If they're going to change it, I suggest they change it well.
That is, support *functional* dependencies between processes, and caching of input/output. Automatic starting of processes when configurations change, etc. Right now, my computer has to reboot whenever stuff changes and some script does not handle the changes correctly (or simply does not run).
Also, whenever I reboot my system, I don't know if I will get back the system that I shut down (some configurations may have been changed and may have broken my system without me knowing it, only to cause a nightmare when I reboot the system, which is usually the worst possible moment). That has to be fixed as well.
Not sure if this is true. If Tor is designed to automatically utilize _excess_ bandwidth (i.e., what you paid for but do not use), then it's a different story.
This raises the question of why Comcast would care.
Probably because (in their view) Tor is a huge waste of bandwidth: connections are not direct, but have to go through N different intermediate peers (which could all be Comcast subscribers).
God. How long before they introduce a "Twitter" or "Facebook" coprocessor (which they provide for a significant fee of course)? How long before we will be having the "cpu neutrality" discussion?
take it and use what's already been developed and use it as a base to create something new/better, while letting the original developers take all the credit
Fixed that for you.
Also, making changes to somebody else's code involves the risk of introducing serious bugs. So essentially, what you are proposing is a lose/lose situation.
The argument is completely ad hominem. Let me do an ad hominem too: why would I still take you seriously if you can't even follow the simple rules of logic?
We have TOR for that. Don't make developers implement stuff that should be handled in different layers of the communication stack. The code will only get more hairy and less secure.
Slashdot Mirror
I once used a word-processor that accidentally opened a pop-up saying:
"Help! I'm being held in an office in Seattle. Please contact the police!"
If they're going to change it, I suggest they change it well.
That is, support *functional* dependencies between processes, and caching of input/output. Automatic starting of processes when configurations change, etc. Right now, my computer has to reboot whenever stuff changes and some script does not handle the changes correctly (or simply does not run).
Also, whenever I reboot my system, I don't know if I will get back the system that I shut down (some configurations may have been changed and may have broken my system without me knowing it, only to cause a nightmare when I reboot the system, which is usually the worst possible moment). That has to be fixed as well.
The problem is that *any* IT problem can be solved eventually. And if your colleagues tell their managers that they can do it, where do you stand?
This is exactly what NSA has been doing, but this time it's "in the real world".
Why do they think people will accept this?
I'd like to keep my OSS free of U2-spam, thank you!
Nope. The "this product cannot be resold" label will kill the service.
Not sure if this is true. If Tor is designed to automatically utilize _excess_ bandwidth (i.e., what you paid for but do not use), then it's a different story.
The solution could be if Comcast could be paid for every MB that they carry.
Then Tor may actually become lucrative for Comcast.
Another advantage of the pay-for-use pricing model.
This raises the question of why Comcast would care.
Probably because (in their view) Tor is a huge waste of bandwidth: connections are not direct, but have to go through N different intermediate peers (which could all be Comcast subscribers).
Instead they're offloading functionality.
God. How long before they introduce a "Twitter" or "Facebook" coprocessor (which they provide for a significant fee of course)?
How long before we will be having the "cpu neutrality" discussion?
You can be ignorant and attempt to argue it all you want, but you will always be wrong.
But:
progress in science consists in replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is more subtly wrong -- unknown
There's this "Sun" bombarding the planet with energy, constantly.
Then take the two-body system given by the Earth and the Sun as the closed system.
Posting to slashdot does not qualify as a proof, unfortunately.
You should have posted elsewhere, e.g., here: http://ip.com/
(just found this website by googling)
Unfortunately for him, the judge is also state-owned.
Why don't we just call "the cloud" by the name we used for it decades ago?
"Mainframe", that is.
take it and use what's already been developed and use it as a base to create something new/better,
while letting the original developers take all the credit
Fixed that for you.
Also, making changes to somebody else's code involves the risk of introducing serious bugs. So essentially, what you are proposing is a lose/lose situation.
We don't have any sort of before and after picture
You can find the "before" picture on google maps/earth of course.
The argument is completely ad hominem. Let me do an ad hominem too: why would I still take you seriously if you can't even follow the simple rules of logic?
Kickstarter for scientists. Just put your project there, and see if it gets funded.
Control Theory is part of Mechanical Engineering.
And a position like this is all about "control".
Simple solution: they can see them in the showroom, and buy them online...
when the R cow is free?
Why use a convoluted language like R when you can use Python?
This is my favorite explanation for the Fermi paradox.
I guess the world assumes people with a "software engineering" degree don't understand theory
People don't understand software engineering. Period.
We have TOR for that.
Don't make developers implement stuff that should be handled in different layers of the communication stack. The code will only get more hairy and less secure.