if the EPA is not addressing more pressing concerns why are they looking at data centers? I don't mean to be rude or obtuse, but if the EPA is only focused on items that have been industry concerns for over a year, perhaps they are better off just being quiet. This is the first step that would be needed for regulation, and followed shortly after by monitoring... WTF? The government won't as a whole admit to global warming, nor to anything like it... why... oh WHY would the EPA start getting involved... IN data centers of all things?
The point is that you can ride the tube train to the launch site in the morning, and be home in time for evening tea.
If you are not planning to leave Earth's gravity, there is no overwhelming need to have the extra orbital speed offered at the equator. If the flight plan is up, then back down again, you have to pay a lot of attention to the landing part as you take off. I suspect that launching from England augments the entire process, or curbs it to a joy ride rather than ISS replenishment mission.
This idea might work if so many people did not rely on the nightly news to tell them what the candidates are about. I am resigned to taking the slow route as you describe and spreading the words about candidates that are going to be good for the country or whose beliefs are good for our government and the people. It won't be until MSM is doing the same things that we'll see change in the US political system.
When we can show who got contributions and who changed their votes on immunity for telecomms and how much they got.... damn! just damn! The whole system looks corrupt to even the simplest of people yet here we are having to argue against it.
Actually, you are right. Only those that want to shrink government give a damn about the constitution. The rest want to use things as they are. Both main parties have seen it as ok to break the law as long as they win. It IS time to stop this. Unfortunately, the populace is not informed enough to change things this election. God himself only knows what evil will seep out of the whitehouse in the next four years. "It's evil, don't touch it" as was once said. There are days when I think an unexpected Nuke in D.C. would not really be a bad thing. Of course I don't mean that, but you get the gist. sigh
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
As any discussion of the United States Government grows longer, the probability of a comparison to George Orwell's 1984 approaches one.
In the event that you can invoke both Godwin's Law and the Orwellian Corollary, you score double.
Adjunct to the Orwellian corollary: Any person correctly citing the corollary within earshot of said 1984-ish government will likely be able to use it only once.
Can Windows move forward with a completely new, fast, and secure OS and still keep legacy application support?"
The original father of Linux is open source, perhaps they could start there? Joking aside, this statement is what Wine on GNU/Linux really is, isn't it?
My second thought is: Why would you want to support tons of legacy applications if you have F/OSS equivalents available? Does it have to be separate but equal?
Linux is sort-of 'johnny come lately' and is showing MS how it can be done. Arguments about security and usability aside (those are about equal on either side) I think Linux has a better stand than Vista.
But then again that is the wrong comparison since MS won't surrender DRM schemes for a truly open, standards based approach. Moving away from usability is nothing if you don't have to *use* our activation key is not going to be easy for the 800lb gorilla.
My only hope is that whatever Redmond does, they introduce standard security processes that introduce generic users to the basics of secure computing... you know, things like surfing from a sandbox, not logging in as administrator, standard backup processes, user accounts, and only having control of user account data etc. Some of those legacy applications simply need to be done away with or locked in a sandbox of a virtual machine.
Exactly. Turn clubbing into Disneyland. Check your phone to figure out where the biggest lines are. Meanwhile people who have some sanity are sitting in a hole in the wall club enjoying a drink talking to others of like mind until that place too becomes the latest ride in the clubbing Disneyland.
Nightlife magazines will soon be reporting how to find clubs and trendy spots that are OFF the information grid. Personally, I can't wait for that one.
Just a thought: Christian fundamentalism is seen as you describe for one reason; it is forced to live side by side with people of reason and has not yet been allowed to infuse the governments with it's dangerous agenda. Should America and other Western societies fail to prevent that from happening, it will be just as dangerous. It is subdued by rule of law, not benign and harmless. Any thought otherwise is hubris. The Christian/biblical principle of an eye for an eye is how warlords escalate their acrimony to a point beyond control and reason.
Don't tell me I take that passage out of context until you can demonstrate that Christians don't.
Hatred is hatred. Remember, fundamentalist Christians already believe that all Muslims want to kill them, and would do so with the blessings of their religion.
Terrorists are criminals and all that separates them from bank robbers is the fact that they have a religious agenda as well and not just simple greed.
The world would be a better place if all the lawyers were hung with the guts of all the clerics. It is at least a good start.... so they say. I'm not convinced it would be such a bad idea.
You make a good point, I would like to see more commentary that reflections the position that you take whilst at the same time acknowledging the risk and threat that we do face.
Agreed!
Like a disease, the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism will not go away, and if left to fester it will cause bigger problems for generations to come. This means we need to be continuously proactive about many things including our freedom of expression.
Don't you mean: Like a disease, the threat of Fundamentalism will not go away,...... Why pick on Islam? Fundamentalists of all flavors are absolutely ready to destroy the world to see their end game religious prophecy come true. As far as I can tell, religious fundamentalists are ALL bat shit crazy idiots with weapons. Scary stuff.
Having said that, this article is empty. So "they" use free encryption software and the internet to commnicate, ok, I think I guessed that myself.
It's not that the article is empty, it's using empty rhetoric to insinuate that AQ (?) is using sophisticated technology to fight their enemies. Oh noes, they are not a stupid bunch of idiots with rifles. OMG, they know about the Inernets!
Exactly right. It will become a mess of who pays for what and why for one simple and moronic reason IMO. If 20% of users can use 80% of bandwidth of the infrastructure of an ISP, then that ISP is negligent and unable to provide the services they have sold. I believe this to be false advertising and poor business practices. Trying to blame P2P or any other protocol or Internet activity for the bad planning and crap capacity of the ISP is like blaming Honda or for traffic congestion on I95. It is simply stupid.
This problem should be addressed objectively. Only yesterday Bell's own data did not support the bandwidth usage claims made by this company. This company has a financial incentive to skew facts and figures, and they have.
The ISPs have shot themselves in the foot with a very large gun, and this is a small bandaid to try to fix the missing foot problem. They have made up a problem in order to justify charging us all more so they can pay for equipment to sell us content from.
Don't believe me? study the problem a bit more, from the ISP's 10K statements to marketing brochures and what stock holders are told. The bandwidth shortage is a ruse so they can bump you and I off of it and they can replace our traffic with pay-for content that they will then sell us in triple and quadruple play service packages. The net neutrality thing backfired on them, this is tactic number two in their bid to control the content from distribution through the actual use of it. I'm certain someone has some interesting information about how much the **AA et al have contributed to various P2P problem chicken little's across the country.
Where is the data in countries with heavy P2P usage showing anything like the 5%/80% rumor?
Interesting? Can't sue them for what? I believe that they have broken their privacy commitments. That being a civil matter, they would still be open to litigation... or so the thinking goes. It remains only to find someone to get the full information of who they spied on, and what was monitored.
Exactly. Penn and Teller asked a group of people if the chemical Dihydrous Monoxide should be banned. Nearly every one of them said yes. The wisdom of crowds is not in and of itself some sort of magic. It is merely an interesting observation.
That your own guesses seem to exhibit the same 'average' correctness as a crowd is bad science IMO. Once you guess at a problem, you're subconsciously directed to think of that problem, thus getting more than a knee jerk reactionary guess. The longer you have to think about it, the longer you have to assimilate information pertaining to the answer.
Yes, and my letter is going to be rather simple so that the message remains clear. I won't have to spend time explaining why they should vote against it, or why it's a bad thing. Simply put, if they do NOT vote against telecom immunity I will work to scupper their next bid for office. That might be voting for an opposing candidate, or maybe just writing in bugs bunny. In any case the best they can hope for if they do not vote against it is a lost vote from this constituent. It will probably be worse than that.
Not only that, but there are some other things that just might be more pragmatic. If you live for 1000 years, traveling to Earth 2.0 might sound like a good trip to take, provided that we find a good source of energy for said traveling.
I can think of a lot of things that would be enhanced by longer life spans, many of them mentioned here already. People are pretty much enslaved to that biological clock. If the alarm didn't go off so soon, it has been shown that in affluent societies, people will choose to not reproduce if the alarm clock is not about to start ringing.
If I could live for 1000 years, and there were enough to do on the journey, I'd take that 200 year trip to Earth 2.0. In that time, I could easily become a quintuple PhD, concert guitarist, and some other things; perhaps redesign the propulsion system while on the journey. When you have more time, you don't have to make so many limiting choices, and that frees the spirit to be more useful to society at large. Yes, that is a bit philosophical, but I think it's right on this topic.
Can you explain how decreased usage decreases costs?
I pay for 10Mbit/s. The equipment needed to provide that service does not turn off when I'm not using it. The infrastructure required to support that service has to still be there, in service, awaiting my desires to use it. How does that reduce costs?
You seem to want to justify the practice of overselling your capacity - a business practice that needs to stop. ISPs have been getting away with it for a long time because of the shared nature of Internet resources and networks in general. The recent story where too many people watching sports videos caused some ISPs to think they were being attacked with DDoS is exactly what happens when you oversell your infrastructure. IMO most ISPs have built their networks poorly and cheaply and have to catch up with requirements when they get caught out. When I say poorly and cheaply, read that as centralized and without scaling in mind at the planning stage. Admittedly, virtualization and other new technologies can help improve this, but that is the nature of technology based businesses: you have to upgrade often to stay relevant. It is clear that there is not enough infrastructure to support triple-play and quadruple-play services. An argument that touches on the problems not readily apparent to the North American consumer is here http://innerdaemon.wordpress.com/2007/05/12/while-verizon-fiddles-with-fios-strategy-apple-has-triple-play/
Back to the point. The above links and my comments are clearly indicating that ISP do not want you to use LESS bandwidth, they want you to use more but only when connecting to their content services. Blocking and limiting P2P means you will be more likely to use their content services. Triple and quadruple play is a way for them to help ensure that. Read up on net neutrality issues a bit. That little problem is all about ISPs trying to milk their infrastructure for double the money they should get. It will also allow them to make their content cheaper to consume as well as give them a mechanism to sell you special content packages so they get MORE money for what you now enjoy freely for the cost of your connection.
Now, your comment indicates a belief that ISPs are trying to make money by me not using the bandwidth while everything else on the Internet says their stock holders are being told how much content they are going to sell their users. There is a bit of a difference of opinion between you and what seems to be happening in the real world.
Yes, trying to write quickly enough to be useful here means editing and rewrites are often not pragmatic. I'm not sure it was a nonsensical rant, but you are welcome to that opinion.
I've said it before, saying it now. There is NO reason to believe anyone in business who cannot show WHY they need legal help, or rights to invade your privacy to protect their business. There has never been proof by the **AA that file sharing is harming their businesses. There has never been proof by any ISP that P2P is harming their businesses. Without proof, what they wish to do is nothing less than criminal.
Sure, they can say, oh it's our network and that's what we are going to do with it, however, in the interests of the national GDP/economy we have to consider ISP infrastructure as vital to the economy now, both of the US and the world. Any shenanigans on how it is run are of vital business interest to business concerns other than the ISPs themselves.
P2P is simply being used as the pike that gets network monitoring in the door. No, I have no actual proof of that, but if it were the danger that it is said to be, there would be plenty of evidence. Some of that evidence would be people complaining on the Internet about how slow their ISP is.
Now, add to that the fact that these same ISPs have a vested financial interest in using more of your bandwidth than you want them to in order to provide the triple-play and quadruple-play service packages that stock holders are counting on for revenue.
There are the two reasons for finding something to blame/fear in order to ease the pain of making the changes to the network at consumer's costs. Sure, some think that right, but they squandered the money/tax incentives etc. they have already been given and still do not provide anything much better than they used to.
They have a technological problem and need someone/something to blame. For better or worse, they chose P2P because it's already scapegoated by the **AA. I don't think this plan is going to work out so well.
Did anyone else notice that the slide show only showed women? WTF kind of sexism is that? Is that the new things these kids do, only girls hide stuff from their parents? Interesting......
You missed out on a couple things: Tourrettes http://www.tourettes-disorder.com/introduction.html Even if they get computers to 'watch' the cameras, they have to train the software to take into account such things. Having to respond to even just the odd things the software sees will be far more than volunteers can do, and would most probably stress the constabulary to it's limits. CCTV monitoring of whole communities was a bad idea, remains a bad idea, and is simply not pragmatic... even with software that is capable of analyzing the video.
I'm glad that the UK is so avidly trying to prove to the world what a huge waste of money it really is.
as some have said, donate the time to people would like to buy it but can't, or on odd days turn up 1000 SETI@home processes and see how far it gets?
Create a reverse Google bomb - Index every link to say 'george bush' from Google, read each page into memory hash the words, assigning value by count amongst all the pages, and then post the top ten words on GW that are not 'the' 'a' 'was' etc.
Perhaps comparing this to the same process on Paris Hilton would be a report that sparks SkyNet to life. I don't know. Seriously, if those two have 6 of the top ten words in common it would have to mean something.
If you have all that cpu sitting idle, that is the kind of weird shit nobody else would do, but also couldn't not read the report either. Perhaps you'll start something new for Google Trends?:)
but also because Lego uses it as a safeguard in copyright and patent cases This is why this is no surprise to me. I believe that pretty much every manufacturer does this.
Probably one of the most interesting projects I've worked on to date is Overseeing design consultants for an FAA funded Residential Sound Insulation Project. What made this a challenge was having to work with Airport Technocrats, Acoustic Engineers, General Contractors, Mechanical Engineers, Architects all in the same room at the same time. None of which having the desire to understand what the other did, and all believing his or her aspect of the project was most important. Insert politically motivated agenda's and viola a nightmare to oversee. Ok, change the job titles to any you like and you have defined the (IMO) basic problem of a project manager. Technical politician == project manager?
Slashdot Mirror
if the EPA is not addressing more pressing concerns why are they looking at data centers? I don't mean to be rude or obtuse, but if the EPA is only focused on items that have been industry concerns for over a year, perhaps they are better off just being quiet. This is the first step that would be needed for regulation, and followed shortly after by monitoring... WTF? The government won't as a whole admit to global warming, nor to anything like it... why ... oh WHY would the EPA start getting involved... IN data centers of all things?
Please people wake up!!!!
The point is that you can ride the tube train to the launch site in the morning, and be home in time for evening tea.
If you are not planning to leave Earth's gravity, there is no overwhelming need to have the extra orbital speed offered at the equator. If the flight plan is up, then back down again, you have to pay a lot of attention to the landing part as you take off. I suspect that launching from England augments the entire process, or curbs it to a joy ride rather than ISS replenishment mission.
This idea might work if so many people did not rely on the nightly news to tell them what the candidates are about. I am resigned to taking the slow route as you describe and spreading the words about candidates that are going to be good for the country or whose beliefs are good for our government and the people. It won't be until MSM is doing the same things that we'll see change in the US political system.
When we can show who got contributions and who changed their votes on immunity for telecomms and how much they got.... damn! just damn! The whole system looks corrupt to even the simplest of people yet here we are having to argue against it.
It's just sick.
Actually, you are right. Only those that want to shrink government give a damn about the constitution. The rest want to use things as they are. Both main parties have seen it as ok to break the law as long as they win. It IS time to stop this. Unfortunately, the populace is not informed enough to change things this election. God himself only knows what evil will seep out of the whitehouse in the next four years. "It's evil, don't touch it" as was once said. There are days when I think an unexpected Nuke in D.C. would not really be a bad thing. Of course I don't mean that, but you get the gist. sigh
Would that be Godwin's Orwellian corollary?
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
As any discussion of the United States Government grows longer, the probability of a comparison to George Orwell's 1984 approaches one.
In the event that you can invoke both Godwin's Law and the Orwellian Corollary, you score double.
Adjunct to the Orwellian corollary: Any person correctly citing the corollary within earshot of said 1984-ish government will likely be able to use it only once.
Shhhhh heir big brother is listening.
You can use that key for other things:
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/ubuntu/use-the-windows-key-for-the-start-menu-in-ubuntu-linux/
if you are so inclined
That's kind of what I was thinking:
Can Windows move forward with a completely new, fast, and secure OS and still keep legacy application support?"
The original father of Linux is open source, perhaps they could start there? Joking aside, this statement is what Wine on GNU/Linux really is, isn't it?
My second thought is: Why would you want to support tons of legacy applications if you have F/OSS equivalents available? Does it have to be separate but equal?
Linux is sort-of 'johnny come lately' and is showing MS how it can be done. Arguments about security and usability aside (those are about equal on either side) I think Linux has a better stand than Vista.
But then again that is the wrong comparison since MS won't surrender DRM schemes for a truly open, standards based approach. Moving away from usability is nothing if you don't have to *use* our activation key is not going to be easy for the 800lb gorilla.
My only hope is that whatever Redmond does, they introduce standard security processes that introduce generic users to the basics of secure computing... you know, things like surfing from a sandbox, not logging in as administrator, standard backup processes, user accounts, and only having control of user account data etc. Some of those legacy applications simply need to be done away with or locked in a sandbox of a virtual machine.
My opinion anyway.
Exactly. Turn clubbing into Disneyland. Check your phone to figure out where the biggest lines are. Meanwhile people who have some sanity are sitting in a hole in the wall club enjoying a drink talking to others of like mind until that place too becomes the latest ride in the clubbing Disneyland.
Nightlife magazines will soon be reporting how to find clubs and trendy spots that are OFF the information grid. Personally, I can't wait for that one.
Just a thought: Christian fundamentalism is seen as you describe for one reason; it is forced to live side by side with people of reason and has not yet been allowed to infuse the governments with it's dangerous agenda. Should America and other Western societies fail to prevent that from happening, it will be just as dangerous. It is subdued by rule of law, not benign and harmless. Any thought otherwise is hubris. The Christian/biblical principle of an eye for an eye is how warlords escalate their acrimony to a point beyond control and reason.
Don't tell me I take that passage out of context until you can demonstrate that Christians don't.
Hatred is hatred. Remember, fundamentalist Christians already believe that all Muslims want to kill them, and would do so with the blessings of their religion.
Terrorists are criminals and all that separates them from bank robbers is the fact that they have a religious agenda as well and not just simple greed.
The world would be a better place if all the lawyers were hung with the guts of all the clerics. It is at least a good start.... so they say. I'm not convinced it would be such a bad idea.
You make a good point, I would like to see more commentary that reflections the position that you take whilst at the same time acknowledging the risk and threat that we do face.
Agreed!
Like a disease, the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism will not go away, and if left to fester it will cause bigger problems for generations to come. This means we need to be continuously proactive about many things including our freedom of expression.
Don't you mean: Like a disease, the threat of Fundamentalism will not go away, ...... Why pick on Islam? Fundamentalists of all flavors are absolutely ready to destroy the world to see their end game religious prophecy come true. As far as I can tell, religious fundamentalists are ALL bat shit crazy idiots with weapons. Scary stuff.
Having said that, this article is empty. So "they" use free encryption software and the internet to commnicate, ok, I think I guessed that myself.
It's not that the article is empty, it's using empty rhetoric to insinuate that AQ (?) is using sophisticated technology to fight their enemies. Oh noes, they are not a stupid bunch of idiots with rifles. OMG, they know about the Inernets!
Simply put, it's fear mongering.
Exactly right. It will become a mess of who pays for what and why for one simple and moronic reason IMO. If 20% of users can use 80% of bandwidth of the infrastructure of an ISP, then that ISP is negligent and unable to provide the services they have sold. I believe this to be false advertising and poor business practices. Trying to blame P2P or any other protocol or Internet activity for the bad planning and crap capacity of the ISP is like blaming Honda or for traffic congestion on I95. It is simply stupid.
This problem should be addressed objectively. Only yesterday Bell's own data did not support the bandwidth usage claims made by this company. This company has a financial incentive to skew facts and figures, and they have.
The ISPs have shot themselves in the foot with a very large gun, and this is a small bandaid to try to fix the missing foot problem. They have made up a problem in order to justify charging us all more so they can pay for equipment to sell us content from.
Don't believe me? study the problem a bit more, from the ISP's 10K statements to marketing brochures and what stock holders are told. The bandwidth shortage is a ruse so they can bump you and I off of it and they can replace our traffic with pay-for content that they will then sell us in triple and quadruple play service packages. The net neutrality thing backfired on them, this is tactic number two in their bid to control the content from distribution through the actual use of it. I'm certain someone has some interesting information about how much the **AA et al have contributed to various P2P problem chicken little's across the country.
Where is the data in countries with heavy P2P usage showing anything like the 5%/80% rumor?
sigh....
Interesting? Can't sue them for what?
I believe that they have broken their privacy commitments. That being a civil matter, they would still be open to litigation... or so the thinking goes. It remains only to find someone to get the full information of who they spied on, and what was monitored.
Exactly. Penn and Teller asked a group of people if the chemical Dihydrous Monoxide should be banned. Nearly every one of them said yes. The wisdom of crowds is not in and of itself some sort of magic. It is merely an interesting observation.
That your own guesses seem to exhibit the same 'average' correctness as a crowd is bad science IMO. Once you guess at a problem, you're subconsciously directed to think of that problem, thus getting more than a knee jerk reactionary guess. The longer you have to think about it, the longer you have to assimilate information pertaining to the answer.
Yes, and my letter is going to be rather simple so that the message remains clear. I won't have to spend time explaining why they should vote against it, or why it's a bad thing. Simply put, if they do NOT vote against telecom immunity I will work to scupper their next bid for office. That might be voting for an opposing candidate, or maybe just writing in bugs bunny. In any case the best they can hope for if they do not vote against it is a lost vote from this constituent. It will probably be worse than that.
Not only that, but there are some other things that just might be more pragmatic. If you live for 1000 years, traveling to Earth 2.0 might sound like a good trip to take, provided that we find a good source of energy for said traveling.
I can think of a lot of things that would be enhanced by longer life spans, many of them mentioned here already. People are pretty much enslaved to that biological clock. If the alarm didn't go off so soon, it has been shown that in affluent societies, people will choose to not reproduce if the alarm clock is not about to start ringing.
If I could live for 1000 years, and there were enough to do on the journey, I'd take that 200 year trip to Earth 2.0. In that time, I could easily become a quintuple PhD, concert guitarist, and some other things; perhaps redesign the propulsion system while on the journey. When you have more time, you don't have to make so many limiting choices, and that frees the spirit to be more useful to society at large. Yes, that is a bit philosophical, but I think it's right on this topic.
Can you explain how decreased usage decreases costs?
I pay for 10Mbit/s. The equipment needed to provide that service does not turn off when I'm not using it. The infrastructure required to support that service has to still be there, in service, awaiting my desires to use it. How does that reduce costs?
You seem to want to justify the practice of overselling your capacity - a business practice that needs to stop. ISPs have been getting away with it for a long time because of the shared nature of Internet resources and networks in general. The recent story where too many people watching sports videos caused some ISPs to think they were being attacked with DDoS is exactly what happens when you oversell your infrastructure. IMO most ISPs have built their networks poorly and cheaply and have to catch up with requirements when they get caught out. When I say poorly and cheaply, read that as centralized and without scaling in mind at the planning stage. Admittedly, virtualization and other new technologies can help improve this, but that is the nature of technology based businesses: you have to upgrade often to stay relevant. It is clear that there is not enough infrastructure to support triple-play and quadruple-play services. An argument that touches on the problems not readily apparent to the North American consumer is here http://innerdaemon.wordpress.com/2007/05/12/while-verizon-fiddles-with-fios-strategy-apple-has-triple-play/
Here is a note about one of the major problems for large ISPs http://gigaom.com/2007/05/07/comcast-smartzone/
Back to the point. The above links and my comments are clearly indicating that ISP do not want you to use LESS bandwidth, they want you to use more but only when connecting to their content services. Blocking and limiting P2P means you will be more likely to use their content services. Triple and quadruple play is a way for them to help ensure that. Read up on net neutrality issues a bit. That little problem is all about ISPs trying to milk their infrastructure for double the money they should get. It will also allow them to make their content cheaper to consume as well as give them a mechanism to sell you special content packages so they get MORE money for what you now enjoy freely for the cost of your connection.
Now, your comment indicates a belief that ISPs are trying to make money by me not using the bandwidth while everything else on the Internet says their stock holders are being told how much content they are going to sell their users. There is a bit of a difference of opinion between you and what seems to be happening in the real world.
Yes, trying to write quickly enough to be useful here means editing and rewrites are often not pragmatic. I'm not sure it was a nonsensical rant, but you are welcome to that opinion.
I've said it before, saying it now. There is NO reason to believe anyone in business who cannot show WHY they need legal help, or rights to invade your privacy to protect their business. There has never been proof by the **AA that file sharing is harming their businesses. There has never been proof by any ISP that P2P is harming their businesses. Without proof, what they wish to do is nothing less than criminal.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=592247&cid=23904147
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=588163&cid=23844923
Sure, they can say, oh it's our network and that's what we are going to do with it, however, in the interests of the national GDP/economy we have to consider ISP infrastructure as vital to the economy now, both of the US and the world. Any shenanigans on how it is run are of vital business interest to business concerns other than the ISPs themselves.
P2P is simply being used as the pike that gets network monitoring in the door. No, I have no actual proof of that, but if it were the danger that it is said to be, there would be plenty of evidence. Some of that evidence would be people complaining on the Internet about how slow their ISP is.
Now, add to that the fact that these same ISPs have a vested financial interest in using more of your bandwidth than you want them to in order to provide the triple-play and quadruple-play service packages that stock holders are counting on for revenue.
There are the two reasons for finding something to blame/fear in order to ease the pain of making the changes to the network at consumer's costs. Sure, some think that right, but they squandered the money/tax incentives etc. they have already been given and still do not provide anything much better than they used to.
They have a technological problem and need someone/something to blame. For better or worse, they chose P2P because it's already scapegoated by the **AA. I don't think this plan is going to work out so well.
Just my opinion
Did anyone else notice that the slide show only showed women? WTF kind of sexism is that? Is that the new things these kids do, only girls hide stuff from their parents?
Interesting......
Well, that's easy, Monsanto has a patent on growing produce in off-world ecologies. Clearly NASA does not have the budget to pay Monsanto royalties
You missed out on a couple things: Tourrettes http://www.tourettes-disorder.com/introduction.html Even if they get computers to 'watch' the cameras, they have to train the software to take into account such things. Having to respond to even just the odd things the software sees will be far more than volunteers can do, and would most probably stress the constabulary to it's limits. CCTV monitoring of whole communities was a bad idea, remains a bad idea, and is simply not pragmatic... even with software that is capable of analyzing the video.
I'm glad that the UK is so avidly trying to prove to the world what a huge waste of money it really is.
Or maybe just 80Gbytes of rickroll materials in the hard drive you 'let' them see.
THAT is a hilariously good idea... the top ten rick rolls of 2008... it will go platinum in no time
as some have said, donate the time to people would like to buy it but can't, or on odd days turn up 1000 SETI@home processes and see how far it gets?
Create a reverse Google bomb - Index every link to say 'george bush' from Google, read each page into memory hash the words, assigning value by count amongst all the pages, and then post the top ten words on GW that are not 'the' 'a' 'was' etc.
Perhaps comparing this to the same process on Paris Hilton would be a report that sparks SkyNet to life. I don't know. Seriously, if those two have 6 of the top ten words in common it would have to mean something.
If you have all that cpu sitting idle, that is the kind of weird shit nobody else would do, but also couldn't not read the report either. Perhaps you'll start something new for Google Trends? :)
FTFS
but also because Lego uses it as a safeguard in copyright and patent cases This is why this is no surprise to me. I believe that pretty much every manufacturer does this.Succinctly well stated.