The system administrators have a valid point about Napster causing large amounts of traffic.
As long as you allow everyone unrestricted bandwidth, you'll run into QoS issues. Whining about Napster hogging bandwidth is like the Department of Transportation complaining about there being so much traffic. You either make more room, or limit the flow of data. The solution is not for sysadmins to become the secret police of the network, closing ports and banning software. For every countermeasure taken, someone will find a new way to circumvent it.
I personally use a cable modem at home, and have noticed that though each download gets limited to between 40 and 60k/sec throughput, I can have multiple downloads totalling at least 500k/sec. In the case of college dorm networks, a per-user connection cap should be implemented. I think the real issue is the same one many start-up ISPs run into: they just didn't plan enough bandwidth for everyone. You can't cut corners and expect to have a decent network. If QoS is really an issue to you, you should spend the money to get the bandwidth you need.
I also have not had the fortune of living in a dorm with built-in network access, but I'm familiar with networking. As long as your software can distinguish between a computer and a network, you can enforce bandwidth caps. Personally I am amazed that this seemingly obvious and less difficult solution has not been attempted (or at least publicized).
I am glad to see the proliferation of software like Napster, and the expansion from mp3 to any binary information. I hope development of such software continues despite the unnecessary adversity that is being encountered.
This comment is mostly a reply to the other comments, as I found the article to be much too melodramatic and inaccurately founded to allow a rational discussion.
As usual, there are essentially two sides of the fence regarding this issue. One side thinks that blacks are persecuted and disadvantaged, while the other thinks otherwise. And I would like to submit that neither side is right.
In actuality, everyone is born with a certain disadvantage. And some are born with economic disadvantages, while others are born with a silver spoon up their ass. The latter, though you may not think so, are still at a disadvantage. When your life is handed to you on a platter, you are bound to be unprepared for the world, and spoiled rotten. Being spoiled and having success handed to you will never get you a happy life. If you think money has anything to do with happiness, think again. Money has to do with comfort, and the kind of money you need to be comfortable is accessible to EVERYONE. And this is what we want, right? Everyone wants to be happy and comfortable (nothing else really matters that much). I won't go into what it takes to be happy, because it's quite relative and frankly no one can totally agree. But to be comfortable is a good start, and that requires some money (but not as much as most people think).
But obviously, you need a job to get money, and to get a job you need marketable skills. So what of the poor children of the projects (of any race)? Can't they speak? If so, they can find a job. In fact, an applicant who could actually speak clearly would be a godsend to the fast food industry. The drive through window would be revolutionized. They wouldn't even need computer screens to tell you what they think you ordered, since at present you can't possibly figure it out from their garbled headset transmissions and mumbling speech. An employee who could actually be clearly understood from the drive through is almost certainly manager material. (Compare to your local fast food locations)
Speaking clearly is just one skill that EVERYONE has access to. Reading is fairly accessible, although it is not as universally free as speech. For a child not enrolled in public education, learning to read is a challenge, but hardly impossible. There is still a wealth of written language accessible for no cost whatsoever. For a child who does attend school, reading is absolutely accessible. Any child with access to a school's library or even one single textbook has the full opportunity to learn to read, and to learn anything from any book they will ever have access to (which covers the topics of... everything, from which you can probably extract some useful skill). Books are the most valuable resource for any child.
Next on the economic chain, we have the computer. But the computer will only benefit those of moderate educational background (this is where the books come in). Anyone who has been self-taught by books can be further self-taught in a multitude of skills and professions by way of the internet. I won't spend any more time on the internet issue, because it's mostly immaterial to my argument, and the logical conclusion should be self-explanatory.
My argument is this: *almost* everyone has a chance. And by almost, I mean with the exception of the very smallest percentage of children born into a TOTALLY inescapable environment, whose chief obstacle is surviving to reach adulthood (or similarly drastic situation). Anyone can learn to read. Anyone can hold a job. It takes effort, and that's the problem. When disadvantaged citizens are paid by the government to sit at home, a cycle of poverty and codependence is created. The government should place these economically disadvantaged people in jobs (if they have skills), or tell them to f*ck off and get an education (if they're incompetent). I've already explained how everyone has a chance at an education, and for some it's not easy. But it's ridiculous for anyone to complain that "I never had the opportunity to learn any marketable skills." The opportunity is called LIFE. And in America, opportunity is so incredibly abundant that I can't imagine why people pass it up, and it disgusts me that so many choose to forego opportunity and leech from society.
Now, to backtrack: yes, prejudice still exists. And yes, prejudice will never totally go away. Human nature includes the fear of the unknown, and the distrust of the unsimilar. Humans are naturally predisposed to socialize with similar humans. Occupationally, techies usually associate with techies, musicians usually associate with musicians, construction workers usually associate with construction workers, doctors with doctors, etc, etc. In the same way, whites usually associate with whites, blacks usually associate with blacks, hispanics with hispanics, asians with asians, etc, etc. We can't avoid this innate tendency to segregate, and it's this instinct that eventually is taken to the extremes of prejudice and bigotry by the ignorant and foolish. While we may not always be comfortable with the dissimilarities of others, we can avoid the urge to reject diversity. Diversity is how the world evolves, and it should be encouraged. The reason minorities are at a disadvantage is because the majority exists. The same happens with democrats and republicans (in America), and the result is that the minority gets short-changed in some way. Unfortunately, there is no real solution to this problem. However, the American party system has not yet become totally one side or the other, so it's obvious that this exchange of minority and majority is not fatal to either party. The best way for the minority to gain its majority is through advancement, and advancement can only be done through education and perseverence.
But for each bigot and racist, there are many, many accepting and unprejudiced people. And these people are perfectly willing to give a person a job regardless of their diversity, but the person has to demonstrate a work ethic and marketable skills.
Slashdot Mirror
Pool-playing robot? cool!
:)
But they left out one of the most amusing uses: program TRaCY to approach moving objects and it becomes an $89 cat-chaser.. my check is in the mail
David H.
The system administrators have a valid point about Napster causing large amounts of traffic.
As long as you allow everyone unrestricted bandwidth, you'll run into QoS issues. Whining about Napster hogging bandwidth is like the Department of Transportation complaining about there being so much traffic. You either make more room, or limit the flow of data. The solution is not for sysadmins to become the secret police of the network, closing ports and banning software. For every countermeasure taken, someone will find a new way to circumvent it.
I personally use a cable modem at home, and have noticed that though each download gets limited to between 40 and 60k/sec throughput, I can have multiple downloads totalling at least 500k/sec. In the case of college dorm networks, a per-user connection cap should be implemented. I think the real issue is the same one many start-up ISPs run into: they just didn't plan enough bandwidth for everyone. You can't cut corners and expect to have a decent network. If QoS is really an issue to you, you should spend the money to get the bandwidth you need.
I also have not had the fortune of living in a dorm with built-in network access, but I'm familiar with networking. As long as your software can distinguish between a computer and a network, you can enforce bandwidth caps. Personally I am amazed that this seemingly obvious and less difficult solution has not been attempted (or at least publicized).
I am glad to see the proliferation of software like Napster, and the expansion from mp3 to any binary information. I hope development of such software continues despite the unnecessary adversity that is being encountered.
David Howell
This comment is mostly a reply to the other comments, as I found the article to be much too melodramatic and inaccurately founded to allow a rational discussion.
... everything, from which you can probably extract some useful skill). Books are the most valuable resource for any child.
As usual, there are essentially two sides of the fence regarding this issue. One side thinks that blacks are persecuted and disadvantaged, while the other thinks otherwise. And I would like to submit that neither side is right.
In actuality, everyone is born with a certain disadvantage. And some are born with economic disadvantages, while others are born with a silver spoon up their ass. The latter, though you may not think so, are still at a disadvantage. When your life is handed to you on a platter, you are bound to be unprepared for the world, and spoiled rotten. Being spoiled and having success handed to you will never get you a happy life. If you think money has anything to do with happiness, think again. Money has to do with comfort, and the kind of money you need to be comfortable is accessible to EVERYONE. And this is what we want, right? Everyone wants to be happy and comfortable (nothing else really matters that much). I won't go into what it takes to be happy, because it's quite relative and frankly no one can totally agree. But to be comfortable is a good start, and that requires some money (but not as much as most people think).
But obviously, you need a job to get money, and to get a job you need marketable skills. So what of the poor children of the projects (of any race)? Can't they speak? If so, they can find a job. In fact, an applicant who could actually speak clearly would be a godsend to the fast food industry. The drive through window would be revolutionized. They wouldn't even need computer screens to tell you what they think you ordered, since at present you can't possibly figure it out from their garbled headset transmissions and mumbling speech. An employee who could actually be clearly understood from the drive through is almost certainly manager material. (Compare to your local fast food locations)
Speaking clearly is just one skill that EVERYONE has access to. Reading is fairly accessible, although it is not as universally free as speech. For a child not enrolled in public education, learning to read is a challenge, but hardly impossible. There is still a wealth of written language accessible for no cost whatsoever. For a child who does attend school, reading is absolutely accessible. Any child with access to a school's library or even one single textbook has the full opportunity to learn to read, and to learn anything from any book they will ever have access to (which covers the topics of
Next on the economic chain, we have the computer. But the computer will only benefit those of moderate educational background (this is where the books come in). Anyone who has been self-taught by books can be further self-taught in a multitude of skills and professions by way of the internet. I won't spend any more time on the internet issue, because it's mostly immaterial to my argument, and the logical conclusion should be self-explanatory.
My argument is this: *almost* everyone has a chance. And by almost, I mean with the exception of the very smallest percentage of children born into a TOTALLY inescapable environment, whose chief obstacle is surviving to reach adulthood (or similarly drastic situation). Anyone can learn to read. Anyone can hold a job. It takes effort, and that's the problem. When disadvantaged citizens are paid by the government to sit at home, a cycle of poverty and codependence is created. The government should place these economically disadvantaged people in jobs (if they have skills), or tell them to f*ck off and get an education (if they're incompetent). I've already explained how everyone has a chance at an education, and for some it's not easy. But it's ridiculous for anyone to complain that "I never had the opportunity to learn any marketable skills." The opportunity is called LIFE. And in America, opportunity is so incredibly abundant that I can't imagine why people pass it up, and it disgusts me that so many choose to forego opportunity and leech from society.
Now, to backtrack: yes, prejudice still exists. And yes, prejudice will never totally go away. Human nature includes the fear of the unknown, and the distrust of the unsimilar. Humans are naturally predisposed to socialize with similar humans. Occupationally, techies usually associate with techies, musicians usually associate with musicians, construction workers usually associate with construction workers, doctors with doctors, etc, etc. In the same way, whites usually associate with whites, blacks usually associate with blacks, hispanics with hispanics, asians with asians, etc, etc. We can't avoid this innate tendency to segregate, and it's this instinct that eventually is taken to the extremes of prejudice and bigotry by the ignorant and foolish. While we may not always be comfortable with the dissimilarities of others, we can avoid the urge to reject diversity. Diversity is how the world evolves, and it should be encouraged. The reason minorities are at a disadvantage is because the majority exists. The same happens with democrats and republicans (in America), and the result is that the minority gets short-changed in some way. Unfortunately, there is no real solution to this problem. However, the American party system has not yet become totally one side or the other, so it's obvious that this exchange of minority and majority is not fatal to either party. The best way for the minority to gain its majority is through advancement, and advancement can only be done through education and perseverence.
But for each bigot and racist, there are many, many accepting and unprejudiced people. And these people are perfectly willing to give a person a job regardless of their diversity, but the person has to demonstrate a work ethic and marketable skills.
Thoughts?
David Howell