I hesitate to say science is always in the 'common good'. And while the US First Amendment says that Congress shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" the use of tax money to fund religion in the guise of entertainment is questionable.
No, that's not quite how the Internet works. You're describing the legacy telecom interconnect that masquerades as the theory behind the Internet. In the old days, SS7 was used as the message to charge/clear/balance long distance calls and 'wire time'.
Comcast wants to make it tougher for Netflix to succeed over Xfinity offerings, because Xfinity competes directly at all levels with Netflix via Neflix's content delivery network/CDN, who is Level 3. Because the traffic is lopsided, e.g. downloads from L3 are huge, and the traffic from Comcast is small, Comcast feels they must charge for this imbalance.
In reality, the Internet was conceived with one of it's principals as equal access- meaning that if you stick a leg on to the network, your run whatever traffic in an unimpeded fashion, no matter what direction, what time of day, what protocols, etc. To help QoS, you might be nice and respect various QoS protocols so as to not screw up isochronous media types, like audio and video. But Comcast doesn't believe in that. They believe their cable system is unique and God-given, and therefore, the rules do not apply to them. Netflix/L3 caved, because if they didn't, your next flick w ou ld l ook li ke th is.
Remember that 21MB is a gross number, while payload will always be a fraction of that, just like it is with WiFi/802.11a/b/g/n. Whacking the packet envelope yields a payload number, which represents, downhill, frictionless surface, towards a gravity well. Add in DNS lookups, routes, congestion, phase of the moon, and the actual number will be much smaller. Every vendor that cites a spec uses the salesperson multiplier, rather than a realistic expectation. This is the way of specs and sales.
Lots of cheap cargo ships docking there in the Sahara. RU thinking of just opening up some canister and dumping a bunch of hot photons and electrons in there?
Hey Ernie, got a coupla teracoulombs in there yet? The family joules?
Gosh, look up in the sky-- is all that heat causing a bubble?
That would seem to be the case, but giving people the basics for $20 is perhaps a good value; I have no idea of the quality of the contents, but perhaps it's well spent; perhaps not.
I doubt anyone believes that $20 fixes all their litigation ills from USCG. But it's a light in the dark considering that most attorneys won't touch any litigation without a serious retainer. At least one gets an idea what they might be in for, cost wise-- and how to fight if they're not guilty.
Sadly, the litigation from USCG is going to cost him, so that $20/copy will hopefully cover his own costs, but I doubt it. USCG has every reason to press him as hard as they can, although I would hope that a decent judge would throw out the suit with prejudice. Sadly, that's unlikely to happen.
The free advertising exacerbates the problem as each of the other USCG litigants now has a $20 defense package available to them. Would USCG find an insane jury (possible, if it gets to trial) and some theory of law that multiplies the damages, then our courageous lawyer gets a multiplier to the damages for each $20 defense package sold.
So much of patents have turned out to be fraud, but there's hardly ever a prosecution, let alone a conviction. The way to stop it, actually, is to remove its overly immense monetization. Jail is one thing, cash another.
Tandberg, a unit of Cisco, tries according TFA, to patent someone else's open source code; that someone else is the complainer in the link.
Should he be unhappy? Yes. Is this person trying to patent open source code per se? No. Instead, it's this person's code. Should he sue? Probably. Should Tandberg be laughed off the planet? Certainly. Is the filing one year late? No, not by Tandberg's math. Does the prior art count? It would seem so. And the patent application ought to be denied for that reason-- prior art.
Patents under Unix as rendered into the GPL by Novell, the ostensible owner, are real, but mooted by the GPL.
But Novell has plenty of other IP, including its directory services, communications patents, software patents, and so on.
I want to say, if Microsoft has bought some of those and intends to troll the patents (the non-Unix ones), then it's proving once and for all it's no longer inventive, just a patent troller. They've fallen behind in so many ways, and have become so incredibly in-grown.
I don't think the Linux and FOSS communities has to worry much about Microsoft Unix-related litigation, but there's more to Novell than SUSE and Caldera contributions. Lots. Consider, however, that Oracle, Google, IBM, HP, and many others passed up these patents. And they sold for a comparative song. Might not be worth as much as everyone thinks. Perhaps only the lawyers make money on this one.....
You're making this too difficult, and apparently full of drama for yourself. It would seem that one of your themes is disconnection from reality. May I suggest looking in a mirror to find it.
Your epithets just distract from your inability to mount a defensive argument. You're a facade, playing people.
No, he's not stupid. Rather he has indeed defined in unambiguous terms how to do this.
Layers 2&3 of the ISO/OSI stack (International Standards Organization, a body the US contributes to and uses for referential standards) refer to the transport and routing of information. Service neutrality is easily defined. It doesn't exist today on many US ISPs. Between deep packet inspection and service throttling, we lost net neutrality (if we indeed ever really had it) a few years ago.
Every word doesn't have to be defined clearly. Please stop drinking so much coffee before you hit 'submit'. Your anger and argumentative posture do nothing to quell the biases, especially the network biases under consideration here. Name calling and intimidation is characteristic of the insecure.
Until someone jailbreaks it. Which isn't tough. The ecosystem is nice so long as you're getting the apps from a vetted source. But people don't do that. They get torrents of juicy stuff, some of which is infected. Admittedly, the rates are probably low for the iPad. But we're talking about tablets in general, of which there are currently four families of operating systems at work here. Each requires different methods to secure and protect the platform and its data.
Nothing is bulletproof, but I'm not trying to fear-monger here. Instead, many organizations (and rightly so in my mind) mandate that each and every device has a minimum set of AV/AM software. i believe each device mandates device-specific protection. Otherwise, you jeopardize assets and increase costs needlessly.
It would still be a stretch to equate the wide delta of Libertarians with civil libertarians. The two are vastly different. That Rand Paul has decided to surf a popular issue doesn't mean that those disaffected by the TSA's policies are libertarians. It means Rand Paul simply had the balls to do something about the problem. A civil libertarian, he otherwise doesn't appear to be.
In my case, two sites full of billing errors, gone to collections, state utility regulatory agency intervention, two guarantees that they'd fix it, until I found out that they lied, turned both over to collection agencies again, back to the state agency who drills them, then six months later, the final settlement and refund.
Comcast is a money making machine disguised as a cable company. It's like the metaphor about AT&T being Southwest Bell with lipstick.
All of them are trying to squeeze profits where ever they can, by cutting down on customer serivce, and billing for anything they can get away with first, and answering questions second. There is nothing to love-- they're corporations that have no alternatives, and so their semi- or totally monopolistic behavior takes over. They care about one thing: what their share price is doing to day.
Users are stupid, and they aren't willing to understand tracking behavior-- and they SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.
There is such a thing as public safety, and the behavior of marketers is something that needs sorely to be roped in. You can educate people until you're blue in the face. But the whofuckingcaresaboutyourprivacy folks will be one to five steps ahead if it's legal.
Doing a holier-than-thou solves nothing. Instead, do what you can to strangle the proctological orrifi that think that your information is about *them*.
Slashdot Mirror
And you used your 5-digit /. account #. Wait, ok, we have you now. You should wear pants when you post and turn your cam off.
I hesitate to say science is always in the 'common good'. And while the US First Amendment says that Congress shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" the use of tax money to fund religion in the guise of entertainment is questionable.
And sadly none of that should have to be the norm for living free, and living in a country founded on liberty and privacy and mutual respect.
In another note, we've traced you through our subpoena to /. message databases, and we found your IP. I'd watch what you download, if I were you.
Sure you pay. I have seen very few deals where a ratio was capitulated to.
No, that's not quite how the Internet works. You're describing the legacy telecom interconnect that masquerades as the theory behind the Internet. In the old days, SS7 was used as the message to charge/clear/balance long distance calls and 'wire time'.
Comcast wants to make it tougher for Netflix to succeed over Xfinity offerings, because Xfinity competes directly at all levels with Netflix via Neflix's content delivery network/CDN, who is Level 3. Because the traffic is lopsided, e.g. downloads from L3 are huge, and the traffic from Comcast is small, Comcast feels they must charge for this imbalance.
In reality, the Internet was conceived with one of it's principals as equal access- meaning that if you stick a leg on to the network, your run whatever traffic in an unimpeded fashion, no matter what direction, what time of day, what protocols, etc. To help QoS, you might be nice and respect various QoS protocols so as to not screw up isochronous media types, like audio and video. But Comcast doesn't believe in that. They believe their cable system is unique and God-given, and therefore, the rules do not apply to them. Netflix/L3 caved, because if they didn't, your next flick w ou ld l ook li ke th is.
Remember that 21MB is a gross number, while payload will always be a fraction of that, just like it is with WiFi/802.11a/b/g/n. Whacking the packet envelope yields a payload number, which represents, downhill, frictionless surface, towards a gravity well. Add in DNS lookups, routes, congestion, phase of the moon, and the actual number will be much smaller. Every vendor that cites a spec uses the salesperson multiplier, rather than a realistic expectation. This is the way of specs and sales.
Lots of cheap cargo ships docking there in the Sahara. RU thinking of just opening up some canister and dumping a bunch of hot photons and electrons in there?
Hey Ernie, got a coupla teracoulombs in there yet? The family joules?
Gosh, look up in the sky-- is all that heat causing a bubble?
That would seem to be the case, but giving people the basics for $20 is perhaps a good value; I have no idea of the quality of the contents, but perhaps it's well spent; perhaps not.
I doubt anyone believes that $20 fixes all their litigation ills from USCG. But it's a light in the dark considering that most attorneys won't touch any litigation without a serious retainer. At least one gets an idea what they might be in for, cost wise-- and how to fight if they're not guilty.
There's some for(;;) logic there.
I hope you're right. I suspect you're wrong. Vexatious is a squishy observation in a court of law.
The free advertising is great. That good old web.
Sadly, the litigation from USCG is going to cost him, so that $20/copy will hopefully cover his own costs, but I doubt it. USCG has every reason to press him as hard as they can, although I would hope that a decent judge would throw out the suit with prejudice. Sadly, that's unlikely to happen.
The free advertising exacerbates the problem as each of the other USCG litigants now has a $20 defense package available to them. Would USCG find an insane jury (possible, if it gets to trial) and some theory of law that multiplies the damages, then our courageous lawyer gets a multiplier to the damages for each $20 defense package sold.
The whole thing is fucking insane.
I wonder if it's possible to break this branch, braking the grammar stooging components to consider metatagging sources.
Truthy.Indiana.Edu has some fun looking at memes... it'll be fun to see how info/news gets spread around. Leader or follower? Or do we care?
So much of patents have turned out to be fraud, but there's hardly ever a prosecution, let alone a conviction. The way to stop it, actually, is to remove its overly immense monetization. Jail is one thing, cash another.
Tandberg, a unit of Cisco, tries according TFA, to patent someone else's open source code; that someone else is the complainer in the link.
Should he be unhappy? Yes. Is this person trying to patent open source code per se? No. Instead, it's this person's code. Should he sue? Probably. Should Tandberg be laughed off the planet? Certainly. Is the filing one year late? No, not by Tandberg's math. Does the prior art count? It would seem so. And the patent application ought to be denied for that reason-- prior art.
You pull numbers from your hat. Nice try. Their Kool-Aid is getting old.
Patents under Unix as rendered into the GPL by Novell, the ostensible owner, are real, but mooted by the GPL.
But Novell has plenty of other IP, including its directory services, communications patents, software patents, and so on.
I want to say, if Microsoft has bought some of those and intends to troll the patents (the non-Unix ones), then it's proving once and for all it's no longer inventive, just a patent troller. They've fallen behind in so many ways, and have become so incredibly in-grown.
I don't think the Linux and FOSS communities has to worry much about Microsoft Unix-related litigation, but there's more to Novell than SUSE and Caldera contributions. Lots. Consider, however, that Oracle, Google, IBM, HP, and many others passed up these patents. And they sold for a comparative song. Might not be worth as much as everyone thinks. Perhaps only the lawyers make money on this one.....
Nah. Maybe he'd finally finish hurd (http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html).
ISO indeed.
You're making this too difficult, and apparently full of drama for yourself. It would seem that one of your themes is disconnection from reality. May I suggest looking in a mirror to find it.
Your epithets just distract from your inability to mount a defensive argument. You're a facade, playing people.
No, he's not stupid. Rather he has indeed defined in unambiguous terms how to do this.
Layers 2&3 of the ISO/OSI stack (International Standards Organization, a body the US contributes to and uses for referential standards) refer to the transport and routing of information. Service neutrality is easily defined. It doesn't exist today on many US ISPs. Between deep packet inspection and service throttling, we lost net neutrality (if we indeed ever really had it) a few years ago.
Every word doesn't have to be defined clearly. Please stop drinking so much coffee before you hit 'submit'. Your anger and argumentative posture do nothing to quell the biases, especially the network biases under consideration here. Name calling and intimidation is characteristic of the insecure.
McAfee for one. SAP/Sybase for another. Both manage WM specifically.
Until someone jailbreaks it. Which isn't tough. The ecosystem is nice so long as you're getting the apps from a vetted source. But people don't do that. They get torrents of juicy stuff, some of which is infected. Admittedly, the rates are probably low for the iPad. But we're talking about tablets in general, of which there are currently four families of operating systems at work here. Each requires different methods to secure and protect the platform and its data.
Nothing is bulletproof, but I'm not trying to fear-monger here. Instead, many organizations (and rightly so in my mind) mandate that each and every device has a minimum set of AV/AM software. i believe each device mandates device-specific protection. Otherwise, you jeopardize assets and increase costs needlessly.
And its ability to do lots of sophisticated work, today, isn't very good.
Worse, there are no anti-malware/virus pieces (yeah, probably unnecessary but probably required anyway).
There are no fleet management components or APIs.
There are no policy controls to prevent data theft of give data protection at all (aside from DRM).
There's no saction from Apple to use the iPad in business. They claim it's a consumer device, and not one for business. Ask them.
It would still be a stretch to equate the wide delta of Libertarians with civil libertarians. The two are vastly different. That Rand Paul has decided to surf a popular issue doesn't mean that those disaffected by the TSA's policies are libertarians. It means Rand Paul simply had the balls to do something about the problem. A civil libertarian, he otherwise doesn't appear to be.
The hate comes from CSRs that don't do their job.
In my case, two sites full of billing errors, gone to collections, state utility regulatory agency intervention, two guarantees that they'd fix it, until I found out that they lied, turned both over to collection agencies again, back to the state agency who drills them, then six months later, the final settlement and refund.
Comcast is a money making machine disguised as a cable company. It's like the metaphor about AT&T being Southwest Bell with lipstick.
All of them are trying to squeeze profits where ever they can, by cutting down on customer serivce, and billing for anything they can get away with first, and answering questions second. There is nothing to love-- they're corporations that have no alternatives, and so their semi- or totally monopolistic behavior takes over. They care about one thing: what their share price is doing to day.
Users are stupid, and they aren't willing to understand tracking behavior-- and they SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.
There is such a thing as public safety, and the behavior of marketers is something that needs sorely to be roped in. You can educate people until you're blue in the face. But the whofuckingcaresaboutyourprivacy folks will be one to five steps ahead if it's legal.
Doing a holier-than-thou solves nothing. Instead, do what you can to strangle the proctological orrifi that think that your information is about *them*.