In an open network, neutral world, he's not trying to 'game the system'. Yes, the FCC says that net neutrality isn't required on mobile data networks serviced by carriers (a huge travesty), but he's trying to do an isochronous application. If there's toll avoidance, SO MUCH THE BETTER.
We'll pick Katrina for an example. ARRL members swung into action and delivered the only real communications after phone went down and sat dishes were blown into surrounding counties. But this is a big example, smaller ones are equally as important when a tornado or hurricane just dropped by.
It's a hobby, and hams take things seriously with battery packs, survival gear, links into local emergency services, and knowledge of what works, what doesn't, and why.
Think of hams as radio hackers. Some are heroes, others are hobbyiests, some are both.
I don't think it's a dirty word. That's silly.... it's just a word. I don't find much wrong with socialism so long as it is incumbent with freedom, personal, economic, and intellectual-- with a dash of liberty and privacy.
I'm not sure that economic freedom == capitalism. My colleagues in Sweden, and my experiences traveling there, say that entrepreneurship is often not worth the trouble, but I see lots of innovation coming from Sweden from Goteborg to Uppsala.
If you're Swedish, let me give you an American's insight: never, ever believe a single word from the Heritage Foundation. They are evil incarnate. They are bought and paid for charlatans, IMHO.
Socialism is economic and political device. We have a population that's huge, larger than say, Sweden-- a country that is unabashedly socialist. Spending money to help those in need isn't socialism. Retirement money isn't socialism. Medicare isn't socialism. Medicaid isn't socialism.
You don't understand what socialism means. Nor do we spend more on social programs than the entire budget of any country on earth. Your arguments don't hold water, entirely, and in certainty.
- The XNU kernel, loaded with basic drivers, kexts, and initiated space on my machine which runs OSX 10.5, displaces about 71MB. The Win7 Ultimate machine to my right displaces roughly 284MB. Both have 4GB of 'user memory'. Both have Intel dual core CPUs of similar architecture. Both have the same type of display engines. The Apple is bereft of PowerPC widgets of any kind, and it isn't a 'hackintosh'.
- In terms of stack architecture, when you lift a finger to do your own research, will allow you to understand, rather than troll.
- The vulnerability difference between the two families are well known. Microsoft has improved Windows vastly, just by demoting user space and cleaning up.NET bugs. Again, do your own research and learn something.
- Until XP SP2, sadly, most all users used admin/root by default, as their software wouldn't run otherwise. For years, programmers forced users, if they wanted their software to work, to use admin rights to run. Sandboxing was so unusual as to be almost unheard of. The advent of XPSP2 demoted user space. Users could hurt themselves less. Win7 is much better in some other ways, mostly by forcing users off IE6, which was another source of constant pain. Is Safari better? I'm not an expert in browsers. I find Safari painful to use as web programmers don't test for it, believing everyone uses IE and FF.
And there's the rub: no one's done an exhaustive study to determine the real MTBFs of varying leveling algorithms-- and the latency involved given varying degrees of storage over delta-T.
There are several patents that cover the application of the algorithms, but no one's just pounded the living hell out of the drives over their operating ranges sufficiently to tell just how long a drive lasts until the junctions cough blood. Right now, and sadly, HDs are the devils we know. SSDs are often embedded, and therefore more difficult to change out unless they're embodied into an HD form factor. But surgical repair doesn't seem very cost-effective for SSDs, and therefore there might be some long term considerations for SSD use-- especially in fat data centers where data proliferation is a huge problem.
1) look upthread to get a sense of history. Second: your data isn't accurate
2) if you want to argue stack architecture, you went to the wrong place. You don't get an education in coding at/. You're in defense of Windows for some reason, and you don't make your bias visible, so that it can be vetted or understood
3) you use one metric; how many times have I had to scrape clean one of my family member's windows machine. Safari and IE have difficulties; have you ever looked at why? The differences in engines? API sets? User behavior profiles? I think you're blithely glossing all that. You'd do well on Fox Networks, where facts have little meaning.
4) what is the era we're talking here? Did you read the citation regarding XPSP+? No. You pulled your thumb from your butt and decided to click "reply", babble something seemingly clever, and move on.
The "media" likes Sheen because he swears, puts down anything he doesn't like, lip farts at will, but most importantly, they can quote him without penalty.
The top items are: 1) lowered kernel attack surface 2) IPTables-like RPC relationships, unlike Winsock2 3) Safari, not IE 4) user as user rather than Admin, altho fixed in Windows XPSP2+.
Once upon a time, the shift to a more open-like, kind of maybe Linux-ish microkernel-based OS looked really cool. Microkernels are harder to attack and MacOS was then, and to an extent is now, a more inherently secure OS than Windows. Of course that's damning with faint praise.
iTunes solved a lot of problems as a vehicle to get music with. Then it become nearly an OS unto itself.
The evolution towards Intel made lots of sense, and the packages were appealing and bucked the suits-and-golf-course trend.
The iPhone embarrassed Microsoft and others, and caught them unawares. Same with the iPad. It wasn't a tough job to embarrass a lot of companies. But the enormous assertion for control, lack of openness, and pretty boorish treatment of developers and business partners means that the slave has become the master, and didn't lose the whip.
Your IP address, and flip-flopping address that to an actual street address is child's play. Anonymous speech is free and legal speech. Until there's probable cause that either civil or criminal litigation can ensue, then my anonymity is my characteristic, and not yours, and is of value.
Liberty has, as a component, anonymity. If you sacrifice your anonymity, you also sacrifice your liberty. You can use anonymity and privacy synonymously. They're roughly the same thing. Free association, a guaranteed right, also has anonymity as a component.
There is a place where something becomes an action under the 4th Amendment that in turn says, probable cause actions are warranted (pardon the pun). Until then, anonymity can be protected under the various aforementioned rationales.
EULA-focused consent is the most onerous, but in lieu of that consent, anonymity should be protected like you were walking down the street.
The Miranda Rights that are cited at arrest, based on probable cause or witness, is something different. However, you're free to be anonymous, notwithstanding Arizona's (and soon other's) ostensible ability to challenge you because you look like an alien. Show me ze papers... ought to be unconstitutional for several reasons, including anonymity (right of free association) and the right not to incriminate yourself.
No, the part about: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,.... as in not say anything, or say in anonymity. It's also part of the right to freely assemble, looked at in another way.
Further, the judge exposes himself to the laughing hyenas of higher courts, who will decimate his ruling for the folly it is. The judge forgets the US Constitutional Fifth Amendment, Indiana's Constitution, Indiana Code, and the long tradition of pseudonyms-- which are entirely legal by common law lo long as the pseudonym isn't used for fraud.
He's made an ass of himself, and will have his ass handed to him.
And you believe all you read in British newspapers, eh? Do you do any research on your own, at all? Have you heard of 'deniers'? Kinda like 'birthers'?
It seems like a good idea to let Darwin deal with a problem, but it lacks responsibility for others, and we have that burden--especially those of us with brains.
And I hadn't heard that there was a decline. Seems like when I was born there were 3B, now 6B+.
If you believe that spending money is a cure, then we can stop interacting *now*.
We've evolved corrupted ecosystems, somewhat unwittingly, that now (and there's unequivocal evidence) costs us. What the future value of the annuity spent is a good question. We do know that we're not going to change human behavior easily. What can do is to mitigate that behavior in terms of its impact. Put a ruler on the data, and it points in an ugly direction.
In 300 yrs, the population is so far out of control that we choke to death, while we're swimming for high ground. Doesn't seem like a good answer to me. The adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure really does have meaning. I don't claim to know all of the answers, but the changes in behavior as they contribute to climate change are well known and need to be instigated really soon, as in yesterday.
I don't claim a preponderance of answers, only that it seems pretty clear that decreasing global temperature without the use of several convenient volcanos seems to be a good idea. There are consequential results of doing this, too. It doesn't address overpopulation, agricultural issues, or even malaria. But it has a global impact that's needed for future generations. At some point, one needs to look back in history and say, thank heavens that that generation got it right, or started the process soon enough.
I see your point. Have you investigated the various data that's out there? Some of it's fascinating, others scary in terms of result scenarios. Cutting away, and looking at the StDev, the commonality of it is all pretty grim, just some less grim than others.
If you have time, I urge you to see if you can commit your time to interdisciplinary endeavors. We need people that think, work hard, test, and are willing to accept strenuous (if polite) criticism on the way towards bulletproofing test cases.
I don't believe that inaction is the best course. Further, I believe that our brother and sister engineers are in partial blame for the mess. It's not going to sort it out. If you're an engineer, you're all to well aware of cause and effect. The effect will be felt for generations-- if they live. Think about that before you take the hands-off approach. We have a responsibility, and the data is very clear that there's a problem. Inaction is the same as being complicit with the outcome. Do you want that on your hands? I don't.
We would disagree. I concur that the evidence says that the temperatures are rising, but the effects are global weather change. There are other effects. But the global weather change is but one part of a greater problem: shoot ready aim, where we blithely embark on new deployment of new technologies before studying their impact.
Otherwise, it's the same page, paragraph, verse, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
In an open network, neutral world, he's not trying to 'game the system'. Yes, the FCC says that net neutrality isn't required on mobile data networks serviced by carriers (a huge travesty), but he's trying to do an isochronous application. If there's toll avoidance, SO MUCH THE BETTER.
You ask a lot of questions.
We'll pick Katrina for an example. ARRL members swung into action and delivered the only real communications after phone went down and sat dishes were blown into surrounding counties. But this is a big example, smaller ones are equally as important when a tornado or hurricane just dropped by.
It's a hobby, and hams take things seriously with battery packs, survival gear, links into local emergency services, and knowledge of what works, what doesn't, and why.
Think of hams as radio hackers. Some are heroes, others are hobbyiests, some are both.
I don't think it's a dirty word. That's silly.... it's just a word. I don't find much wrong with socialism so long as it is incumbent with freedom, personal, economic, and intellectual-- with a dash of liberty and privacy.
I'm not sure that economic freedom == capitalism. My colleagues in Sweden, and my experiences traveling there, say that entrepreneurship is often not worth the trouble, but I see lots of innovation coming from Sweden from Goteborg to Uppsala.
If you're Swedish, let me give you an American's insight: never, ever believe a single word from the Heritage Foundation. They are evil incarnate. They are bought and paid for charlatans, IMHO.
Socialism is economic and political device. We have a population that's huge, larger than say, Sweden-- a country that is unabashedly socialist. Spending money to help those in need isn't socialism. Retirement money isn't socialism. Medicare isn't socialism. Medicaid isn't socialism.
You don't understand what socialism means. Nor do we spend more on social programs than the entire budget of any country on earth. Your arguments don't hold water, entirely, and in certainty.
- The XNU kernel, loaded with basic drivers, kexts, and initiated space on my machine which runs OSX 10.5, displaces about 71MB. The Win7 Ultimate machine to my right displaces roughly 284MB. Both have 4GB of 'user memory'. Both have Intel dual core CPUs of similar architecture. Both have the same type of display engines. The Apple is bereft of PowerPC widgets of any kind, and it isn't a 'hackintosh'.
- In terms of stack architecture, when you lift a finger to do your own research, will allow you to understand, rather than troll.
- The vulnerability difference between the two families are well known. Microsoft has improved Windows vastly, just by demoting user space and cleaning up .NET bugs. Again, do your own research and learn something.
- Until XP SP2, sadly, most all users used admin/root by default, as their software wouldn't run otherwise. For years, programmers forced users, if they wanted their software to work, to use admin rights to run. Sandboxing was so unusual as to be almost unheard of. The advent of XPSP2 demoted user space. Users could hurt themselves less. Win7 is much better in some other ways, mostly by forcing users off IE6, which was another source of constant pain. Is Safari better? I'm not an expert in browsers. I find Safari painful to use as web programmers don't test for it, believing everyone uses IE and FF.
And there's the rub: no one's done an exhaustive study to determine the real MTBFs of varying leveling algorithms-- and the latency involved given varying degrees of storage over delta-T.
There are several patents that cover the application of the algorithms, but no one's just pounded the living hell out of the drives over their operating ranges sufficiently to tell just how long a drive lasts until the junctions cough blood. Right now, and sadly, HDs are the devils we know. SSDs are often embedded, and therefore more difficult to change out unless they're embodied into an HD form factor. But surgical repair doesn't seem very cost-effective for SSDs, and therefore there might be some long term considerations for SSD use-- especially in fat data centers where data proliferation is a huge problem.
Your skull is very thick.
1) look upthread to get a sense of history. Second: your data isn't accurate
2) if you want to argue stack architecture, you went to the wrong place. You don't get an education in coding at /. You're in defense of Windows for some reason, and you don't make your bias visible, so that it can be vetted or understood
3) you use one metric; how many times have I had to scrape clean one of my family member's windows machine. Safari and IE have difficulties; have you ever looked at why? The differences in engines? API sets? User behavior profiles? I think you're blithely glossing all that. You'd do well on Fox Networks, where facts have little meaning.
4) what is the era we're talking here? Did you read the citation regarding XPSP+? No. You pulled your thumb from your butt and decided to click "reply", babble something seemingly clever, and move on.
1) smaller
2) better IP stack
3) get your fingers out of your ears
4) it was default, and therefore inherent; see #3
The "media" likes Sheen because he swears, puts down anything he doesn't like, lip farts at will, but most importantly, they can quote him without penalty.
The top items are: 1) lowered kernel attack surface 2) IPTables-like RPC relationships, unlike Winsock2 3) Safari, not IE 4) user as user rather than Admin, altho fixed in Windows XPSP2+.
Once upon a time, the shift to a more open-like, kind of maybe Linux-ish microkernel-based OS looked really cool. Microkernels are harder to attack and MacOS was then, and to an extent is now, a more inherently secure OS than Windows. Of course that's damning with faint praise.
iTunes solved a lot of problems as a vehicle to get music with. Then it become nearly an OS unto itself.
The evolution towards Intel made lots of sense, and the packages were appealing and bucked the suits-and-golf-course trend.
The iPhone embarrassed Microsoft and others, and caught them unawares. Same with the iPad. It wasn't a tough job to embarrass a lot of companies. But the enormous assertion for control, lack of openness, and pretty boorish treatment of developers and business partners means that the slave has become the master, and didn't lose the whip.
Your IP address, and flip-flopping address that to an actual street address is child's play. Anonymous speech is free and legal speech. Until there's probable cause that either civil or criminal litigation can ensue, then my anonymity is my characteristic, and not yours, and is of value.
Liberty has, as a component, anonymity. If you sacrifice your anonymity, you also sacrifice your liberty. You can use anonymity and privacy synonymously. They're roughly the same thing. Free association, a guaranteed right, also has anonymity as a component.
There is a place where something becomes an action under the 4th Amendment that in turn says, probable cause actions are warranted (pardon the pun). Until then, anonymity can be protected under the various aforementioned rationales.
EULA-focused consent is the most onerous, but in lieu of that consent, anonymity should be protected like you were walking down the street.
The Miranda Rights that are cited at arrest, based on probable cause or witness, is something different. However, you're free to be anonymous, notwithstanding Arizona's (and soon other's) ostensible ability to challenge you because you look like an alien. Show me ze papers... ought to be unconstitutional for several reasons, including anonymity (right of free association) and the right not to incriminate yourself.
The right to remain anonymous unless there's a court order under the 4th and 5th Amendment has lots of case law behind it.
No, the part about: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,.... as in not say anything, or say in anonymity. It's also part of the right to freely assemble, looked at in another way.
Further, the judge exposes himself to the laughing hyenas of higher courts, who will decimate his ruling for the folly it is. The judge forgets the US Constitutional Fifth Amendment, Indiana's Constitution, Indiana Code, and the long tradition of pseudonyms-- which are entirely legal by common law lo long as the pseudonym isn't used for fraud.
He's made an ass of himself, and will have his ass handed to him.
And you believe all you read in British newspapers, eh? Do you do any research on your own, at all? Have you heard of 'deniers'? Kinda like 'birthers'?
It seems like a good idea to let Darwin deal with a problem, but it lacks responsibility for others, and we have that burden--especially those of us with brains.
And I hadn't heard that there was a decline. Seems like when I was born there were 3B, now 6B+.
If you believe that spending money is a cure, then we can stop interacting *now*.
We've evolved corrupted ecosystems, somewhat unwittingly, that now (and there's unequivocal evidence) costs us. What the future value of the annuity spent is a good question. We do know that we're not going to change human behavior easily. What can do is to mitigate that behavior in terms of its impact. Put a ruler on the data, and it points in an ugly direction.
In 300 yrs, the population is so far out of control that we choke to death, while we're swimming for high ground. Doesn't seem like a good answer to me. The adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure really does have meaning. I don't claim to know all of the answers, but the changes in behavior as they contribute to climate change are well known and need to be instigated really soon, as in yesterday.
I don't claim a preponderance of answers, only that it seems pretty clear that decreasing global temperature without the use of several convenient volcanos seems to be a good idea. There are consequential results of doing this, too. It doesn't address overpopulation, agricultural issues, or even malaria. But it has a global impact that's needed for future generations. At some point, one needs to look back in history and say, thank heavens that that generation got it right, or started the process soon enough.
I see your point. Have you investigated the various data that's out there? Some of it's fascinating, others scary in terms of result scenarios. Cutting away, and looking at the StDev, the commonality of it is all pretty grim, just some less grim than others.
If you have time, I urge you to see if you can commit your time to interdisciplinary endeavors. We need people that think, work hard, test, and are willing to accept strenuous (if polite) criticism on the way towards bulletproofing test cases.
I don't believe that inaction is the best course. Further, I believe that our brother and sister engineers are in partial blame for the mess. It's not going to sort it out. If you're an engineer, you're all to well aware of cause and effect. The effect will be felt for generations-- if they live. Think about that before you take the hands-off approach. We have a responsibility, and the data is very clear that there's a problem. Inaction is the same as being complicit with the outcome. Do you want that on your hands? I don't.
We would disagree. I concur that the evidence says that the temperatures are rising, but the effects are global weather change. There are other effects. But the global weather change is but one part of a greater problem: shoot ready aim, where we blithely embark on new deployment of new technologies before studying their impact.
Otherwise, it's the same page, paragraph, verse, etc.
And you checked your humor at the door. You expected logic, and you got a pun. Move on.