content providers.
It's not a monitor, it's a TV, presumably HD, so why not do actual 720p (1280 x 720) or 1080p (1920 x 1080)?
Why do HDTV display manufacturers do this?! My Panny Plasma has no PC input, but is XGA (1024 x 768), though it's advertised as "native" 720p. *sigh*
My folks Sony LCD is WXGA too, but no PC port. Also advertised as native 720p...
Can anyone explain why they stick with monitor resolution standards instead of doing actual TV resolutions? Please educate me.
One thing I'm confused on... is IF the ISPs were allowed to charge you a fee for your content to be downloaded faster... and suppose I'm a content provider. Does that mean I'd have to pay a fee to every ISP in the United States? Ug.
No. It means that if you are a popular content provider then an ISP several physical networks away could request that you pay them money to deliver your content to their directly connected customers or to transit their network to downstream customers.
For example, Google purchases connectivity from Global Crossing. Global Crossing peers with all other Tier 1's. Say one of those other Tier 1's (say Verizon) has a lot of customers who get content from Google. In a neutral world, Verizon gets paid by those directly connected customers and if they happen to visit Google that's fine. In a non-neutral world, Verizon knocks on Google's door with an offer to "expidite" Google's traffic to Verizon customers--for a hefty fee. Not willing to pay? Then your traffic gets our rate-limited service class, which is mighty slow--but free. See?
Yes. It does suck.
Damned odd that you don't remember the cirriculum as clearly as the environment.
Actually, I remember reading about a study that indicated genius level processing in peak performing athletes. For example, an NFL quarterback can identify 3 - 5 potential receivers, track their viability, and decide how to execute a play in under a second--while avoiding defenders.
I would argue that such ability takes a level of intelligence that, if applied to other pursuits, would be widely recognized as remarkable.
I too have a father who taught middle/junior and highschool mathematics for over 40 years until recently retiring. I had him for a teacher at one point and watching him work was amazing to me. By everyone's account he was an outstanding teacher. At reunions I have had both our class valedictorian and our class "discipline case" both seek me out to find out how my father is doing, and to tell me he was the best teacher they had.
So maybe that colors my perspective a bit. But, based on observing my dad and listening to his stories, I would argue that the ability to control a classroom is less a matter of instilling discipline than it is a matter of refocusing the right kids' energies.
Even if you dropped my dad in a brand new classroom environment, it would only take him several minutes to figure out which disruptive kids--there are always a few--he needed to deal with to keep control of a classroom. He would quickly gain control by engaging them immediately in whatever the lesson was, and by then having them play a key role in what he wanted the class to do.
For example, if the concept was "Averages", then he would perhaps create a lesson where everyone's shoe size was measured, and then they'd note the mean, median and mode shoe size and then even go on to correlate that with height or age or whatever. He'd split the class into groups, and then get the otherwise disruptive kids to each take resposibility for compiling the data for one of the groups. They always went for it, because it gave them the attention and control over their environment that they craved. With them on his side, it was easy to keep the whole class on task.
He very, very rarely had discipline problems of any sort, because kids never acted out much in his classes. The discipline case I mentioned from my own class specificly told me that he never gave my dad grief because my dad made him *want* to do well in his class.
I frequently apply what I learned from my dad's classroom skills in my professional life. I recently finished managing a large network deployment that involved people throughout our business. To get it done on well and on time I had to engage several people who have a well-earned reputation for hindering productivity. I gave them near-complete ownership of some aspects of the project, and they did a great job for me.
And, frankly, I do wonder why you're homeschooling your kids. You can't convince me that they are getting the education they need and deserve. Sorry.
I blame the ISPs for allowing traffic to leave their networks with spoofed IP addresses.
All ISPs should be diligent in applying reverse-path filtering (anti-spoofing) at their edges, no argument. Actually, most of them--especially the ones who matter--already are.
Botnets spoof IP addresses to make if harder to track down the bots.
Botnets have little motive to spoof IPs anymore, for several reasons. First, most ISPs *do* take anti-spoofing measures these days. Combine that with the sheer number of bot-infected hosts--as referenced in TFA--and there's really no benefit to botnet operators to spoof addresses anymore. So, in fact, they don't.
But the IPS know where the bots are and could kill them, or filter them, if they had the testicles to do it. By pass the spoofed IP addressed traffic they make it harder for the rest of the world to filter the bots.
Again, spoofing is not the problem you think it is, and likely only a very small factor in the overall botnet problem.
Making the decision to monitor, do deep inspection and block a customer's traffic is not as simple as, "Do we have the cojones?" Do you really think it's your ISP's place to decide what traffic you want or not? What if they decide your favorite P2P traffic is bot traffic and block it?
Botnets would be a heck of a lot easier to filter, and choke, if valid IP addresses were forced on all traffic.
The real question is why do you want to blame the network (provider) for a host security problem? Should hosts not be hardened against bot infections? Shifting the blame to the network also shifts the cost of the solution, and that's hardly right either.
Forgive me for keeping this aging coversation alive, but I find this exchange interesting and worthwile.
I've never argued that some generalized classification of potential employees (such as social networkers) should be invalidated out of hand. I've argued that it's reasonable for an employer to balk at hiring an individual that has compounded bad judgement by volutarily documenting it--often in some detail--in a freely accessible public archive of information. You had originally implied that it was symptomatic of companies oppressing their employees. I argue that such oppression, is the exception not the rule--assuming its statistically significant at all.
Regarding the consistent application of standards, I assert that using the "best available evidence" regarding the judgement of potential hires and current employees is a consistent, fair and honest standard.
During hiring, one must rely on sparse documentation (such a resume), a relatively short interview process, and perhaps background checks to ascertain the quality of a candidate. In that context, any freely available online content constitutes that much more evidence regarding the candidate. Even minor red flags raised by such content may be useful for discerning one candidate from another, because they may be the best available indicators of good judgement.
There is, in most cases, no reason to be draconian regarding the private online presence(s) of an existing employee, because an employer naturally has extensive visibility into an employee's ability to perform his/her job. In this context, actual performance of duties over time is the best available evidence of an employee's professional judgement.
So it's my responsibility to "reliably demonstrate" that I can tell that your freely-offered evidence of bad judgement applies to your business life just as well as it clearly applies to your personal life? I think not.
Quite the opposite, if *you* can reliably demonstrate to me that your personal silliness will not adversely impact my business, then welcome aboard. Otherwise, I'll pass thanks.
Here's the thing. It's not really always about "The Man" oppressing the "little guy".
Employers want employees to have good judgment, y'see. And it takes several layers of bad judgement to get weeded out of a job opportunity for having idiotic social network content.
First Layer: Doing the stupid thing in the first place, be it drunkeness, lewdness, or a "brilliant" combination of those and some other stuff that's even more creatively asnine. This is a layer of irresponsibility obtained by many, many people who go on to have fine careers and leadership roles--even obtaining high-ranking gov't positions (you know who I'm talkin' about).
Second Layer: Take some pictures! Woo who! Now you're cooking! These are the moments that you'll be proud to brag about to the grand kids. Might as well put them on film. "Hey kids! Wanna see pictures of Grandma's 'swimsuit area' tatoo?" This layer is teetering on a problem, but many still get away with it okay.
Third Layer: Post those pictures (and some witty captions!) to the greatest publicly accessible information archive of all time--the interweb. There's no way *that* could be a bad idea, right? This is the layer of idiocy that tells potential employers that they have *definitely* found the right person to handle that critical contract with Acme Widgets. Or not.
A "tympani tan-drum" you mean.
From quoted portions in another post, it appears that the legalize in the letter is ambiguous--at least from a lay perspective.
It could be interpreted to read that AOL is only acknowledging the IP address's relationship to the user's account (with the plaintiff adding the accusatory clauses) or interpreted as you and others have to include the IP and illegal traffic confirmation.
If I where told that AOL did target the individual I think then I would look to see if the targeting was a authorized wire tap
"Authorized wire tap" has no meaning here, since AOL is not the government, and therefore they are not required to get warrants to watch traffic traversing their own network.
Elektra is owned by (RIAA member) Warner Music Group which is owned by Time-Warner. AOL is owned by Time-Warner too. It's essentially one company sharing data between subsidiaries.
Collectively, we've got very little idea how much information about us is available to the companies with whom we do business.
(sarcasm) Fortunately for us, apathetic ignorance is bliss.
If you offer me network access by offering access via a public radio frequency, and you have your network configured to access the internet, then you have implicitly invited me to use your internet connection, legally speaking. Is it a punk move? You bet, but it isn't illegal.
If you put a splitter on the antenna-out cable from your cable box and run that cable into my house and label it "Use Me", then I could legally watch the game on your dime--much like you broadcasting your 802.11 SSID into my house from next door.
802.11b/g both transmit and receive over unlicensed *public* frequencies by design. The public nature of those frequencies means that anyone may legally use those frequencies for any application, including sending and receiving IP encapsulated data.
To use your analogy, operating an open 802.11 network is exactly like the guy's neighbor put a sign on his open front door saying, "Come in! Make yourself at home. Grab some food and drink." And then the neighbor has him arrested for doing what the sign says.
Bottom line, public frequencies are just that, and--if you care about network access--you need to lock the door and take down the "Help yourself!" sign.
Ignore this comment, it's no story.