Do notice that they -didn't censor anything! All they did is hide certain terms from the auto-complete.
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months." "Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything." "But the plans were on display..." "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." "That's the display department." "With a torch." "Ah, well the lights had probably gone." "So had the stairs." "But look, you found the notice didn't you?" "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."
The idea that 100 people are responsible for even 10% of all content on P2P networks is laughable. Let's just consider torrents.
The Pirate Bay alone claims that it currently hosts 3,655,124 torrents. 75% of this is ~2.7 million, but lets say that means the 100 have uploaded 2 million torrents.
So in 10 years (bittorrent is less than a decade old), 100 users have uploaded 2 million torrents. That works out as 2000 torrents per user per year. That means each of these 100 people uploaded on average about 5.5 torrents every day.
5.5 torrents uploaded each day, every day for 10 years. That's what it would take to meet these researchers claims.
Assuming that these uploaders are the ultimate source of the illicit data, and that each torrent costs on average, say $10 (assumming they are largely movies and torrents), then each of these users is spending ~$55 a day on content meant for ripping and uploading. That's ~$20,000 a year, and that's before we even consider the time and resources put into ripping and uploading.
The numbers don't add up. Argue 1000 users and it still works out at $2000 a year and 4 torrents a week, both of which numbers I regard as still being too high. 10,000 users would seem far more feasible.
Compare with all of my peers that peeled off into consulting, law, banking or business who were making far more, far sooner, with vacation, with benefits, with bonuses, with retirement, with a better work schedule the choice is clear.
Ah! But you still have real skills; and a conscience.
A Taser is not some kind of sophisticated ray gun or phaser. It's an extended range cattle prod. People tend to forget this.
The primary purpose of all tasers is to make money for the TASER company. People _really_ tend to forget this. TASER pushes like hell for your police forces to carry cattle prods around with them for use on human beings. It publishes promotional and supportive material and research, and lobbies against all naysayers.
Now, you may be inclined to think that tasers are a "good idea". Some law enforcement officers might think so too. But the bottom line is taser adoption means our law enforcement officers are carry around human-cattle prods to zap people into compliance.
In my opinion taser adoption is hugely damaging to the relationship between law enforcement and the general population. If you watch video of places like Pakistan you see police beating people's legs with long bamboo canes in one shot, and farmhands driving cattle with them in the next frame. The taser is only a slightly more refined version of this relationship. You cannot expect citizens to respect people who carry around implements to herd them about, and several high profiles cases of tasers use show that officers do you them in this way, unsurprisingly as this is exactly what the technology was originally developed for.
Tasers have a place in riot control and other situations where officers inherently must use violence. But they are not appropriate equipment for everyday use when officers interact with the general population. They are most certainly NOT appropriate for private security companies or individuals. Attempts to apply them to such situations, or to these wildlife management scenarios, are purely an excercise in expanding TASER's profits, not improving society.
This just seems implausible and ineffective on so many levels...
This is going to be a total disaster. Console gamers have enjoyed instant on convenience, game sharing/lending/selling, and in general a concrete certainty that the disc they hold in their hands is guaranteed to work on any console without a hitch. You cannot turn around and change all that overnight without seriously ruffling feathers. Console gamers will expect these features implicitly--it's tradition!
A recent game, Assassin's Creed:Brotherhood, came with a one time serial code which could be used to obtain downloadable content. Lots of console players simply didn't bother. The concept of typing in this alpha-numeric hieroglyph, originally designed for commercial office software, was simply alien to them. It goes beyond intelligence or capability, and enters the realm of culture and society. Console gamers simply don't work this way. This move is taking Sony into three shells territory.
This isn't going to fly. This is going to crash and burn. I foresee droves of console gamers being driven to console hacking by this move. The smart option is simply to place more focus on downloadable titles, content and network features in title, incentiveising people to stay on PSN, and not bother with all that complicated geek stuff. But when it comes to consumer relations, Sony never misses an opportunity to miss and opportunity.
It's not that Sony haven't put a lot of time and effort into improving the PSN - it is certainly far better than it used to be - but it still feels like something that sits off to the side a bit from the PS3's main functionality, while a 360 without Xbox Live feels fundamentally incomplete.
I would disagree you with about how much effort Sony have put into PSN. In my opinion they are substantially behind Xbox live, largely because of their conscious lack of investment in their network. That said, I would agree that PSN, though it is an important part, is not central to gaming the PS3,........except for one thing: Trophies.
If you want trophies, and if you want your gaming level, you have to be on PSN. Personally I think this alone will be enough to blunt custom firmware adoption significantly.
Mozilla, like all market centric organisations, does not care about technical features, usefulness, usability or technical competence. Like all such companies, they care about only one thing--the latest fad. They will follow this fad, be it graphical, academic, ergonomic and they will follow it regardless of its effect, positive or negative, on their overall product.
Mostly, these fads are graphical: Moving menus and status bars, button redesign, interface overhaul, theme redesign and countless other features that are of use or interest only to the 0.1% of users who are even remotely interested in design or aesthetics. The rest of us simply have to put up with them, confusing and unhelpful as they are.
Often, the fad is ergonomic. The latest brain fart from an inexperienced school of 20-something UI "experts" simply _must_ be implemented, because it is the latest "best practice" or "modern interface". The MS Office Ribbon is the pinnacle of this kind of fad, and shows how destructive and unhelpful following it can be. No doubt the status bar offended the creed of the latest generation of UI prodigies and had to be done away with. The same with tabs on top. Most people are in reality confused, perturbed and frustrated by these kinds of unhelpful changes, but organisations implement them anyway. I suspect largely to keep their otherwise useless UI design teams in employment.
Sometimes, the fads are academic. The self signed cert debacle being the primary example. Users were deprived of convenient working encryption because encryption without authentication was declared worse than unencrypted connections by fiat. Some useless academic process had not been followed because of the myth in the middle.
Basically, the development of Firefox is not done with the interests of users in mind. It is done with the interests of experts too many opinions on how things should be done, and not enough willingness to compromise or listen to feedback. Mercifully however, we still have extensions, so the worst meddling can be successfully undone. Pity the users of Chrome then.
It can be rolled out over time and quietly fade out V4.
Why would we ever want to "fade out" IPv4? Why should we? The IPv4 network has worked, robustly and reliably for 30 years. Running out of address space is not a good enough reason to totally drop interoperability with this working standard.
IPv4 is going nowhere fast. IPv6 either supports connections to the internet, i.e. to IPv4 sites, or else it will remain an essentially academic exercise.
He's personally responsible for causing outbreaks of diseases...
Wakefield, though dishonest, was only one man. He could not have caused the hysteria alone.
The true culprit here is the sensationalist media. The consciously stoked up a baseless story to prey on people's fears, and did so with the direct intention of making a profit through increased advertising revenues. Children a dying and getting sick not because one man published one fraudulent study, but because many other men and companies abused their positions to make money.
I've never really liked comics books, but wow, I never realised they could also be so consciously boring visually. Most of the 70s, 80s and 00s designs for the car are appallingly uncreative. Many are virtually or totally unaltered versions of existing cars. In fact the most unique, fresh and striking designs come from the TV, movie and cartoon adaptations.
I guess if you want creativity, you don't look at a medium that recycles the same characters for 70 years.
ent sample diagnostic questions administered to students at 13 US universities that illustrate "informal," "mixed," and "principle- based scientific" reasoning by students. The correct answer is bold.
Question 1 asks students to reason about conservation of matter and energy at the ecosystem scale: A tropical rainforest is an example of an ecosystem. Which of the following statements about matter and energy in a tropical rainforest is the most accurate? Please choose ONE answer that you think is best. Please explain why you think that the answer you chose is better than the others.
(A) Energy is recycled, but matter is not recycled. (B) Matter is recycled, but energy is not recycled. (C) Both matter and energy are recycled. (D) Neither matter nor energy are recycled.
I think that most plant eating organisms would be inclined to pick (C).
Systems suffering from bufferbloat will have bad latency under load under some or all circumstances, depending on if and where the bottleneck in the communication's path exists. Bufferbloat encourages congestion of networks; bufferbloat destroys congestion avoidance in transport protocols such as HTTP, TCP, Bittorrent, etc. Without active queue management, these bloated buffers will fill, and stay full.
So, you're saying that buffers are like bureaucracies and no matter how large you make them they will always make enough busy work and red tape to keep themselves occupied, slowing down everything which passes through them? Hell's bells, the Iron Law of Bureaucracy even applies to computer networks.
Slashdot Mirror
You see? Assange is dirty and smelly; he can't be trusted! Real heroes look and smell fantastic!
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months." ..."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a torch."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."
The idea that 100 people are responsible for even 10% of all content on P2P networks is laughable. Let's just consider torrents.
The Pirate Bay alone claims that it currently hosts 3,655,124 torrents. 75% of this is ~2.7 million, but lets say that means the 100 have uploaded 2 million torrents.
So in 10 years (bittorrent is less than a decade old), 100 users have uploaded 2 million torrents. That works out as 2000 torrents per user per year. That means each of these 100 people uploaded on average about 5.5 torrents every day.
5.5 torrents uploaded each day, every day for 10 years. That's what it would take to meet these researchers claims.
Assuming that these uploaders are the ultimate source of the illicit data, and that each torrent costs on average, say $10 (assumming they are largely movies and torrents), then each of these users is spending ~$55 a day on content meant for ripping and uploading. That's ~$20,000 a year, and that's before we even consider the time and resources put into ripping and uploading.
The numbers don't add up. Argue 1000 users and it still works out at $2000 a year and 4 torrents a week, both of which numbers I regard as still being too high. 10,000 users would seem far more feasible.
FYI, World War 2 ended 65 years ago. Almost everyone involved is dead.
Ah! But you still have real skills; and a conscience.
True, neither pays well.... for the present.
I disagree.
Most debates about rights and freedoms are about large and powerful organisations wanting to be bigger than the government.
A Taser is not some kind of sophisticated ray gun or phaser. It's an extended range cattle prod. People tend to forget this.
The primary purpose of all tasers is to make money for the TASER company. People _really_ tend to forget this. TASER pushes like hell for your police forces to carry cattle prods around with them for use on human beings. It publishes promotional and supportive material and research, and lobbies against all naysayers.
Now, you may be inclined to think that tasers are a "good idea". Some law enforcement officers might think so too. But the bottom line is taser adoption means our law enforcement officers are carry around human-cattle prods to zap people into compliance.
In my opinion taser adoption is hugely damaging to the relationship between law enforcement and the general population. If you watch video of places like Pakistan you see police beating people's legs with long bamboo canes in one shot, and farmhands driving cattle with them in the next frame. The taser is only a slightly more refined version of this relationship. You cannot expect citizens to respect people who carry around implements to herd them about, and several high profiles cases of tasers use show that officers do you them in this way, unsurprisingly as this is exactly what the technology was originally developed for.
Tasers have a place in riot control and other situations where officers inherently must use violence. But they are not appropriate equipment for everyday use when officers interact with the general population. They are most certainly NOT appropriate for private security companies or individuals. Attempts to apply them to such situations, or to these wildlife management scenarios, are purely an excercise in expanding TASER's profits, not improving society.
This is going to be a total disaster. Console gamers have enjoyed instant on convenience, game sharing/lending/selling, and in general a concrete certainty that the disc they hold in their hands is guaranteed to work on any console without a hitch. You cannot turn around and change all that overnight without seriously ruffling feathers. Console gamers will expect these features implicitly--it's tradition!
A recent game, Assassin's Creed:Brotherhood, came with a one time serial code which could be used to obtain downloadable content. Lots of console players simply didn't bother. The concept of typing in this alpha-numeric hieroglyph, originally designed for commercial office software, was simply alien to them. It goes beyond intelligence or capability, and enters the realm of culture and society. Console gamers simply don't work this way. This move is taking Sony into three shells territory.
This isn't going to fly. This is going to crash and burn. I foresee droves of console gamers being driven to console hacking by this move. The smart option is simply to place more focus on downloadable titles, content and network features in title, incentiveising people to stay on PSN, and not bother with all that complicated geek stuff. But when it comes to consumer relations, Sony never misses an opportunity to miss and opportunity.
Whether it was or not, I can just argue that it's "Not Notable" and that will be the end of its article.
Somewhere, somewhen, Herodotus is weeping.
Only the Vietnam People's Army surpasses them!
I would disagree you with about how much effort Sony have put into PSN. In my opinion they are substantially behind Xbox live, largely because of their conscious lack of investment in their network. That said, I would agree that PSN, though it is an important part, is not central to gaming the PS3, .... ....except for one thing: Trophies.
If you want trophies, and if you want your gaming level, you have to be on PSN. Personally I think this alone will be enough to blunt custom firmware adoption significantly.
Mozilla, like all market centric organisations, does not care about technical features, usefulness, usability or technical competence. Like all such companies, they care about only one thing--the latest fad. They will follow this fad, be it graphical, academic, ergonomic and they will follow it regardless of its effect, positive or negative, on their overall product.
Mostly, these fads are graphical: Moving menus and status bars, button redesign, interface overhaul, theme redesign and countless other features that are of use or interest only to the 0.1% of users who are even remotely interested in design or aesthetics. The rest of us simply have to put up with them, confusing and unhelpful as they are.
Often, the fad is ergonomic. The latest brain fart from an inexperienced school of 20-something UI "experts" simply _must_ be implemented, because it is the latest "best practice" or "modern interface". The MS Office Ribbon is the pinnacle of this kind of fad, and shows how destructive and unhelpful following it can be. No doubt the status bar offended the creed of the latest generation of UI prodigies and had to be done away with. The same with tabs on top. Most people are in reality confused, perturbed and frustrated by these kinds of unhelpful changes, but organisations implement them anyway. I suspect largely to keep their otherwise useless UI design teams in employment.
Sometimes, the fads are academic. The self signed cert debacle being the primary example. Users were deprived of convenient working encryption because encryption without authentication was declared worse than unencrypted connections by fiat. Some useless academic process had not been followed because of the myth in the middle.
Basically, the development of Firefox is not done with the interests of users in mind. It is done with the interests of experts too many opinions on how things should be done, and not enough willingness to compromise or listen to feedback. Mercifully however, we still have extensions, so the worst meddling can be successfully undone. Pity the users of Chrome then.
Your theory assumes polygynous without polyandry. The truth is that polygamy is the default state.
Why would we ever want to "fade out" IPv4? Why should we? The IPv4 network has worked, robustly and reliably for 30 years. Running out of address space is not a good enough reason to totally drop interoperability with this working standard.
"there is one network that has aol.com and cnn.com and cs.utk.edu and an incredible number of other sites. Normal people call this network ``the Internet.'' They insist on being connected to the Internet, so that they can exchange email and web pages and so on with other Internet sites.
IPv4 is going nowhere fast. IPv6 either supports connections to the internet, i.e. to IPv4 sites, or else it will remain an essentially academic exercise.
Wakefield, though dishonest, was only one man. He could not have caused the hysteria alone.
The true culprit here is the sensationalist media. The consciously stoked up a baseless story to prey on people's fears, and did so with the direct intention of making a profit through increased advertising revenues. Children a dying and getting sick not because one man published one fraudulent study, but because many other men and companies abused their positions to make money.
Eh, no. The whole point of the story was that the profit motive preceded the fraud. The GP is largely correct in his assertion.
I've never really liked comics books, but wow, I never realised they could also be so consciously boring visually. Most of the 70s, 80s and 00s designs for the car are appallingly uncreative. Many are virtually or totally unaltered versions of existing cars. In fact the most unique, fresh and striking designs come from the TV, movie and cartoon adaptations.
I guess if you want creativity, you don't look at a medium that recycles the same characters for 70 years.
"Cloud in a box" - Cisco, the company that built the Great Firewall of China.
Making them study Middle East politics I'd imagine.
Cue someone griping about how irritating 3..2..1 post are in 3..2..1 ...
3..2..1 posts are irritating.
And you know that this is the same guy because.,.?
I think that most plant eating organisms would be inclined to pick (C).
So, you're saying that buffers are like bureaucracies and no matter how large you make them they will always make enough busy work and red tape to keep themselves occupied, slowing down everything which passes through them? Hell's bells, the Iron Law of Bureaucracy even applies to computer networks.