While it may be illegal, just about every ISP under the sun offers Usenet access. Speakeasy caps me off at 1GB per month per account (which they outsource to Giganews).
It seems to me that Usenet, so long as it goes unnoticed by the powers that be, will be the safe haven for such content.
Actually, other than the Scientology debacle, has anyone gotten in hot water over copyright violations by posting to Usenet?
Of course, your ISP's news server will likely be faster than your torrent. For instance, if I'm downloading... um... a DVD-ISO of my favorite Linux distro (that's the ticket!), I mightn't max out my connection on the torrent, depending on how many seeds there are and the size of their pipes, etc. Since your local news server is just that, local, you're pretty much guaranteed to max out your connection (unless your ISP throttles port 119).
Its incredibly inefficient, but the average end user will find it faster than most P2P filesharing networks.
The real question is: can I buy 533MHz ram and run it slower with lower latencies?
Yes. I regularly by high speed RAM and downclock it, but run it at lower latency. For instance if I wanted to run my RAM at 400MHz, I'd buy 433/466/500MHz VAL-U-RAM and run it as a stick of semi-premium 400MHz.
Its not odd that the media keeps pushing the idea that identity theft forces the victim to pay up as opposed to the company that allowed it;)
Schneier says this is the reason why identity theft will continue to prosper, since the creditor doesn't really have much to worry about.
At the base level, what happens is that the creditor does not fully authenticate the identity of the person they are doing business with. In some twisted logic, because the creditor hasn't done their job, it is the responsibility of the one who had their identity stolen to get their history straightened out.
Make the creditors prove their side of the case in a court of law and elminate overnight the problem with identity theft.
In fact, using the wikipedia numbers regarding his net worth ($51.5 billion), he donated just over.5% of his net worth.
I made about $5,000 last year (I'm a full-time student). His donation is equivalent, in "wow, how generous" terms, to me donating $25. The average American makes about $45,000. The equivalent would be about $225.*
Will the donation save countless lives? Definitely. Was the donation generous? Hardly.
Lay down some real money, Bill. Maybe then you'll have my respect.
*Obviously, yearly income != net worth, but its the best analogy I could make.
You're arguing with an anarchocapitalist. To him, the word "fair" is defined by the free market.
Anarchocapitalists, in general, see the free market as an omnipotent, omnipresent force that can do no wrong; even in the face of evidence to the contrary. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that anarchocapitalism is a religion.
Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it.
Bad grammar aside, I agree 100%.
We, the taxpayers of the United States of America paid for those lines and we had better get a return on our investment -- by using our pipes that we have already purchased for free.
The McCain amendment describes an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill (S. AMDT 1977 to HR 2863) that codifies the army field manual as law. It was widely known in the news as the reason why Bush is threatening to veto the bill. The amendment would amount to a ban on using torture as an interrogation method against all people in the custody of the US.
The bill is currently in conference committee, where it has a chance of being shot down since Bush and Cheney are adamant that it be removed from the final version of the bill.
Georgie said that he didn't think that I was doing enough to kill the McCain amendment in conference committee. Then I got a call from Dick, and he said that I needed to get the troops in line for the upcoming appropriations bill. They both are so mean sometimes! WTF!!! I just want to do fun speaker stuff like bang my gavel and shout "THERE WILL BE ORDER IN THE HOUSE!" at freshman congressmen, but these guys make me feel really underappreciated. I told Tom about it, and he said that I should just chill out and not worry about them.:-( [sigh]
I was feeling really depressed until I got a call from Condi, who said that she wanted someone to go shopping with her. I had an excellent time with her. We went to The Mall and bought a few odds and ends. She really cheered me up when she did an impression of John Kerry. She spoke in a monotone voice and pulled the sides of her eyes down to look like a basset hound and she said "GLOBAL TEST! GLOBAL TEST!" and "I VOTED FOR IT BEFORE I VOTED AGAINST IT!" ROFLMAO!!!! After we were done laughing, some lady next to us was shopping for flip-flops! Can you believe it! LOLLERSKATES!!!!
First, you confuse "libertarian" and "Libertarian".
Many Libertarians are nothing but, to use your word, Randroids, and don't care about anyone else but themselves -- and are proud of it. Some are not. I ended up voting for Badnarik, even though I was staunchly opposed to most of his economic agenda. He doesn't seem to be a Randian, but someone who has a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, and he refuses to budge from it, regardless of the consequences.
Many libertarians just want to get power back to the states, curb wasteful tax spending, and get the government off their backs. I don't find much wrong with libertarians, because they tend to be well spoken and give reasoned arguments, unlike many partisans who just parrot a party line.
You have a good point (that rights are not granted by government, but are inalienable and inherent), but I don't agree that owning a firearm is an inalienable human right.
I believe having reasonable tools to defend oneself from others is a human right. This pretty much covers firearms, but I think the overall sense of the right is better enshrined as:
People are entitled to tools in order to defend themselves and their families against loss of life, liberty, or property.
Of course, liberty and property, but not life IMO can be taken away given due process of law.
We acknowledge it's a lethal weapon which must be used with care. It is a priveledge, not a right.
In America, the 2nd amendment to the Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. So, for us, it is a right. You could see how we would have a different take on gun ownership than our Aussie friends.
If the idea is being "under the radar" you might have a point.
As far as the technology behind the two applications, BitTorrent is far and away a better way to transfer large amounts of data than FTP. BitTorrent will always be faster than FTP if you assume the same sized pipe since clients contribute bandwidth to the swarm.
Those who get wealthy and still profess belief in it are part of the lie that liberalism is and has been since the words "liberal" and "liberalism" were stolen by the leftists from the old style liberals who were if anything more like the true conservatives of today.
Really? I'm dead broke since I'm in college, but I don't expect to be that way for the rest of my life. I consider myself to be quite liberal in the "new" sense and don't plan to change my beliefs any time soon. I believe in the idea of a welfare state, and will gladly give up a good share of my money in furtherance of that belief if I ever have the luck of being successful.
Your comment regarding immigrants is pretty spot-on. The reason this is, is because many immigrants look at a $5.15/hr job as a Godsend. They had it so bad in their previous country, anything here looks fit for a king. The chronically poor who have lived here for their entire lives don't see things that way, and subsequently believe that if they work a full time job, they deserve X and Y. Even then, many immigrants end up being just as broke as natives. Take a look at some of the working-class neighborhoods in Boston, decendants of Irish immigrants. They came, worked hard, and had nothing to show for. Its just that "broke" in the US sense is far and away better than "broke" in the foreign sense.
I may scramble from job to job to keep my income paying a mortgage and ten dozen other bills, but I'd rather be doing this for my family than letting them sit around without hope living at the mercy of others.
I applaud you for doing that.
Although there is a certain cost-benefit analysis some people use in this situation. If single-mom X can make $400/wk at work and have to pay for child care or she can live off public assistance until her child reaches school age, why should she work? She can make sure her child is getting the attention they need if she's home.
This, to me, is an inherent flaw in the system, the same way that 45,000,000 Americans don't have health insurance, but all of our prisioners do. In fact, my girlfriend is one of those $45,000,000, and I suggested to her that, in order to get some costly surgery done, the best way to go about it was to commit a crime so that she would be incarcerated. This way she would get the care she needed. I've read quite a few stories where seniors would pull a gun at a convenience store, wait for the manager to call the police, and then wait outside for the police to come. Once they were in jail, they'd get their heart medication and other health needs taken care of.
I think you do have a point there. I believe that it is quite easy to distinguish the differences between rich liberals/conservatives and middle class and/or poor liberals/conservatives.
I agree with you that rich liberals tend to be snobby, Starbucks-sipping, SVU-driving, etc. These are the so-called "Limosuine Liberals" that the conservatives trot out as the face of the Democratic party in order to forment a perverse sort of backlash against some of the economic agenda of those Democrats (see "What's Wrong With Kansas" for a great analysis).
On the same token, rich conservatives don't care two shits about keeping government spending in check or personal responsibility, mostly because they're not conservatives, but neo-cons. I don't think any self-respecting conservative would demand the government bail out their failing business, but we see literally billions of dollars in government subsidy (welfare, if you like) going towards these businesses. These people don't care about anything other than the size of the number in their bank accounts and aren't afraid to do anything in order to increase it.
Of course, your common liberals and conservatives tend to be honest, hard-working people, but with different views on how to best run the country. These commoners never get seen in the news media. They'd have you believe that everyone who voted for Bush wants to force you to worship God as they see fit and that everyone who voted for Kerry wants to make gay marriage and abortions manditory. This obviously isn't the case, and it is our duty as the "commoner" to make sure we don't let our breathren be mislead in this fashion.
We in the states had to invent the word "libertarian" to describe old-style liberals (the way you describe "liberal"). In the US, "liberal" usually is synonamyous with watered-down democratic socialism.
One thing I always notice is that conservatives tend to have been born into middle and upper-middle class families and have had ample opportunity to make something of themselves, while those who are more liberal (read: socialist if in Europe) have not had such opportunities. I think this has something to do with the trend you describe. Conservatives miss the point that not every has had the same opportunities, while liberals don't quite get that sometimes it is the fault of the poor man that he is poor.
The causality of the situation will be debated until the end of time. Are people unsuccessful because they are lazy, or are people lazy because they are unsuccessful? I'll decline to share my view for fear of starting an offtopic flamewar. All the same, it is an interesting question.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Drivers
2) Drivers
3) Drivers
At that distance gigabit ethernet with a repeater, if needed, would seem more logical.
While it may be illegal, just about every ISP under the sun offers Usenet access. Speakeasy caps me off at 1GB per month per account (which they outsource to Giganews).
It seems to me that Usenet, so long as it goes unnoticed by the powers that be, will be the safe haven for such content.
Actually, other than the Scientology debacle, has anyone gotten in hot water over copyright violations by posting to Usenet?
True.
... um ... a DVD-ISO of my favorite Linux distro (that's the ticket!), I mightn't max out my connection on the torrent, depending on how many seeds there are and the size of their pipes, etc. Since your local news server is just that, local, you're pretty much guaranteed to max out your connection (unless your ISP throttles port 119).
Of course, your ISP's news server will likely be faster than your torrent. For instance, if I'm downloading
Its incredibly inefficient, but the average end user will find it faster than most P2P filesharing networks.
The real question is: can I buy 533MHz ram and run it slower with lower latencies?
Yes. I regularly by high speed RAM and downclock it, but run it at lower latency. For instance if I wanted to run my RAM at 400MHz, I'd buy 433/466/500MHz VAL-U-RAM and run it as a stick of semi-premium 400MHz.
Its not odd that the media keeps pushing the idea that identity theft forces the victim to pay up as opposed to the company that allowed it ;)
Schneier says this is the reason why identity theft will continue to prosper, since the creditor doesn't really have much to worry about.
At the base level, what happens is that the creditor does not fully authenticate the identity of the person they are doing business with. In some twisted logic, because the creditor hasn't done their job, it is the responsibility of the one who had their identity stolen to get their history straightened out.
Make the creditors prove their side of the case in a court of law and elminate overnight the problem with identity theft.
In fact, using the wikipedia numbers regarding his net worth ($51.5 billion), he donated just over .5% of his net worth.
I made about $5,000 last year (I'm a full-time student). His donation is equivalent, in "wow, how generous" terms, to me donating $25. The average American makes about $45,000. The equivalent would be about $225.*
Will the donation save countless lives? Definitely.
Was the donation generous? Hardly.
Lay down some real money, Bill. Maybe then you'll have my respect.
*Obviously, yearly income != net worth, but its the best analogy I could make.
Ahh... not so fast.
;-)
These viruses seem to be intelligently designed.
You're arguing with an anarchocapitalist. To him, the word "fair" is defined by the free market.
Anarchocapitalists, in general, see the free market as an omnipotent, omnipresent force that can do no wrong; even in the face of evidence to the contrary. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that anarchocapitalism is a religion.
Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it.
Bad grammar aside, I agree 100%.
We, the taxpayers of the United States of America paid for those lines and we had better get a return on our investment -- by using our pipes that we have already purchased for free.
Neither of the links are to his blog, so at least he's not using /. as his personal piggy-bank.
The McCain amendment describes an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill (S. AMDT 1977 to HR 2863) that codifies the army field manual as law. It was widely known in the news as the reason why Bush is threatening to veto the bill. The amendment would amount to a ban on using torture as an interrogation method against all people in the custody of the US.
The bill is currently in conference committee, where it has a chance of being shot down since Bush and Cheney are adamant that it be removed from the final version of the bill.
So, who was the ignorant one again?
A future Hastert blog:
:-(
:-( [sigh]
OMG!!!! What a day!
Georgie said that he didn't think that I was doing enough to kill the McCain amendment in conference committee. Then I got a call from Dick, and he said that I needed to get the troops in line for the upcoming appropriations bill. They both are so mean sometimes! WTF!!! I just want to do fun speaker stuff like bang my gavel and shout "THERE WILL BE ORDER IN THE HOUSE!" at freshman congressmen, but these guys make me feel really underappreciated. I told Tom about it, and he said that I should just chill out and not worry about them.
I was feeling really depressed until I got a call from Condi, who said that she wanted someone to go shopping with her. I had an excellent time with her. We went to The Mall and bought a few odds and ends. She really cheered me up when she did an impression of John Kerry. She spoke in a monotone voice and pulled the sides of her eyes down to look like a basset hound and she said "GLOBAL TEST! GLOBAL TEST!" and "I VOTED FOR IT BEFORE I VOTED AGAINST IT!" ROFLMAO!!!! After we were done laughing, some lady next to us was shopping for flip-flops! Can you believe it! LOLLERSKATES!!!!
First, you confuse "libertarian" and "Libertarian".
Many Libertarians are nothing but, to use your word, Randroids, and don't care about anyone else but themselves -- and are proud of it. Some are not. I ended up voting for Badnarik, even though I was staunchly opposed to most of his economic agenda. He doesn't seem to be a Randian, but someone who has a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, and he refuses to budge from it, regardless of the consequences.
Many libertarians just want to get power back to the states, curb wasteful tax spending, and get the government off their backs. I don't find much wrong with libertarians, because they tend to be well spoken and give reasoned arguments, unlike many partisans who just parrot a party line.
You have a good point (that rights are not granted by government, but are inalienable and inherent), but I don't agree that owning a firearm is an inalienable human right.
I believe having reasonable tools to defend oneself from others is a human right. This pretty much covers firearms, but I think the overall sense of the right is better enshrined as:
People are entitled to tools in order to defend themselves and their families against loss of life, liberty, or property.
Of course, liberty and property, but not life IMO can be taken away given due process of law.
The Supreme Court begs to differ.
We acknowledge it's a lethal weapon which must be used with care. It is a priveledge, not a right.
In America, the 2nd amendment to the Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. So, for us, it is a right. You could see how we would have a different take on gun ownership than our Aussie friends.
If the idea is being "under the radar" you might have a point.
As far as the technology behind the two applications, BitTorrent is far and away a better way to transfer large amounts of data than FTP. BitTorrent will always be faster than FTP if you assume the same sized pipe since clients contribute bandwidth to the swarm.
This is probably the most assanine thing I've ever heard on /.
How many times must this get corrected on /. before people stop using this false analogy?
As many times as it takes for you to figure out that they're trolling.
Quit feeding the trolls.
Don't post again until you check your facts or at the very least prefix "I think" to your sentences.
Those who get wealthy and still profess belief in it are part of the lie that liberalism is and has been since the words "liberal" and "liberalism" were stolen by the leftists from the old style liberals who were if anything more like the true conservatives of today.
Really? I'm dead broke since I'm in college, but I don't expect to be that way for the rest of my life. I consider myself to be quite liberal in the "new" sense and don't plan to change my beliefs any time soon. I believe in the idea of a welfare state, and will gladly give up a good share of my money in furtherance of that belief if I ever have the luck of being successful.
Your comment regarding immigrants is pretty spot-on. The reason this is, is because many immigrants look at a $5.15/hr job as a Godsend. They had it so bad in their previous country, anything here looks fit for a king. The chronically poor who have lived here for their entire lives don't see things that way, and subsequently believe that if they work a full time job, they deserve X and Y. Even then, many immigrants end up being just as broke as natives. Take a look at some of the working-class neighborhoods in Boston, decendants of Irish immigrants. They came, worked hard, and had nothing to show for. Its just that "broke" in the US sense is far and away better than "broke" in the foreign sense.
I may scramble from job to job to keep my income paying a mortgage and ten dozen other bills, but I'd rather be doing this for my family than letting them sit around without hope living at the mercy of others.
I applaud you for doing that.
Although there is a certain cost-benefit analysis some people use in this situation. If single-mom X can make $400/wk at work and have to pay for child care or she can live off public assistance until her child reaches school age, why should she work? She can make sure her child is getting the attention they need if she's home.
This, to me, is an inherent flaw in the system, the same way that 45,000,000 Americans don't have health insurance, but all of our prisioners do. In fact, my girlfriend is one of those $45,000,000, and I suggested to her that, in order to get some costly surgery done, the best way to go about it was to commit a crime so that she would be incarcerated. This way she would get the care she needed. I've read quite a few stories where seniors would pull a gun at a convenience store, wait for the manager to call the police, and then wait outside for the police to come. Once they were in jail, they'd get their heart medication and other health needs taken care of.
I think you do have a point there. I believe that it is quite easy to distinguish the differences between rich liberals/conservatives and middle class and/or poor liberals/conservatives.
I agree with you that rich liberals tend to be snobby, Starbucks-sipping, SVU-driving, etc. These are the so-called "Limosuine Liberals" that the conservatives trot out as the face of the Democratic party in order to forment a perverse sort of backlash against some of the economic agenda of those Democrats (see "What's Wrong With Kansas" for a great analysis).
On the same token, rich conservatives don't care two shits about keeping government spending in check or personal responsibility, mostly because they're not conservatives, but neo-cons. I don't think any self-respecting conservative would demand the government bail out their failing business, but we see literally billions of dollars in government subsidy (welfare, if you like) going towards these businesses. These people don't care about anything other than the size of the number in their bank accounts and aren't afraid to do anything in order to increase it.
Of course, your common liberals and conservatives tend to be honest, hard-working people, but with different views on how to best run the country. These commoners never get seen in the news media. They'd have you believe that everyone who voted for Bush wants to force you to worship God as they see fit and that everyone who voted for Kerry wants to make gay marriage and abortions manditory. This obviously isn't the case, and it is our duty as the "commoner" to make sure we don't let our breathren be mislead in this fashion.
We in the states had to invent the word "libertarian" to describe old-style liberals (the way you describe "liberal"). In the US, "liberal" usually is synonamyous with watered-down democratic socialism.
One thing I always notice is that conservatives tend to have been born into middle and upper-middle class families and have had ample opportunity to make something of themselves, while those who are more liberal (read: socialist if in Europe) have not had such opportunities. I think this has something to do with the trend you describe. Conservatives miss the point that not every has had the same opportunities, while liberals don't quite get that sometimes it is the fault of the poor man that he is poor.
The causality of the situation will be debated until the end of time. Are people unsuccessful because they are lazy, or are people lazy because they are unsuccessful? I'll decline to share my view for fear of starting an offtopic flamewar. All the same, it is an interesting question.