The deal with these great actors like Bogart is that they had a chemistry with the other actors and the audience, that's something that can't be replicated.
I'm not a network engineer or very astute when it comes to security, but I have to wonder why we (America) have our electrical grid online (accessible from say Hainan China) or really any sensitive area online and accessible from the internet, the benefits versus the liabilities seem way out of proportion. The fact that a bit of code can compromise governments is a strong indicator that no one really knows what they are doing in said government, and also begs the question why isn't Microsoft held liable for these issues? Why do we even use Windows for Government systems? Hackers are cutting edge people, the government seems to be dwelling in 1990's tatics and security.
But when it's all "kindle" type devices then the information on the units can be "patched" or "updated" to fit the current political climate. For example a story in a printed book is fairly fixed once you have the book, with a kindle if the story is deemed "offensive" it can instantly be edited and changed from what the original author wrote. I guess I'm old (48) but I will always prefer the tactile sensation of an actual book to a kindle, and yes I have used a kindle.
Less than 1% use that bandwidth and it affects their network, isn't that absurd? Isn't that an indication of a terrible network? I honestly don't know the answers to these questions, but if you can't support 1% of your users at that level then IMO you have a crap network.
Wouldn't VPN or TOR make this sort of surveillance moot? One wonders if all the home wireless networks whose owners never put a password on, would be a good place for "terrorist" to surf from (LOL sorry it's funny)...well...funny until interpol kicks in your door because the terrorist next door used your unsecured wireless networks.
I wish we could all get together in some way and finance a lobbying group in Washington to try and undercut these douche bags like ATT, Comcast, ETC and regulate them, open the network and get some form of sane Network Neutrality.
I have to say I would prefer ATT and Comcast as dumb pipes, because I have yet to see either of them offer any content I would want and if they focused on their core business (the aforementioned dumb pipes)they should get their profits without the slash and burn the user business techniques..
The bloat is the users choice, you know you're adding extensions. Previously (as in Firefox 3) the bloat was not an option, it just came bloated unlike the base install of Chrome.
Isn't this kind of thing the exact reason windows was so insecure? Perhaps a misunderstanding but I thought the "openess" of windows for marketing was a major factor in it's insecure nature.
Is anyone else tired of the constant squeezing of the consumer via advertising?
It gives me hope to see how people can get around this sort of oppression, I am hoping that it stays that way, that we will always have the option of communicating with each other, that no corporation or government will strangle. I truly hope it stays that way.
And ATT should upgrade their crap network, and all we need for that to happen is to have the media monopolies broken up and regulated. Until a time comes when ATT has to compete to stay alive, you will have crap plans, crap contracts, and, of course, a crap network.
Leave it to an idiot like Manjoo to look for the worst solution...tiering.
So now we are down to "all you can download for a monthly fee" and "education for file shares + temporary suspension of ISP services, my my my how diluted has war on filesharing gotten?
Not to long ago they were trying for suing the crap out of you possible time in prison and "3 strikes no more internet for you" and while that's a mixed bag of different countries solutions it's clear that they aren't getting any where so this lean approach is how it's going to be.
If they are traveling sub light then their other techs would be highly advanced, life support, suspension of life or robotic/cloned, IMO weapons tech is the easiest to develope, you are simply looking to kill or destroy and so anyone with the economy/tech to allow sub light travel would certainly be able to deal with us on either a weapons basis or biological. The fact that they are that much further advanced (we can barely maintain an orbital station) would be a good indicator of their superiority.
I think a better debate would be their motivation for such an expenditure, are they looking for a new home? Then they could be dangerous. Are they "exploring" for science reasons? If so then they have massive resources.
While they may not have a monetary based system they still have to do the work of creating the ship and tech involved.
Is welcome them, if they have tech that gets them to our planet then we aren't going to have any weapons to use against them, and hiding won't end it either. In general I think if they are high enough up the ladder (of tech) to cross the gaps between stars we have more to gain than to lose by welcoming them.
Slashdot Mirror
The deal with these great actors like Bogart is that they had a chemistry with the other actors and the audience, that's something that can't be replicated.
They aren't going to see the truck coming either.
I'm not a network engineer or very astute when it comes to security, but I have to wonder why we (America) have our electrical grid online (accessible from say Hainan China) or really any sensitive area online and accessible from the internet, the benefits versus the liabilities seem way out of proportion.
The fact that a bit of code can compromise governments is a strong indicator that no one really knows what they are doing in said government, and also begs the question why isn't Microsoft held liable for these issues? Why do we even use Windows for Government systems?
Hackers are cutting edge people, the government seems to be dwelling in 1990's tatics and security.
But when it's all "kindle" type devices then the information on the units can be "patched" or "updated" to fit the current political climate.
For example a story in a printed book is fairly fixed once you have the book, with a kindle if the story is deemed "offensive" it can instantly be edited and changed from what the original author wrote.
I guess I'm old (48) but I will always prefer the tactile sensation of an actual book to a kindle, and yes I have used a kindle.
About time.
lulz...yeah well I honestly don't know but it seems really bad to me.
Less than 1% use that bandwidth and it affects their network, isn't that absurd? Isn't that an indication of a terrible network? I honestly don't know the answers to these questions, but if you can't support 1% of your users at that level then IMO you have a crap network.
Wouldn't VPN or TOR make this sort of surveillance moot?
One wonders if all the home wireless networks whose owners never put a password on, would be a good place for "terrorist" to surf from (LOL sorry it's funny)...well...funny until interpol kicks in your door because the terrorist next door used your unsecured wireless networks.
"but I didn't do it"
Guilty until you can buy your innocence.
I wish we could all get together in some way and finance a lobbying group in Washington to try and undercut these douche bags like ATT, Comcast, ETC and regulate them, open the network and get some form of sane Network Neutrality.
I have to say I would prefer ATT and Comcast as dumb pipes, because I have yet to see either of them offer any content I would want and if they focused on their core business (the aforementioned dumb pipes)they should get their profits without the slash and burn the user business techniques..
The bloat is the users choice, you know you're adding extensions.
Previously (as in Firefox 3) the bloat was not an option, it just came bloated unlike the base install of Chrome.
Everyone where I works plays it, except me, it's total cheese but they love it...why?
Because to them it's better than working.
You know the penalty.
Isn't this kind of thing the exact reason windows was so insecure? Perhaps a misunderstanding but I thought the "openess" of windows for marketing was a major factor in it's insecure nature.
Is anyone else tired of the constant squeezing of the consumer via advertising?
It gives me hope to see how people can get around this sort of oppression, I am hoping that it stays that way, that we will always have the option of communicating with each other, that no corporation or government will strangle.
I truly hope it stays that way.
An open Internet is power to the people.
And ATT should upgrade their crap network, and all we need for that to happen is to have the media monopolies broken up and regulated.
Until a time comes when ATT has to compete to stay alive, you will have crap plans, crap contracts, and, of course, a crap network.
Leave it to an idiot like Manjoo to look for the worst solution...tiering.
I haven't watched an actual TV in 9 years, who still watches TV's?
We get a second sun.
Joke son....just a joke.
Now they know his name....
The finer the sand the more it acts like this, that's your "water on mars" right there.
Didn't hurt the stock that much.
So now we are down to "all you can download for a monthly fee" and "education for file shares + temporary suspension of ISP services, my my my how diluted has war on filesharing gotten?
Not to long ago they were trying for suing the crap out of you possible time in prison and "3 strikes no more internet for you" and while that's a mixed bag of different countries solutions it's clear that they aren't getting any where so this lean approach is how it's going to be.
I'm amused.
I bet he has super powers now, which frankly, is just as likely as getting hit by a meteorite.
If they are traveling sub light then their other techs would be highly advanced, life support, suspension of life or robotic/cloned, IMO weapons tech is the easiest to develope, you are simply looking to kill or destroy and so anyone with the economy/tech to allow sub light travel would certainly be able to deal with us on either a weapons basis or biological.
The fact that they are that much further advanced (we can barely maintain an orbital station) would be a good indicator of their superiority.
I think a better debate would be their motivation for such an expenditure, are they looking for a new home? Then they could be dangerous.
Are they "exploring" for science reasons? If so then they have massive resources.
While they may not have a monetary based system they still have to do the work of creating the ship and tech involved.
Is welcome them, if they have tech that gets them to our planet then we aren't going to have any weapons to use against them, and hiding won't end it either.
In general I think if they are high enough up the ladder (of tech) to cross the gaps between stars we have more to gain than to lose by welcoming them.