If folks send spam with ADV: as the first four characters, don't you think it will be filtered out by (hotmail|yahoo|linux users|mozilla users|etc.)? And if it's filtered out, you won't see it. If more states require ADV:, the ratio of responses to email sent (and hence, profitibility) of U.S. based spammers will continue to fall.
The single regulation, if implemented in an assortment of states, will doom the U.S. spam market. There's simply no reason to create a series of different regulations when one does the trick.
So technology hasn't had an affected wrestling, eh
on
Sports Technology?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I disagree.
Footware has gotten better. The mats don't burn as easily as they used to. Oh yeah -- don't forget the improvements that have been made in diet, training, and physique improvement.
And, there has been improvements in both things like this and this.
Sure, the equipment hasn't changed much... but technology has altered the preperation for competition in every sport. Cameras. Nutrition. Fitness. Just to name a few.
They'll most likely be attached to the packaging which gets thrown away, not the product itself.
Really? I work weekends at The Home Depot for some extra cash and a chance to play with "toys" I like. HD is working with its vendors to get the sensormatic tags (the white alarm tags) manufactured inside the merchandise, not on the packaging.
Why? So when you take the paper packaging off of a measuring tape and put it on your beltloop, the alarm still goes off when you try to leave the store with your stolen good. Shoplifters try these tactics all of the time. It's far harder to take a product apart in a store and pull out its inventory device than to simply pull off the packaging and pretend you walked into the store with the item.
My point: your statement I highlighted is bunk. You're talking out of your arse. I seriously doubt you have any working connection with retail whatsoever... you're likely just pulling a standard slashdot make shit up maneuver.
I am not a spokesman for Home Depot. I don't like RFID tags. I do like thieves.
Um... they are most certainly not the same, albeit related ideas.
Read the link I provided. Hitchhikers choose their starting point, but have an infinite set of ending points. There is no structure.
Sluggers, on the other hand, are dealing with a finite (less than 25 I think) possible destinations -- and these destinations are precise. Furthermore, the method of finding a ride is organized, and the rules and ettiquite of riding in another car (or giving a ride) are very clear.
Think of slugging as hitchhiking with grey poupon. Or, just read the link.
A few questions (out of curiosity, not in an attempt to be cynical or argumentative):
1. Has there been anything published about people doing this in Seattle? In a newspaper/television? On a site like the one I linked?
2. Why is it a problem if people are picked up at bus stops? It's a convenient (perhaps also dry) place to wait, and there's curbside space to pull in. It also allows the backup "nobody came to pick me up" option. What's bad about having slug-stops at bus stops?
3. How smooth is this process? My understanding is that in DC it works quite well -- there is a continuous stream of inbound sluggers in the am, and a continuous stream of outbound sluggers in the pm. Is the same true in Seattle, or are the rides (and/or riders) more sporadic in occurance?
In Washington DC the community slugs their way into the HOV lanes.
In a nutshell, folks driving alone on common routes who want to drive in the HOV lane pick up (car-less) complete strangers who also travel the same route. The driver gets to work more quickly. The passenger gets a free ride. The community gets less pollution and less traffic. Everybody wins.
If only Seattle would pick up on the trend! T'would solve their problems without any additional govenrment intervention whatsoever... without destroying the benefit of the HOV lanes.
Congress passes laws. The Supreme Court of the United States ensures that the laws passed by Congress are constitutional.
Congress can vote (with a simple majority) to strike the law, at any time, without any oversight from the SCOTUS. So -- the law isn't set in stone, and certainly doesn't require a constitutional ammendment to change.
If congress votes to change the law (not remove it entirely), and if an American challenges the revised law on constitutional grounds, and if the SCOTUS agrees to hear the new case, then hte opinion of SCOTUS will reign again.
The SCOTUS only determines if current laws passed by congress are constitutional. They do not write law. Their decisions on law are binary, and they cannot reword laws so that they adhere to the constitution. They merely stamp the law "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" and send it back to Congress. Once stamped, the law is null and void.
while the plan has it's merits, it is an irresponsible step towards reversing years of progress made in encouraging people to buy less polluting, more efficient vehicles.
Sure, pollution in the form of COx and its friends is down across the board. But more efficient vehicles? Check out page ii of this pdf, and note that the total economy of light vehicles (cars, SUVs, pickups) is less than 1980!
The fact is, we aren't any more efficient than we were coming off of the gas crisis of the late 1970s. Blame every congress and president since 1985ish for that one... neither the pubs nor the dems had the foresight (read: testicular fortitude) to raise gas taxes or to increase CAFE standards enough to induce consumers and producers to figure out how to get more miles to the gallon.
Shame on them, and shame on us for not demanding better.
I understand the concept of indirect fire. You misunderstand the concept of aiming for an area the size of a building or the size of a postage stamp.
Indirectly firing onto an area, either with nearly linear-travelling balistics (bullets) or with arcing projectiles (grenades, small missiles, etc), result from the person shooting onto or into an area where enemies are suspected of either currently occupying, or would like to occupy.
That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about selecting a specific target that's 2% of the size of the area indirectly fired on, and nailing it with tremendous accuracy.
It'd be like playing minigolf blindfolded, and nailing hole in one after hole in one. Somebody can report the terrain and the distance and angle to the hole, but if you can't see it, there's a good bit of guesswork. Now, for an appreciation of how unlikely these shots are, make the holes 40' long, not 8'.
Indirect firing: you hit the ball toward where the hole is, based on reports, and guessing a bit on distance. If you're good, the ball stops 5 feet from the hole while evading the windmills blades or the Babe the Blue Ox's legs. That's completely reasonable, but not what's happening. Template firing: these minigolfers are shooting a score of 20 on a long 18 hole minigolf course, blindfolded. They can do that because they've played the course dozens or hundreds of times, and nothing changes. You'll note that marines don't run the same mission dozens or hundreds of times, memorizing the precise locations of targets 15 square feet in size from 800 yards away. If angles changed slightly, or distances slightly, or windows were moved and sized on a random basis (within bounds of bug-free gaming), they'd be reduced to indirect fire, and this gameplay bug would be rewarded, while rewarding those who play with intelligent tactics.
If the weapon had a large impact area, and the target was a reasonably sized area and not a postage stamp, yes. But in this case, I'm really referring to a situation where
(i) The army doesn't know the target's there (yet), and (ii) We're not talking about striking a general area of strategic interest, we're talking about shooting a grenade from a launcher into a 2' x 3' window, over a long distance, over a barrier, and all without being able to see the target.
If you could see the target, it would be a difficult but certainly possible shot. Blind, it'd be near impossible.
This "lack-of-random-bug" also includes things like having a favorite tree to hide behind if an open area, or knowing that the enemy couldn't possibly reach you until you turn a particular corner because you know the distance away at spawn. A bit of randomness in the placement and size of certain objects and lengths would reduce the knowledge about key artifacts from a probability of 1 to a probability distribution -- and so shooting for that window would likely result in you hitting the wall near the window. Having a favorite tree is right out; perhaps your favorite strategic area has a good tree there, but you won't know in advance; you have to go look. You don't know if the enemy's fastest possible advance is around that corner; his first possible appearance is somewhere within a 15' or 20' range of a hallway.
These random units serve to take away advantages from repetitive playing and memorization -- and therefore reward the best players, not those that play in tourrettes-like fashion.
Templates. I play America's Army, and on some stages one can shoot a 203 (rocket launcher) into a window that is obstructed by some intermediate object. Blindly firing into a window that the enemy is likely to be inside due to its strategic importance from the other side of the map -- blindly -- clearly detracts from the game.
The easy fix: introduce random errors in the map draw. Make the location of trees in an area a function of a random distriubtion. Make hallways marginally shorter, longer, wider, or narrower, in an effort to prevent people from using natural markings as methods of aiming (ie put your thumb three pixels below the lowest tree leaf to throw the grenade into the hole in the ground from maximum possible distance away).
It's not a cheat (no modifications, etc) but it clearly is in conflict with the spirit of the game. Game developers -- fix this!
Seems statistical analysis could find cheaters, the same way Baysean Filtering finds spam. It doesn't look for particular known signs (Viagra or a.dll mod); it analysizes trends in general.
If an auto-shoot aimbot is used, the time between when the enemy is on the perp's screen and the time the gun is shot should be nearly constant -- by screen I mean either entire screen or some radius of the pointer. If it's a human making the decision, that time would have a wider distribution with a larger variance.
For auto-aim but no shoot, take notice of when the pointer moves across the screen rapidly. Yes, there'd be type I and II errors (both not catching all auto-aims and recording simple things like turning around), but with enough analysis, it might be doable. Further analysis could be done on mouse movements prior to headshots. If a significant number of headshots (or killshots in general) came immediately following a rapid mouse movement, than an aimbot is rather statistically likely.
For wallhacks, consider a graph that connects all hallways to other hallways... if a player is consistently converging on enemies out of view, ie the shortest distance between the two players is constant or decreasing, statistically speaking, a wallhack is likely.
Of course, for all of these, the confidence intervals could be set arbitrarily close to unity -- and so it would give server admins the ability to risk overall Type I or II errors. This insures against being lucky some of the time, or doing the logical or rational thing in certain situations.
While cheating could overcome these methods by introducing errors (intentionally miss sometimes, walk around randomly some of the time, etc.), it would reduce the impact the cheater would have on the game, thereby making it less interesting for the cheater... perhaps to the point of not worth his while.
The man did math until he died of old age, at a pace of about 18 hours per day. He cared not for material things, as he lived out of a suitcase. He cared not for life's physical pleasures, as he (almost!) never even had a girlfriend, or boyfriend for that matter. He had his doctor perscribe speed to him, so he could work more hours on mathematics.
An amazing read about a guy who I am amazed by, but also whose qualities I am glad I don't have.
No, back to studying linear & nonlinear programming, stochastic processes, dynamic programming, and queueing theory for my qualifier on Monday.
1. Go here and have them remove your name. Don't give them money -- get out an index card, slap a 23 cent stamp on it, and mail it in. Same results, they get less money. It ain't perfect, but it will help.
2. Call your credit card companies. Ask them to be placed on their highest level of privacy list. Nearly all have one; you just gotta ask.
3. Do the same for your utilities, especially phone service.
4. Wait 3 months, and hten begin send back shredded crap in the postage paid envelopes.
For all you non-Americans... figure it out yourself.;)
Why hasn't the open source community created an open source voting platform?
Really. Why haven't we done this? Consider:
* Free operating system (beer and speech)
* Free voting application (beer and speech)
Why wouldn't the government use this for voting? If it was peer reviewed by academia (including members of the academies) and business, then American geeks could at least be sure that the "black box" of the voting system, in fact, wasn't.
Sure -- there are still other problems with electronic voting. However, it would reduce the number of conspiracy theories, and would be one more killer app from open source.
the school's website to understand what's at work here.
This isn't about saving paper. It's about making parents feel good about dropping $15,000 a year on high school... after all, the kids use laptops in their classes; our investment in little Johnny will result in opportunities that those poor kids in public school won't have. Don't waste your time thinking about environmental impact. This is marketing.
I went to a private school as well, one of the high-falutin' variety. I loved every minute of it, even if I was a scrubby kid from a lower class neighborhood with a penchant for cynicism, science, and lacrosse. I'm not suggesting your school is good or bad for their decision. If the result of this policy is that more kids with a polished high school education find their way to techie universities instead of the standard small liberal arts colleges most attend now, than I'd consider the policy a good one.
It's not an environmental issue. It's also not a cost issue -- if your parents (or some donor) can afford to send you to a top notch snoot school, than they can afford to buy you a laptop too. It'll come to less than 3% of the overall cost of your high school education. It's a marketing decision, and headmasters, chancellors, and presidents of schools across the country are making the same decisions, based on a poor understanding of IT but a solid understanding of their potential customers.
If you do run fibre to each location, don't forget about network design -- you don't want a neighbor to cut wire in his yard by mistake five years from now and knock half the community offline until the physical layer is repaired.
If you're not sure the optimal way to design the network topography, call your local university's systems engineering department. I'm a Ph D candidate at Boston University's Center for Information and Systems Engineering, and one of the things we research is how to design topographies for networks so that robustness is maximized while minimizing cost... something your community ought to consider.
After all, it now tells the RIAA which users are supplying "the best dope" to the p2p system.
Then now have an awfully good system to find just who to target... the users that are providing the best goods.
Imagine (bear with me) that all drug users had an online survey to report just who their favourite dealers were. Don't you think the Drug Czar would pay attention, and go after the providers of the best smack first?
I scanned the comments, the articles, the interviews, etc. I did not find an answer to the following question:
Given OSX's ties with linux, is there any chance for a stand alone ipod system that can be used with linux distros?
Are there any non-endorsed projects out there? Will Apple ever embrace the linux geeks? Right now it seems a bit pricy, but that will fall soon enough. I could see myself owning one if I could use it with my Red Hat system.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't insightful. This is foolish.
If folks send spam with ADV: as the first four characters, don't you think it will be filtered out by (hotmail|yahoo|linux users|mozilla users|etc.)? And if it's filtered out, you won't see it. If more states require ADV:, the ratio of responses to email sent (and hence, profitibility) of U.S. based spammers will continue to fall.
The single regulation, if implemented in an assortment of states, will doom the U.S. spam market. There's simply no reason to create a series of different regulations when one does the trick.
I disagree.
Footware has gotten better.
The mats don't burn as easily as they used to.
Oh yeah -- don't forget the improvements that have been made in diet, training, and physique improvement.
And, there has been improvements in both things like this and this.
Sure, the equipment hasn't changed much... but technology has altered the preperation for competition in every sport. Cameras. Nutrition. Fitness. Just to name a few.
They'll most likely be attached to the packaging which gets thrown away, not the product itself.
Really? I work weekends at The Home Depot for some extra cash and a chance to play with "toys" I like. HD is working with its vendors to get the sensormatic tags (the white alarm tags) manufactured inside the merchandise, not on the packaging.
Why? So when you take the paper packaging off of a measuring tape and put it on your beltloop, the alarm still goes off when you try to leave the store with your stolen good. Shoplifters try these tactics all of the time. It's far harder to take a product apart in a store and pull out its inventory device than to simply pull off the packaging and pretend you walked into the store with the item.
My point: your statement I highlighted is bunk. You're talking out of your arse. I seriously doubt you have any working connection with retail whatsoever... you're likely just pulling a standard slashdot make shit up maneuver.
I am not a spokesman for Home Depot. I don't like RFID tags. I do like thieves.
Um... they are most certainly not the same, albeit related ideas.
Read the link I provided. Hitchhikers choose their starting point, but have an infinite set of ending points. There is no structure.
Sluggers, on the other hand, are dealing with a finite (less than 25 I think) possible destinations -- and these destinations are precise. Furthermore, the method of finding a ride is organized, and the rules and ettiquite of riding in another car (or giving a ride) are very clear.
Think of slugging as hitchhiking with grey poupon. Or, just read the link.
A few questions (out of curiosity, not in an attempt to be cynical or argumentative):
1. Has there been anything published about people doing this in Seattle? In a newspaper/television? On a site like the one I linked?
2. Why is it a problem if people are picked up at bus stops? It's a convenient (perhaps also dry) place to wait, and there's curbside space to pull in. It also allows the backup "nobody came to pick me up" option. What's bad about having slug-stops at bus stops?
3. How smooth is this process? My understanding is that in DC it works quite well -- there is a continuous stream of inbound sluggers in the am, and a continuous stream of outbound sluggers in the pm. Is the same true in Seattle, or are the rides (and/or riders) more sporadic in occurance?
In Washington DC the community slugs their way into the HOV lanes.
In a nutshell, folks driving alone on common routes who want to drive in the HOV lane pick up (car-less) complete strangers who also travel the same route. The driver gets to work more quickly. The passenger gets a free ride. The community gets less pollution and less traffic. Everybody wins.
If only Seattle would pick up on the trend! T'would solve their problems without any additional govenrment intervention whatsoever... without destroying the benefit of the HOV lanes.
Congress passes laws. The Supreme Court of the United States ensures that the laws passed by Congress are constitutional.
Congress can vote (with a simple majority) to strike the law, at any time, without any oversight from the SCOTUS. So -- the law isn't set in stone, and certainly doesn't require a constitutional ammendment to change.
If congress votes to change the law (not remove it entirely), and if an American challenges the revised law on constitutional grounds, and if the SCOTUS agrees to hear the new case, then hte opinion of SCOTUS will reign again.
The SCOTUS only determines if current laws passed by congress are constitutional. They do not write law. Their decisions on law are binary, and they cannot reword laws so that they adhere to the constitution. They merely stamp the law "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" and send it back to Congress. Once stamped, the law is null and void.
about this:
while the plan has it's merits, it is an irresponsible step towards reversing years of progress made in encouraging people to buy less polluting, more efficient vehicles.
Sure, pollution in the form of COx and its friends is down across the board. But more efficient vehicles? Check out page ii of this pdf, and note that the total economy of light vehicles (cars, SUVs, pickups) is less than 1980!
The fact is, we aren't any more efficient than we were coming off of the gas crisis of the late 1970s. Blame every congress and president since 1985ish for that one... neither the pubs nor the dems had the foresight (read: testicular fortitude) to raise gas taxes or to increase CAFE standards enough to induce consumers and producers to figure out how to get more miles to the gallon.
Shame on them, and shame on us for not demanding better.
Get some facts; don't spew drivel.
Timeliness|Price|Quality
This tradeoff exists in all facets of the economy. Turns out that in software (OS or otherwise), most are choosing the first two.
I understand the concept of indirect fire. You misunderstand the concept of aiming for an area the size of a building or the size of a postage stamp.
Indirectly firing onto an area, either with nearly linear-travelling balistics (bullets) or with arcing projectiles (grenades, small missiles, etc), result from the person shooting onto or into an area where enemies are suspected of either currently occupying, or would like to occupy.
That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about selecting a specific target that's 2% of the size of the area indirectly fired on, and nailing it with tremendous accuracy.
It'd be like playing minigolf blindfolded, and nailing hole in one after hole in one. Somebody can report the terrain and the distance and angle to the hole, but if you can't see it, there's a good bit of guesswork. Now, for an appreciation of how unlikely these shots are, make the holes 40' long, not 8'.
Indirect firing: you hit the ball toward where the hole is, based on reports, and guessing a bit on distance. If you're good, the ball stops 5 feet from the hole while evading the windmills blades or the Babe the Blue Ox's legs. That's completely reasonable, but not what's happening.
Template firing: these minigolfers are shooting a score of 20 on a long 18 hole minigolf course, blindfolded. They can do that because they've played the course dozens or hundreds of times, and nothing changes. You'll note that marines don't run the same mission dozens or hundreds of times, memorizing the precise locations of targets 15 square feet in size from 800 yards away. If angles changed slightly, or distances slightly, or windows were moved and sized on a random basis (within bounds of bug-free gaming), they'd be reduced to indirect fire, and this gameplay bug would be rewarded, while rewarding those who play with intelligent tactics.
If the weapon had a large impact area, and the target was a reasonably sized area and not a postage stamp, yes. But in this case, I'm really referring to a situation where
(i) The army doesn't know the target's there (yet), and
(ii) We're not talking about striking a general area of strategic interest, we're talking about shooting a grenade from a launcher into a 2' x 3' window, over a long distance, over a barrier, and all without being able to see the target.
If you could see the target, it would be a difficult but certainly possible shot. Blind, it'd be near impossible.
This "lack-of-random-bug" also includes things like having a favorite tree to hide behind if an open area, or knowing that the enemy couldn't possibly reach you until you turn a particular corner because you know the distance away at spawn. A bit of randomness in the placement and size of certain objects and lengths would reduce the knowledge about key artifacts from a probability of 1 to a probability distribution -- and so shooting for that window would likely result in you hitting the wall near the window. Having a favorite tree is right out; perhaps your favorite strategic area has a good tree there, but you won't know in advance; you have to go look. You don't know if the enemy's fastest possible advance is around that corner; his first possible appearance is somewhere within a 15' or 20' range of a hallway.
These random units serve to take away advantages from repetitive playing and memorization -- and therefore reward the best players, not those that play in tourrettes-like fashion.
Templates. I play America's Army, and on some stages one can shoot a 203 (rocket launcher) into a window that is obstructed by some intermediate object. Blindly firing into a window that the enemy is likely to be inside due to its strategic importance from the other side of the map -- blindly -- clearly detracts from the game.
The easy fix: introduce random errors in the map draw. Make the location of trees in an area a function of a random distriubtion. Make hallways marginally shorter, longer, wider, or narrower, in an effort to prevent people from using natural markings as methods of aiming (ie put your thumb three pixels below the lowest tree leaf to throw the grenade into the hole in the ground from maximum possible distance away).
It's not a cheat (no modifications, etc) but it clearly is in conflict with the spirit of the game. Game developers -- fix this!
Seems statistical analysis could find cheaters, the same way Baysean Filtering finds spam. It doesn't look for particular known signs (Viagra or a .dll mod); it analysizes trends in general.
If an auto-shoot aimbot is used, the time between when the enemy is on the perp's screen and the time the gun is shot should be nearly constant -- by screen I mean either entire screen or some radius of the pointer. If it's a human making the decision, that time would have a wider distribution with a larger variance.
For auto-aim but no shoot, take notice of when the pointer moves across the screen rapidly. Yes, there'd be type I and II errors (both not catching all auto-aims and recording simple things like turning around), but with enough analysis, it might be doable. Further analysis could be done on mouse movements prior to headshots. If a significant number of headshots (or killshots in general) came immediately following a rapid mouse movement, than an aimbot is rather statistically likely.
For wallhacks, consider a graph that connects all hallways to other hallways... if a player is consistently converging on enemies out of view, ie the shortest distance between the two players is constant or decreasing, statistically speaking, a wallhack is likely.
Of course, for all of these, the confidence intervals could be set arbitrarily close to unity -- and so it would give server admins the ability to risk overall Type I or II errors. This insures against being lucky some of the time, or doing the logical or rational thing in certain situations.
While cheating could overcome these methods by introducing errors (intentionally miss sometimes, walk around randomly some of the time, etc.), it would reduce the impact the cheater would have on the game, thereby making it less interesting for the cheater... perhaps to the point of not worth his while.
A counterexample:
Paul Erdös. Read about him in this book.
The man did math until he died of old age, at a pace of about 18 hours per day. He cared not for material things, as he lived out of a suitcase. He cared not for life's physical pleasures, as he (almost!) never even had a girlfriend, or boyfriend for that matter. He had his doctor perscribe speed to him, so he could work more hours on mathematics.
An amazing read about a guy who I am amazed by, but also whose qualities I am glad I don't have.
No, back to studying linear & nonlinear programming, stochastic processes, dynamic programming, and queueing theory for my qualifier on Monday.
So could you point to a website (or three) that has correct information about this? Ptotocols, how it's accessed, etc.?
en masse
;)
1. Go here and have them remove your name. Don't give them money -- get out an index card, slap a 23 cent stamp on it, and mail it in. Same results, they get less money. It ain't perfect, but it will help.
2. Call your credit card companies. Ask them to be placed on their highest level of privacy list. Nearly all have one; you just gotta ask.
3. Do the same for your utilities, especially phone service.
4. Wait 3 months, and hten begin send back shredded crap in the postage paid envelopes.
For all you non-Americans... figure it out yourself.
Value Added Tax.
Read all about it
Why hasn't the open source community created an open source voting platform?
Really. Why haven't we done this? Consider:
* Free operating system (beer and speech)
* Free voting application (beer and speech)
Why wouldn't the government use this for voting? If it was peer reviewed by academia (including members of the academies) and business, then American geeks could at least be sure that the "black box" of the voting system, in fact, wasn't.
Sure -- there are still other problems with electronic voting. However, it would reduce the number of conspiracy theories, and would be one more killer app from open source.
the school's website to understand what's at work here.
This isn't about saving paper. It's about making parents feel good about dropping $15,000 a year on high school... after all, the kids use laptops in their classes; our investment in little Johnny will result in opportunities that those poor kids in public school won't have. Don't waste your time thinking about environmental impact. This is marketing.
I went to a private school as well, one of the high-falutin' variety. I loved every minute of it, even if I was a scrubby kid from a lower class neighborhood with a penchant for cynicism, science, and lacrosse. I'm not suggesting your school is good or bad for their decision. If the result of this policy is that more kids with a polished high school education find their way to techie universities instead of the standard small liberal arts colleges most attend now, than I'd consider the policy a good one.
It's not an environmental issue. It's also not a cost issue -- if your parents (or some donor) can afford to send you to a top notch snoot school, than they can afford to buy you a laptop too. It'll come to less than 3% of the overall cost of your high school education. It's a marketing decision, and headmasters, chancellors, and presidents of schools across the country are making the same decisions, based on a poor understanding of IT but a solid understanding of their potential customers.
If you do run fibre to each location, don't forget about network design -- you don't want a neighbor to cut wire in his yard by mistake five years from now and knock half the community offline until the physical layer is repaired.
If you're not sure the optimal way to design the network topography, call your local university's systems engineering department. I'm a Ph D candidate at Boston University's Center for Information and Systems Engineering, and one of the things we research is how to design topographies for networks so that robustness is maximized while minimizing cost... something your community ought to consider.
After all, it now tells the RIAA which users are supplying "the best dope" to the p2p system.
Then now have an awfully good system to find just who to target... the users that are providing the best goods.
Imagine (bear with me) that all drug users had an online survey to report just who their favourite dealers were. Don't you think the Drug Czar would pay attention, and go after the providers of the best smack first?
mozilla lets you just turn them off.
when was the last time pr0n resulted in a turn off? Oh yeah -- that goat website.
Yes, I am. I didn't say that OSX == linux; rather I said that they were positively correlated.
I scanned the comments, the articles, the interviews, etc. I did not find an answer to the following question:
Given OSX's ties with linux, is there any chance for a stand alone ipod system that can be used with linux distros?
Are there any non-endorsed projects out there? Will Apple ever embrace the linux geeks? Right now it seems a bit pricy, but that will fall soon enough. I could see myself owning one if I could use it with my Red Hat system.