Sorry, but your friend's boyfriend should probably not be trusted with sharp objects, or to be alone in the pool and other things you don't like to see 1 year olds do. I don't care how manly you think you might be, if you can admit you have injured yourself playing a video game, you're not manly.
The Wii might be showing us who should move on to procreate and who should not for the next big step in evolution of mankind.
Re:Why SAS fill eventually fail
on
USPS Server Meltdown
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In this case, you might want to only guarantee prices quoted from USPS and use your data as 'estimates' in the event that your own data is wrong and costs change at shipping time.
In yet other cases, the backup plan might simply be to use data from last week or yesterday if that is sufficient, but is data that is held in house on your servers.
Depending on the situation and requirements, any number of solutions are possible. By using a 'back up' solution that is not as good or perhaps as accurate, when the system fails to the back up, you have something that is workable if not 100% perfect or accurate.
You may indeed have a backup solution that is 100% accurate etc. and that is good. It's purpose is still a backup if that is how you configure the systems. You could also choose not to use the SaS and rely totally on your in house solution, but that is not what was being talked about here.
Yes, and banning the image now would be like going back to sensor re-runs of television shows from the 70's. That's awesome! Perhaps we can get rock-a-billy music censored out of existence?
Re:Why SAS fill eventually fail
on
USPS Server Meltdown
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There is a better way. Code your own backup solution, revert to it when the SaS you are counting on fails. In this case, that would be a static shipping 'estimate' process that substitutes data when the USPS service fails. Writing code what depends on a third party is dangerous. If your business depends on that software you are fooling yourself if you think it won't fail. It will. This is where coding disaster recovery functions into your system is important.
Many of the posts here are about how stupid this situation is, but people are like that. There is a better solution: don't rely on SaS to hold your business together on a daily basis.
Well, feeling a bit dramatic after taking a cold pill, I personally thought my post was funny, but hey maybe it was insightful humor? I'm guessing that the sarcasm of facial expressions did not transfer well with the post?
There will always be even more fucked up shit than what you just saw
Now, I've been saying this all along, but nay sayers think the sky will never fall, and that the government is not out to get them. I've got bad news for you: It will, and they are, and if those two problems are not enough there will always be people willing to steal your stuff. period. no exceptions.
The fact that they have not stolen yours yet is merely an oversight on "their" part. It will happen at some point. Security is myth. Do not trust those that want to protect you. The government will never shield you, only pretend to do so. This is a harbinger of dangers to come, and reason to demand with some vigor that your financial institution be held accountable by law for the protection of your information. Yes, I mean that. If they want to do business with my money, I want guarantees. You should too.
: the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company
I guess they need an update inasmuch as spies can now be computer operators or programmers, for that matter.
Despite that, it's far more buzz-wordy to say duhn du duh "Cyber Warfare" because it sounds really complex and technological, and when you say it lots of people think you know what you are talking about. And of course, any time that you use 'warfare' joe 6pack knows that we must have/get the government involved to protect us citizens if there is a war going on.
"There will always be even more fucked up shit than what you just saw"
Clearly, if you can imagine it, someone is probably trying to do it or has done it. Cyber Warefare, like Web 2.0, is a bloated term with multiple meanings. The trouble is that when you dismiss it because it is not like some famous battle of WWII, you risk falling foul of it through inaction, lack of preparation, and lazy security.
This is the 'new cold war' and they won't cut the wires because without them the USA could not spy on China. Silly boy. It's not just about money, it's about control. In international negotiations a little extra information is always good and the USA will be trying to collect as much of it as anyone else will. period. no exceptions.
Lately there has been a bit more in the news where 'cyber warfare' has been used to demonize the Chinese among others. I think this is not so different from the build up of bad PR we saw against Iraq and now Iran. Looking at the collective picture I think that the news we hear is propaganda and that the part we hear is what the government wants us to hear. We hear 'warfare' 'China is bad' etc. What we SHOULD hear is "The US is engaged in technological spying techniques, and in our efforts we have noticed that the Chinese also do this". You should also hear that "Any dirty technique you can think of with computers: We're trying those, but those damned Chinese have ruined it for us, they are forcing everyone to use RedFlag Linux and we have no back door in that OS".
Expect new 'kernel patches' soon and complete Chinese language updates as well.
When I see slashdot stories like this, I'm always hopeful that someone will post links to relevant and insightful research information that I might use to glean more insight into how intelligence works. I do realize that this last sentence might not have been overly intelligent, but I do have a notion that the human brain (in fact all mammalian brains) function as several highly integrated processors might. I've tried finding discussions and research along these lines, but it would seem non-existent or not accessible to me.
When we think of the memory functions learned through H.M. and others, it seems like we are seeing the function of wetware applications and how they interact as well as what part of the brain provides processing for them... if you can think of the brain that way.
If anyone is interested, I also have a notion that much of the interlinking of processes can be represented as a large (read complex) cascade of FSM whose states are processed out of band of actual data. That is to say that the complex state of external processes drives or guides data processing in any given process inside the brain.
I probably sound like I'm talking out of an orifice, but thanks for the look up reference.
This is one of the most sane statements I've read/heard regarding copyright in the USA for a very long time.
On the matter of restitution, the claim that making available is tantamount to multiple infringements is one of the most ridiculous tactics of the **AA. If they are allowed to carry on with such behavior and definitions, it will be dangerous to all users of the internet.
Content is not a commodity under copyright, it is a property. The **AA have been treating it as a commodity and that violates the principles and intent of copyright law. Congress was given the ability to establish protections for content CREATORS, not commodity brokers.
In addition to what you have said, I suggest that one of the tests applied to any legal action against copyright infringement is that the plaintiff show just cause AND that they are indeed directly protecting the content creator and not just some revenue stream. If the copyright holder is not a citizen, there can be no case without extreme evidence of egregious infringement. Yes, that would make it difficult for corporations to defend their copyrights.... damn right it would.
I quite agree with this sentiment, but I think there is more to say. The fact that someone is intervening on the behalf of the criminals formerly known as Media Sentry is indicative that they need help. Clearly, that is a good sign for those being persecuted by means of egregious use of the court systems.
It would be very nice to see Media Sentry or SafeNet (or whatever name they use) barred from courtrooms everywhere, and their 'evidence' be forbidden in the court room. That might just put an end to all of this business of using the courts to validate using the government resource to act as the investigative arm of the **AA and associated groups.
What we know is that Media Sentry used very shaky methods to insinuate that some people committed copyright infringement. Then they used this incredibly shaky evidence to cajole the courts into doing their work for them. This is wrong. Very wrong. Setting right this one problem would probably end all this bs. I hope so anyway.
I am not a bio-engineer and I'm only partially good at skydiving analogies, but I had wondered how plans for using bio-computers would function. I get how they have been using cells with inputs to control things experimentally, but if you want to use biology based memory storage there must be some way to control what is being stored. Again, might be talking out of an orifice, but wouldn't something like this lead to methods of storing bits?
Even if you could only store 256Kb per cell, that's still a lot of information in the space of a pencil point. Not sure how it would all work, but it is definitely interesting.
Use of the phrase "Web 2.0" is an interesting thing, both in lingual terms and in terms of perception. Pardon me while I now blather on for a few minutes.
Using a phrase like "new, loosely organized social groupings centered around 'virtual' meeting places accessed on the Internet, and the resulting community atmosphere" is not nearly as easy to use as 'Web 2.0'. On the other hand, 'Web 2.0' has been assigned several misleading meanings, from technical in nature, to cultural in nature. This follows on the heels of poor understanding and use of the word 'net'. It has been used as a short nic-name for "The Internet" as well as many other things. In general terms, it is most often used by laypersons when they really mean to reference "The World Wide Web". This has ruffled a few feathers in the past, and probably still does.
While these are examples of people who are technically using words and phrases incorrectly, it is unfortunately how society as a whole communicates, e.g. "hand me a kleenex please" is often heard despite the fact that there are no actual Kleenex facial tissues within 3 miles of the speaker. Most common folk need a simple moniker to refer to that amorphous and highly technical thing that connects what seems like the entire world together. The do not know the technical ramifications of what they say, they simply want to refer to that big technical thingy that gives them email in a simple manner.
They will talk about traveling by road to some destination. Technically, they should probably say travel by highway, or some technically correct term, but they will still simply say road.
While I agree that "Web 2.0" is vague enough to annoy many, it is simple enough for the majority to use when they are referring to all the new fangled, socially oriented, and flashy features of the Internet.
I try to use terms correctly because it helps to create clear communication, but I also can understand that "Web 2.0" probably won't go away for the same reasons that people will always tell mechanics that 'the car is making a funny noise' rather than give them a detailed and somewhat technical description of "a bearing rattle that only happens at 2700 rpm and only when in 3rd gear."
It is for these reasons that I don't think it is wrong for even very smart people to use the term. The common sense of the phrase is what is being conveyed usually, and no matter how awful that is, it IS what common folk understand.
Complaining about it won't stop it's use. Sorry, I don't have a skydiving analogy to go with this one.
Why just cases vs RIAA? Now THAT is a pretty damned good question! It might just be that the tactics of the RIAA's legal team are so reprehensible that people are volunteering to fight them. If you are a judge or know one, you should perhaps help point this out to them.
It has always been my thinking that Harvard law school very rarely ever comes out on the wrong side of a legal issue. It is their business after all. That term Preponderance of evidence would seem to apply here when so many law schools are weighing in on this issue, and doing so against the RIAA legal team.
It would seem to me that this should be seen as a very bad omen for the RIAA et al. When all the kids circle around and start picking on the class bully, things normally get sorted out, and the bully gets a black eye or two as needed. I think that is what we might be witnessing in the greater stage of legal theater.
It makes me infuriated. Look, there is evidence to show that if the pre-9/11 intelligence gathering and analysis processes had been what they should have been, the tragedy of 9/11 would never have happened.
When we invest in such systems as this, what the government is saying is that despite their new information and ability to show improvement on pre-9/11 processes to prevent further incidents, they are not going to do anything about their failures. They'd rather just inconvenience citizens because in doing so it just so happens to help out the fascist neocons in the grand plan for the new world order.
Meanwhile, since 9/11 have any terrorists been caught in an airport? Homeland security needs to go. This is such a waste of resources and gives a totally false sense of security. It's not only counterproductive, it's in the way of something that would be good for security.
Not only disturbing but also absolutely useless. There is not one terrorist that this would have caught. As pointed out, they have no idea what results will show on the machine when an actual and real terrorist tries to board the plane.
This says nothing of how easy it will be now to attack any other mass transportation system other than airplanes, or infrastructure, or water supplies, or food supplies etc. All that this amounts to is a huge waste of money and time. While they put so much effort and money into such a thing, it tells terrorists exactly where to not bother because they aren't watching any other places.
Just one incident at the security checkpoint large enough to shut down a terminal and you have all the distraction you need to sneak into the cargo area etc. Never mind easily shutting down and airport and diverting emergency services to a false alarm while real terrorist acts are happening elsewhere in the city or country.
This sort of thing is absolutely stupid. Worse, it will get used for the wrong reasons, on the wrong people, for the wrong goals.
Please, will someone show me where the terrorists are? Can you show me their unending plots to hijack airplanes? Oh, that's right, they just did that in India. What was I thinking? ALL terrorists ALWAYS want to use airplanes to frighten Americans, and the world will end if a lighter gets on board an airplane. Please, someone show justification for this system.
Yeah, yeah. There was a glacier in North America once too... are we building anti-glacial protection systems?
Perfect. This description works well for telephones, but even telcos increase capacity to handle increasing call volumes. When the argument that the service I pay for is 'up to 10Mbps' and not 10Mbps 100% of the time, I will ask you this: Should I expect that only 25% of my voice calls will get through some times, or that only 25% of my words will get sent to the other end? Or should I expect that every time I pick up the phone and dial, it will go through the network to the distant end. Did phone companies bitch to Congress because people were staying on their dial-up lines 24/7?
No matter what you counter with, the problem is still that ISPs over-sold and poorly designed their network infrastructure.
You can argue that 'oh, P2P is bad and UDP P2P will kill the network' but when it's all said and done, if you make P2P illegal all those HTTP and FTP downloads (and probably other protocols will be implemented) are still going to suck the life out of a poorly designed and over-sold networks.
While you are at it, please explain how in the fuck large ISPs intend to provide triple-play and quadruple-play services if their network infrastructure can't handle current Internet bandwidth requirements? Perhaps this is where the money that might be used for expanding capacity is going? Can't build out for customers
As you say, it depends. I'm moving two data warehouse setups from Oracle on Solaris to MySQL on CentOS Linux. I had a small problem with UTF-8 and of course rewriting truck loads of SQL statements, but over all it was worth it. The commodity hardware that CentOS is running on is 1/3 the cost of comparable Sun hardware. The maintenance cost burden of Solaris, Sun, and Oracle far outweigh the costs involved in the change over. Going forward the in-house staff are switching to the new OS/database with grace. Perl runs equally well on both the old and the new.
One might argue that an Oracle guru that is unable to move to MySQL or PostgreSQL is probably not 'the' best in-house resource you could have. Training is worth the effort and cost. Remember, if you invest in your people the payback is compound. If you invest in OS and apps, you will always be limited to what people you can hire. With training, limitations are reduced for the company overall. You retain skill sets, gain new ones, and have an improved manpower resource pool. All of that at less cost than maintaining the status quo in many cases.
TCO is difficult to compute as a one size fits all answer. From what I've seen, in many cases F/OSS does have a lower TCO and increased benefit to those who choose it.
Wow, you got close to what I think is the solution. Every ISP can provide two virtual networks to each user. Where the edge of the ISP network sits; that point where end users are attached, it is possible to use routing to run BT traffic down one pipe and all else down another pipe. In this respect, BT traffic would not melt down the network or hog the connections of others in the neighborhood. If there is only 2.5GB/s available for BT et al, then only BT et al users suffer when it is full.
OMG, network design 101. hmmmm if I were an ISP, I'd set that up and explain that is how the new service works. The new P2P network is limited in bandwidth and your neighbors are the ones to blame if it is clogged. Yes, this even applies to businesses, co-op networks, ISPs, the lot. It minimizes infrastructure upgrades, and provides service as perceived by the end user, not as shaped by central routing equipment. You might think of it as an HOV lane, to use a car analogy.
Secondly, if networks were not oversold so much and under-designed so often, this would not be a problem. I really don't care how you slice it, this is a problem because of poor decision making by service providers. They wanted everyone's business (still do) but are not designing their networks to handle the traffic. When they build new roads these days, the build them so that extra lanes can be added in the future when needed. Why isn't that happening on ISP infrastructure?
That is addressing the problem from an ISP's point of view, or perhaps the "**AA's talking points for ISPs" point of view.
If I pay for 10Mbps download speed, it should not matter to anyone how I use those bits. If you as my ISP cannot handle that traffic, you should NOT have sold it to me in the first place. Every time you throttle or shape my traffic, I want a rebate. It's that simple. I don't think we should have bailed out wall street and I don't think It's my responsibility to support an ISPs bad business model. That is what this problem is all about. Bad business decisions on the part of ISPs. They over sold their networks and now want a bailout. BS!
If you want regulation, how's this: If you sold me 10Mbps download and can't provide it regardless of protocol, you have committed fraud and I'm allowed to sue. I don't want to hear about your problems, just provide what you sold me.
If you sell me a parachute I expect it to work in every state, on any day of the week, and from any kind of airplane, no matter what clothes I'm wearing or not wearing. After you sold it to me, it's simply criminal to then say it only works if you are wearing green, or skydiving on a day of the week that begins with a T.
If you don't want me to use BT, then give me a 50% discount on my bill.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but your friend's boyfriend should probably not be trusted with sharp objects, or to be alone in the pool and other things you don't like to see 1 year olds do. I don't care how manly you think you might be, if you can admit you have injured yourself playing a video game, you're not manly.
The Wii might be showing us who should move on to procreate and who should not for the next big step in evolution of mankind.
In this case, you might want to only guarantee prices quoted from USPS and use your data as 'estimates' in the event that your own data is wrong and costs change at shipping time.
In yet other cases, the backup plan might simply be to use data from last week or yesterday if that is sufficient, but is data that is held in house on your servers.
Depending on the situation and requirements, any number of solutions are possible. By using a 'back up' solution that is not as good or perhaps as accurate, when the system fails to the back up, you have something that is workable if not 100% perfect or accurate.
You may indeed have a backup solution that is 100% accurate etc. and that is good. It's purpose is still a backup if that is how you configure the systems. You could also choose not to use the SaS and rely totally on your in house solution, but that is not what was being talked about here.
Yes, and banning the image now would be like going back to sensor re-runs of television shows from the 70's. That's awesome! Perhaps we can get rock-a-billy music censored out of existence?
There is a better way. Code your own backup solution, revert to it when the SaS you are counting on fails. In this case, that would be a static shipping 'estimate' process that substitutes data when the USPS service fails. Writing code what depends on a third party is dangerous. If your business depends on that software you are fooling yourself if you think it won't fail. It will. This is where coding disaster recovery functions into your system is important.
Many of the posts here are about how stupid this situation is, but people are like that. There is a better solution: don't rely on SaS to hold your business together on a daily basis.
If history has any lessons for us, it would seem that such stops at the gallows or guillotine.
Well, feeling a bit dramatic after taking a cold pill, I personally thought my post was funny, but hey maybe it was insightful humor? I'm guessing that the sarcasm of facial expressions did not transfer well with the post?
Rule 36 states:
There will always be even more fucked up shit than what you just saw
Now, I've been saying this all along, but nay sayers think the sky will never fall, and that the government is not out to get them. I've got bad news for you: It will, and they are, and if those two problems are not enough there will always be people willing to steal your stuff. period. no exceptions.
The fact that they have not stolen yours yet is merely an oversight on "their" part. It will happen at some point. Security is myth. Do not trust those that want to protect you. The government will never shield you, only pretend to do so. This is a harbinger of dangers to come, and reason to demand with some vigor that your financial institution be held accountable by law for the protection of your information. Yes, I mean that. If they want to do business with my money, I want guarantees. You should too.
Bravo!
The correct word for this _is_ espionage.
One online dictionary says that espionage is:
: the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company
I guess they need an update inasmuch as spies can now be computer operators or programmers, for that matter.
Despite that, it's far more buzz-wordy to say duhn du duh "Cyber Warfare" because it sounds really complex and technological, and when you say it lots of people think you know what you are talking about. And of course, any time that you use 'warfare' joe 6pack knows that we must have/get the government involved to protect us citizens if there is a war going on.
Rule 36 states:
"There will always be even more fucked up shit than what you just saw"
Clearly, if you can imagine it, someone is probably trying to do it or has done it. Cyber Warefare, like Web 2.0, is a bloated term with multiple meanings. The trouble is that when you dismiss it because it is not like some famous battle of WWII, you risk falling foul of it through inaction, lack of preparation, and lazy security.
This is the 'new cold war' and they won't cut the wires because without them the USA could not spy on China. Silly boy. It's not just about money, it's about control. In international negotiations a little extra information is always good and the USA will be trying to collect as much of it as anyone else will. period. no exceptions.
Lately there has been a bit more in the news where 'cyber warfare' has been used to demonize the Chinese among others. I think this is not so different from the build up of bad PR we saw against Iraq and now Iran. Looking at the collective picture I think that the news we hear is propaganda and that the part we hear is what the government wants us to hear. We hear 'warfare' 'China is bad' etc. What we SHOULD hear is "The US is engaged in technological spying techniques, and in our efforts we have noticed that the Chinese also do this". You should also hear that "Any dirty technique you can think of with computers: We're trying those, but those damned Chinese have ruined it for us, they are forcing everyone to use RedFlag Linux and we have no back door in that OS".
Expect new 'kernel patches' soon and complete Chinese language updates as well.
Nice story. I replied to you in the comments of your story. Thanks
mea culpa - Yes, I did mean finite state machine. Though a complex cascade of flying spaghetti monsters has a certain ring to it.
When I see slashdot stories like this, I'm always hopeful that someone will post links to relevant and insightful research information that I might use to glean more insight into how intelligence works. I do realize that this last sentence might not have been overly intelligent, but I do have a notion that the human brain (in fact all mammalian brains) function as several highly integrated processors might. I've tried finding discussions and research along these lines, but it would seem non-existent or not accessible to me.
When we think of the memory functions learned through H.M. and others, it seems like we are seeing the function of wetware applications and how they interact as well as what part of the brain provides processing for them... if you can think of the brain that way.
If anyone is interested, I also have a notion that much of the interlinking of processes can be represented as a large (read complex) cascade of FSM whose states are processed out of band of actual data. That is to say that the complex state of external processes drives or guides data processing in any given process inside the brain.
I probably sound like I'm talking out of an orifice, but thanks for the look up reference.
For others: Here is a search at UCDavis for Yonelinas
Ray, don't be awestruck. That would kind of weird out those of us who are awestruck by you and your work :-)
This is one of the most sane statements I've read/heard regarding copyright in the USA for a very long time.
On the matter of restitution, the claim that making available is tantamount to multiple infringements is one of the most ridiculous tactics of the **AA. If they are allowed to carry on with such behavior and definitions, it will be dangerous to all users of the internet.
Content is not a commodity under copyright, it is a property. The **AA have been treating it as a commodity and that violates the principles and intent of copyright law. Congress was given the ability to establish protections for content CREATORS, not commodity brokers.
In addition to what you have said, I suggest that one of the tests applied to any legal action against copyright infringement is that the plaintiff show just cause AND that they are indeed directly protecting the content creator and not just some revenue stream. If the copyright holder is not a citizen, there can be no case without extreme evidence of egregious infringement. Yes, that would make it difficult for corporations to defend their copyrights.... damn right it would.
I quite agree with this sentiment, but I think there is more to say. The fact that someone is intervening on the behalf of the criminals formerly known as Media Sentry is indicative that they need help. Clearly, that is a good sign for those being persecuted by means of egregious use of the court systems.
It would be very nice to see Media Sentry or SafeNet (or whatever name they use) barred from courtrooms everywhere, and their 'evidence' be forbidden in the court room. That might just put an end to all of this business of using the courts to validate using the government resource to act as the investigative arm of the **AA and associated groups.
What we know is that Media Sentry used very shaky methods to insinuate that some people committed copyright infringement. Then they used this incredibly shaky evidence to cajole the courts into doing their work for them. This is wrong. Very wrong. Setting right this one problem would probably end all this bs. I hope so anyway.
I am not a bio-engineer and I'm only partially good at skydiving analogies, but I had wondered how plans for using bio-computers would function. I get how they have been using cells with inputs to control things experimentally, but if you want to use biology based memory storage there must be some way to control what is being stored. Again, might be talking out of an orifice, but wouldn't something like this lead to methods of storing bits?
Even if you could only store 256Kb per cell, that's still a lot of information in the space of a pencil point. Not sure how it would all work, but it is definitely interesting.
Use of the phrase "Web 2.0" is an interesting thing, both in lingual terms and in terms of perception. Pardon me while I now blather on for a few minutes.
Using a phrase like "new, loosely organized social groupings centered around 'virtual' meeting places accessed on the Internet, and the resulting community atmosphere" is not nearly as easy to use as 'Web 2.0'. On the other hand, 'Web 2.0' has been assigned several misleading meanings, from technical in nature, to cultural in nature. This follows on the heels of poor understanding and use of the word 'net'. It has been used as a short nic-name for "The Internet" as well as many other things. In general terms, it is most often used by laypersons when they really mean to reference "The World Wide Web". This has ruffled a few feathers in the past, and probably still does.
While these are examples of people who are technically using words and phrases incorrectly, it is unfortunately how society as a whole communicates, e.g. "hand me a kleenex please" is often heard despite the fact that there are no actual Kleenex facial tissues within 3 miles of the speaker. Most common folk need a simple moniker to refer to that amorphous and highly technical thing that connects what seems like the entire world together. The do not know the technical ramifications of what they say, they simply want to refer to that big technical thingy that gives them email in a simple manner.
They will talk about traveling by road to some destination. Technically, they should probably say travel by highway, or some technically correct term, but they will still simply say road.
While I agree that "Web 2.0" is vague enough to annoy many, it is simple enough for the majority to use when they are referring to all the new fangled, socially oriented, and flashy features of the Internet.
I try to use terms correctly because it helps to create clear communication, but I also can understand that "Web 2.0" probably won't go away for the same reasons that people will always tell mechanics that 'the car is making a funny noise' rather than give them a detailed and somewhat technical description of "a bearing rattle that only happens at 2700 rpm and only when in 3rd gear."
It is for these reasons that I don't think it is wrong for even very smart people to use the term. The common sense of the phrase is what is being conveyed usually, and no matter how awful that is, it IS what common folk understand.
Complaining about it won't stop it's use. Sorry, I don't have a skydiving analogy to go with this one.
Why just cases vs RIAA? Now THAT is a pretty damned good question! It might just be that the tactics of the RIAA's legal team are so reprehensible that people are volunteering to fight them. If you are a judge or know one, you should perhaps help point this out to them.
It has always been my thinking that Harvard law school very rarely ever comes out on the wrong side of a legal issue. It is their business after all. That term Preponderance of evidence would seem to apply here when so many law schools are weighing in on this issue, and doing so against the RIAA legal team.
It would seem to me that this should be seen as a very bad omen for the RIAA et al. When all the kids circle around and start picking on the class bully, things normally get sorted out, and the bully gets a black eye or two as needed. I think that is what we might be witnessing in the greater stage of legal theater.
It makes me infuriated. Look, there is evidence to show that if the pre-9/11 intelligence gathering and analysis processes had been what they should have been, the tragedy of 9/11 would never have happened.
When we invest in such systems as this, what the government is saying is that despite their new information and ability to show improvement on pre-9/11 processes to prevent further incidents, they are not going to do anything about their failures. They'd rather just inconvenience citizens because in doing so it just so happens to help out the fascist neocons in the grand plan for the new world order.
Meanwhile, since 9/11 have any terrorists been caught in an airport? Homeland security needs to go. This is such a waste of resources and gives a totally false sense of security. It's not only counterproductive, it's in the way of something that would be good for security.
Not only disturbing but also absolutely useless. There is not one terrorist that this would have caught. As pointed out, they have no idea what results will show on the machine when an actual and real terrorist tries to board the plane.
This says nothing of how easy it will be now to attack any other mass transportation system other than airplanes, or infrastructure, or water supplies, or food supplies etc. All that this amounts to is a huge waste of money and time. While they put so much effort and money into such a thing, it tells terrorists exactly where to not bother because they aren't watching any other places.
Just one incident at the security checkpoint large enough to shut down a terminal and you have all the distraction you need to sneak into the cargo area etc. Never mind easily shutting down and airport and diverting emergency services to a false alarm while real terrorist acts are happening elsewhere in the city or country.
This sort of thing is absolutely stupid. Worse, it will get used for the wrong reasons, on the wrong people, for the wrong goals.
Please, will someone show me where the terrorists are? Can you show me their unending plots to hijack airplanes? Oh, that's right, they just did that in India. What was I thinking? ALL terrorists ALWAYS want to use airplanes to frighten Americans, and the world will end if a lighter gets on board an airplane. Please, someone show justification for this system.
Yeah, yeah. There was a glacier in North America once too... are we building anti-glacial protection systems?
Can you repeat after me?
When this is implemented, it will be....
duh du duhnnn
Wait for it.....
"The year of Linux on the desktop"!
Perfect. This description works well for telephones, but even telcos increase capacity to handle increasing call volumes. When the argument that the service I pay for is 'up to 10Mbps' and not 10Mbps 100% of the time, I will ask you this: Should I expect that only 25% of my voice calls will get through some times, or that only 25% of my words will get sent to the other end? Or should I expect that every time I pick up the phone and dial, it will go through the network to the distant end. Did phone companies bitch to Congress because people were staying on their dial-up lines 24/7?
No matter what you counter with, the problem is still that ISPs over-sold and poorly designed their network infrastructure.
You can argue that 'oh, P2P is bad and UDP P2P will kill the network' but when it's all said and done, if you make P2P illegal all those HTTP and FTP downloads (and probably other protocols will be implemented) are still going to suck the life out of a poorly designed and over-sold networks.
While you are at it, please explain how in the fuck large ISPs intend to provide triple-play and quadruple-play services if their network infrastructure can't handle current Internet bandwidth requirements? Perhaps this is where the money that might be used for expanding capacity is going? Can't build out for customers
As you say, it depends. I'm moving two data warehouse setups from Oracle on Solaris to MySQL on CentOS Linux. I had a small problem with UTF-8 and of course rewriting truck loads of SQL statements, but over all it was worth it. The commodity hardware that CentOS is running on is 1/3 the cost of comparable Sun hardware. The maintenance cost burden of Solaris, Sun, and Oracle far outweigh the costs involved in the change over. Going forward the in-house staff are switching to the new OS/database with grace. Perl runs equally well on both the old and the new.
One might argue that an Oracle guru that is unable to move to MySQL or PostgreSQL is probably not 'the' best in-house resource you could have. Training is worth the effort and cost. Remember, if you invest in your people the payback is compound. If you invest in OS and apps, you will always be limited to what people you can hire. With training, limitations are reduced for the company overall. You retain skill sets, gain new ones, and have an improved manpower resource pool. All of that at less cost than maintaining the status quo in many cases.
TCO is difficult to compute as a one size fits all answer. From what I've seen, in many cases F/OSS does have a lower TCO and increased benefit to those who choose it.
Wow, you got close to what I think is the solution. Every ISP can provide two virtual networks to each user. Where the edge of the ISP network sits; that point where end users are attached, it is possible to use routing to run BT traffic down one pipe and all else down another pipe. In this respect, BT traffic would not melt down the network or hog the connections of others in the neighborhood. If there is only 2.5GB/s available for BT et al, then only BT et al users suffer when it is full.
OMG, network design 101. hmmmm if I were an ISP, I'd set that up and explain that is how the new service works. The new P2P network is limited in bandwidth and your neighbors are the ones to blame if it is clogged. Yes, this even applies to businesses, co-op networks, ISPs, the lot. It minimizes infrastructure upgrades, and provides service as perceived by the end user, not as shaped by central routing equipment. You might think of it as an HOV lane, to use a car analogy.
Secondly, if networks were not oversold so much and under-designed so often, this would not be a problem. I really don't care how you slice it, this is a problem because of poor decision making by service providers. They wanted everyone's business (still do) but are not designing their networks to handle the traffic. When they build new roads these days, the build them so that extra lanes can be added in the future when needed. Why isn't that happening on ISP infrastructure?
That is addressing the problem from an ISP's point of view, or perhaps the "**AA's talking points for ISPs" point of view.
If I pay for 10Mbps download speed, it should not matter to anyone how I use those bits. If you as my ISP cannot handle that traffic, you should NOT have sold it to me in the first place. Every time you throttle or shape my traffic, I want a rebate. It's that simple. I don't think we should have bailed out wall street and I don't think It's my responsibility to support an ISPs bad business model. That is what this problem is all about. Bad business decisions on the part of ISPs. They over sold their networks and now want a bailout. BS!
If you want regulation, how's this: If you sold me 10Mbps download and can't provide it regardless of protocol, you have committed fraud and I'm allowed to sue. I don't want to hear about your problems, just provide what you sold me.
If you sell me a parachute I expect it to work in every state, on any day of the week, and from any kind of airplane, no matter what clothes I'm wearing or not wearing. After you sold it to me, it's simply criminal to then say it only works if you are wearing green, or skydiving on a day of the week that begins with a T.
If you don't want me to use BT, then give me a 50% discount on my bill.