Much of his talk references the fact that many of the "new" ideas in computing were actually discussed and implemented in the early days of programming. Multiple core processing, visual tools and interactions, and higher level languages are not novel in any way; he's trying to point out that the earliest programmers had these ideas too, but we ignored or forgot them due to circumstances. For example, it is difficult to break out of the single processing pipeline mold when one company is dominating the CPU market by pushing out faster and faster units that excel at exactly that kind of processing..
I can attest to this. The phrase "Everything old is new again." (Or "All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again." for you BSG fans) is uttered so frequently in our office that we might as well emblazon it on the door. It's almost eerie how well some of the ideas from the mainframe era fit into the cloud computing ecosystem.
Thanks for the well thought out response. I do believe, however, that you've missed something rather critical. In a corporation, there are two types of stock: voting and non-voting (often called preferred stock, because in exchange for the voting rights you are given first priority for payouts). Institutional entities purchasing stock tend to take non-voting stock. Any holders of non-voting stock can be seen as amoral (or mechanical) third parties. It is only the holders of voting stock to which we can account moral responsibility.
Further, even if a mutual fund, investment bank, or other financial entity were to purchase voting stock, and actually use that influence to direct the company in question, then the burden of moral responsibility for the actions of the invested company does not stop at the investor, which is a non-sentient entity to which morality is not defined, it rather further divests into the moral holdings (to co-opt some investment terminology) of the investor's shareholders.
At the end of the day, as it were, every action that has been effected by humanity carries with it the moral burden of one or more humans. There is no action taken in the ontology of business that cannot be traced directly back to a human, and thus moral, source. Even taking HFT, for example, wherein computer algorithms act without human intervention to trade stock, resulting in possible real world moral consequences, there is still a moral locus: those who created and used those machines.
Side note: Thanks for the interesting debate. It's refreshing to meet level-headed intelligent people on the internet.:-P
While I agree that wealth is simply a tool, with no associative morality, I have to disagree with your view of corporations as amoral (or more accurately, that only corporations are amoral). Businesses of any form, whether sole proprietorships, non-profits, etc., are all inherently amoral (which is different from immoral), as they are merely organizational structures, and we do not assign morality to non-sentient entities. Therefore, morality of a business must derive from the directors of said business' actions, i.e. the owners.
For closely held businesses, such as a sole proprietorship, the moral impetus is easy to locate. For a corporation, it is not so much. The actions of a large corporation are resultant of Officers, who are hired and act on directives from the Board of Directors, who are chosen by shareholder votes. It would not be unreasonable, then, to say that the product morality of a corporation is derived from the collective morals of its shareholders, individually weighted by the number of shares each owns.
That is not to say that the individuals who act as instantiators of corporate policy do not bear moral responsibility for their actions in their positions. They do, but the chain of responsibility ultimately rests with the shareholders. Because each corporate management structure is unique, it is impossible to generalize an equation representing assignment of moral responsibility, though it is possible to do so on a per company basis, given adequate information.
Unfortunately, this system often goes awry because the moral individuals with the most wealth have a proportionately greater say in the moral direction of a Corporation. Corporate malfeasance is the result of conglomerated individual immorality, in an ontology wherein immoral actions are oft rewarded with increased wealth, and consequently influence. Unchecked, this pattern can spiral until immorality supplants morality as the driving force of the Corporate entity.
To sum, a Corporation is only amoral in the sense that it in itself bears no moral responsibility. That responsibility is divided amongst its management and shareholders, who are individually moral (or immoral) entities.
For $60, I can get an 80GB SSD or I can get a 2TB HDD. That 80GB SSD is going to require an additional HDD anyway for storage for many people.
...that's if you ignore the performance benefits of using a SSD as your system drive. I stuck a SSD in my 2-year old system and it felt like a new machine - its not just about loading/copying large files - the vastly reduced seek times put the skates under virtually anything that uses the disk. That's worth money.
Well, if you're like me, then 90+% of the bits on your drives are not accessed on a daily basis. There's long term storage (data rarely changes, read occasionally), and then there's interactive storage (unpredictable read/write patterns, heavy use). Caching of the sort proposed by TFA would certainly increase performance for HDD use as interactive storage, but not to the level of SSD. Conversely, the performance enhancements offered by SSD are almost entirely wasted when used for long term storage.
So, in a desktop scenario, what makes the most sense is to have small, fast SSDs for your OS, Virtual Memory, Temp storage, and any frequently used applications, and then large, cheap, HDDs for straight storage.
Their ISP, RIAA/MPAA, law enforcement and the FBI do not constitute "anybody". Anybody encompasses some guy sitting in a basement on the other side of the planet. I don't believe you could create a compelling argument that it would be "easy" for him to see their search data.
If they were using WiFi, or somebody taps into their outgoing internet line (Cable/DSL/What have you), then it is possible to snoop on non-https traffic. Though I would only consider it to be "with ease" if it was unencrypted WiFi. Not that I believe that's what took place, as that would mean that the couple in question were under suspicion and investigation prior to those searches.
first of all, we paid the telcoms *billions* of dollars in the 1990s to provide us with high speed networking. guess what they did with that money instead?
now we get 1/20 or less the bandwidth of the rest of the world.
the bandwidth leeches are the telecoms.
if I am paying for x mBytes down and y kbytes up, there is no ambiguity about what that means I am paying for (and note again, fhese rates are *pitifully slow*)
so no, we're not to cry you a river about what the lines can carry. those LEECHES, who have stolen billions from we the taxpayer and we the subscribers, can upgrade their gear so they can provide what they claim to have sold us.
quit being a shill for the LEECHES
Ok then... Firstly, I am not confused. I merely stated two facts. One, that shared residential lines can have their bandwidth clogged by abusers, or "leechers". Two, that this debate is not a net neutrality one; it's about business and advertising.
Strike that, actually. I am confused. I am confused as to how an ad hominem attack got modded +5 insightful.
You call me a shill, but would it surprise you to know that I agree pretty much with everything you said? (Apart from the ad hominem, of course.) I would absofrakkinglutely love some honesty and transparency from ISPs overselling their shared connections.
However, as I said, this is a matter of advertising, not net neutrality. If they don't claim to offer "unlimited" internet, then their competitors will, and the customers will jump ship. So, because, they advertise "unlimited", they have to pull stunts like the "no servers" clause so that people don't clog up their networks and piss off other customers. I am not defending this. I do not agree with this. I am merely stating the situation.
On another note, why is it that Google is held to a higher standard than other companies? These practices are extremely commonplace, however much I wish they weren't. If it were some other ISP, there would be (and indeed there have not been) a story in every tech news site about a ToS. But because it's Google, they can magically "do no wrong"? So when they do what every other major US ISP does, it's suddenly news? People need to realize that Google is just another company, and stop acting surprised when they behave like one.
The problem is that you're not just using your bandwidth. These are residential lines, not dedicated, and as such are shared between other nearby users. It's not the type of traffic that they care about, it's the quantity. These no server clauses are there so they have a framework to cancel users who are running a datacenter out of their house, using terabytes of traffic per month. People who do so "leech" the available bandwidth from everyone in the area.
The solution to this is to simply not oversell your backhaul: don't sell speeds and quotas you can't deliver. I know quotas and bandwidth control are not popular here, but no matter how fat you make your pipes, people will clog them, and if you want the best overall experience for everyone, you need to do something about it.
Have a certain maximum burst up/down rate, throttle it to a maximum sustained rate under continuous load, after say five minutes saturated, and ramp it back up when the usage backs off. Also implement a monthly up/down transfer quota.
Let people use their quota as they like, and importantly be transparent about it: give them tools to monitor their usage, current restrictions, etc. This will let them see if the service is adequate for their needs and plan for upgrades if necessary.
I would love for that to happen, honestly. If it were me I'd have tiered priorities, habitually heavy users would have a lower percentage access to bandwidth during peak use.
Unfortunately, that's not likely. It's an advertising thing; the average consumer doesn't know or care about network limitations, they just hear "but it's not unlimited", see that your competitors offer "unlimited", and jump ship.:-/
...But just using your own bandwidth for something someone doesn't smile on? Where's the leeching in that? Now get off my lawn!
The problem is that you're not just using your bandwidth. These are residential lines, not dedicated, and as such are shared between other nearby users. It's not the type of traffic that they care about, it's the quantity. These no server clauses are there so they have a framework to cancel users who are running a datacenter out of their house, using terabytes of traffic per month. People who do so "leech" the available bandwidth from everyone in the area.
Yes, it's unfortunately vague, but it is not about net neutrality. (Or at least it's not until there's an incident of abuse shutting down a small server they don't like. That would be newsworthy.)
There are other factors you haven't considered. Perhaps larger, thicker, or heavier packages tend to jamb in the automatic processing machines more often, requiring more manual intervention and slowing everything down. And even if that doesn't apply to gamefly's specific case, it may apply to packages greater than 1 ounce in general. And if that's the case, it would justify the post office making a special exception for gamefly since they wouldn't actually be costing more.
Haven't claimed to have considered all factors, just refuting one.:-P
For example, the Ars article indicates that because Netflix does ~97% of the DVD mailer volume, and because of that, and the fact that Netflix mailers are easily identifiable due to their red packaging, they are often sorted out from standard mail and handled differently, reducing costs. I'm not sure how I feel about this, as on the one hand, a business has the right to pass costs (or savings) on to the customer, but on the other, a governmental institution should not be favoring or discriminating.
The reason GameFly pays more is because their mailers weigh more. Netflix keeps the mailer at 1 ounce and pays 44 cents each. GameFly's mailer is 2 ounces and they pay the two ounce price. The big giant clue in the linked article is that the USPS is considering changing the price of the 2 ounce mailer to the price of a 1 ounce mailer.
So the real story is that GameFly wants a discount with zero actual justification.
The packaging for GameFly costs more. Work it into your business model or reduce the packaging weight.
I don't do business with GameFly but if I did, I'd cancel. They actually have the nerve to pretend Netflix is getting some kind of special treatment while they are the ones seeking it.
There is nothing unfair about what the USPS is doing. The rest of us have to pay by the ounce for our mail.
Just read the article you linked. While interesting, it does kinda support Gamefly's case. A 2-ounce mailer cost $1.05, whereas a 1-ounce mailer cost $0.44. In other words Gamefly pays ~238% of what Netflix pays, 38% above any differences in weight. Further, at these weights, the majority of the cost of delivery is a flat cost, rather than an increase in fuel consumption due to weight. The cost of fuel to transport 1 ounce of additional weight is certainly less than a penny; the vehicle, occupant, and other cargo make up the vast majority of the weight (and the occupant's time is no small factor on the cost). Just basing numbers on the weight of the packages alone, charging ~$0.10 extra for the additional ounce will more than make up for the added costs.
Given the wide range of companies targeted by this group, I'm inclined to believe that there was some bit of underlying software they all used that had a vulnerability for the hackers to exploit. Otherwise I'm not sure I believe that 5 hackers alone managed to compromise diverse systems developed independently from each other; finding SQL injection vulnerabilities is like probing for weak spots in armor, it's a very time consuming process that can't be automated (decently) and often ends in failure despite considerable effort. Sometimes some idiot doesn't bother sanitizing inputs and makes it easy, but considering these are major international companies, I doubt every single one of the listed failed basic security measures.
What probably happened is that one of the hackers through some channel got hold of the source for some common bit of internal web portal code used by employees of these companies (stuff that isn't intended for public access generally has less security). They examined said source, and found an obscure (one would hope obscure) SQL injection vulnerability. They then searched for companies using the software, and leveraged the known vulnerability to compromise machines, gaining footholds in their internal networks. From there it's just a matter of figuring out what valuables you can get using your access.
Huh? Did you read the same article as I did? As far as I can tell, the article is about a TCP congestion control algorithm, which runs on both endpoints of the connection, and has nothing to do with QoS on intermediate routers. The algorithm generates a set of rules based on three parameters resulting in a set of actions to take like increasing advertised receive window and tx rate control. The result of which is a vastly improved total network throughput (and lower latency) without changing the network itself.
I fail to see the relevance of predictive/adaptive caching. It isn't even mentioned in the article.
I think the GP got confused by the "Machine Learning" part of the headline, and thought that the network algorithm uses some sort of adaptive mechanism. What the software actually does is uses genetic learning (i.e. natural selection) to generate sets of network algorithms, each generation of which is better than the one before (that's how Genetic AI works). The actual algorithms in question are a set of static rules, not much different in function than the existing TCP algorithms, just more efficient.
I'll give you a hint brilliant jerks that are social enough to offend somebody rarely work directly for companies consulting pays much much better and gives them new and interesting things on a steady basis..
I co-founded a software consulting company, for pretty much those exact reasons. Give me a steady stream of new, interesting, and challenging problems to solve, and I am a very happy (brilliant jerk of a) programmer.:-p
I work in a pretty successful technology company. We have a "no brilliant jerks" policy. Doesn't matter how good someone is, if they're actively corrosive to working with people, they're gone.
That doesn't mean I don't see developers getting into heated discussions about the merits of technical issues. But those heated discussions are professional, utterly impersonal, and without a shred of meanness. They just disagree.
This whole "good engineers are assholes" myth is, well, a myth that has been promulgated by a group of people more dominated by assholes than by good engineers.
I applaud Sarah Sharp and, blankinthefill, I want you know not all environments are like this. Not even all successful FOSS projects.
Seriously. Being professional and communicating clearly are by no means mutually exclusive.
I'm probably the type of person who would fall under the category of "brilliant jerks", at least on the surface. I'm very direct, saying what I think without prevarication, or worrying about hurting someone's feelings. I don't use subtext, or passive aggressive politicking; what I say has no hidden meanings. This directness can be abrasive to some people, particularly those who don't know me, who sometimes see subtext when there is none. However, any abrasiveness is indirect, meaning not intentional. This directness of mine is useful in maintaining clear communication. My colleagues rely on my ability to, as one of them put it, "cut through the bullshit".
However, I never attack someone directly, or insult them, and any profanity is mild, never directed at someone, and is usually just for emphasis. You can be direct and clear without being unprofessional. By professional, I don't mean biting back valid comments for fear of hurting someone's feelings, or hiding vitriol behind a polite facade, I mean having some basic respect for the people you work with, whether in person at an office, or online in an OSS project. Somehow, what people think "professionalism" implies is often the exact opposite of what it really means. To be "professional", one just needs to treat those they work with as an ally and an asset, rather than an enemy and a liability. In those instances where someone actually is an enemy/liability, it is that person who is acting unprofessional, and adding more unprofessionalism to the mix is just going to make things worse. So long as some professionalism standards are enforced, people like that will be taken care of without others needing to stoop to the same level.
Problems of a professional nature are usually endemic of a lack of respect for one's peers. Being able to communicate clearly and get work done is completely orthogonal to that concept.
just because someone likes playing mortal kombat doesnt mean they "aren't very good" which im assuming means "low functioning individual." if this is what you meant, you are dead wrong.
violence has always been a part of life. the problem is that the soccer mom hamsters running things now ('prosocial' is a newspeak term) naively assume that whitewashing away all aggressive expression and capability from society will eliminate violent action. it doesnt. if anything, the resultant bottling up that occurs when people try to comply with such inhuman expectation triggers more extreme responses to mundane situations. there is nothing wrong with having outlets no matter what the oprahs and dr phils preach. they provide a needed pressure release valve do today's ever more passive aggressive culture, which, for the high functioning rational people who must live in it, is essential. the people who cant or wont see this are the low functioning hamsters.
I read the GP as saying that video games, in lieu of actual physical violent behavior, don't expose an individual to the risk of physical injury (i.e. being "scarred"), for those individuals who are less skilled in that specific behavior (i.e. aren't good at it). Thus, video games provide an outlet for violent impulses without the inherent risks involved in violent behavior.
You would be absolutely correct... if this was 1995. Web sites haven't been a "static, read-only experience" in ages (many of them, anyway). You interact with web pages, not merely consume them, as you would an RSS feed. While I hate javascript with a passion, it has made it possible for us to move from web pages to web apps. Many of the sites most people use everyday would be completely impossible without client side scripting. I wish that scripting would be done in something that doesn't suck as hard as javascript, but that's neither here nor there.
Re: actually if the fee is only 6.5 cents...
on
Could Bitcoin Go Legit?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Doesn't actually work like that. Each "coin" or wallet does not maintain it's own separate chain. There is one block chain which contains all transactions. New transactions are added to the chain with each block mined. That's simplified a bit, but more or less accurate.
Specifically what happens is a miner (disregarding mining pools for now, as a pool can be treated as a single miner for the purposes of the mechanics of bitcoin) gets a list of transactions from other miners and clients in the peer-to-peer network, each with a transaction fee attached. The miner uses this transaction list in conjunction with the most recent block hash to generate a hash of a new block which meets certain requirements (based on the current difficulty of mining, which is self-regulated by the network). This new block is sent off to the network, and once that block is used to generate another, the transactions in the created block are "verified", including the 25BTC (currently) transaction to the address of the miner, from nowhere. The miner also gets all transaction fees for transactions in the block. Not counting attempts to manipulate the block chain (i.e. forking, making a series of fake blocks and attempting to pass them off as legitimate), there is only ever the one block chain, just many copies of it.
Right. Except that Google Docs is already free as in cost.
If you think Google Docs is free (as in cost) you are deluding yourself. Google didn't create and release this webapp just because they're nice people. It's a platform play, drawing in users to sell their true product, advertising. Do you really think they take on the costs of servers, bandwidth, and storage, without any intention of recouping these costs? Besides hardware costs, there's also the cost of developing and maintaining the software. While, true, they could amortize these costs by making Google Docs Open Source, if they do so it becomes trivial for someone else to set up a competing service using the software Google developed, meaning Google loses the point of developing the app in the first place, that Platform play. If Google were forced to release all of their web apps as open source, Google Docs wouldn't have been made in the first place. I love open source software as much as the next guy, and I would absolutely love it if everyone decided to release everything as open source, but the real world isn't so simple. So, before you start on the "Proprietary software is evil" bandwagon, stop for two seconds and consider the economics of the system you're trying to derail.
That's true, but it's generally enough information to figure out what you need to. Comparing unminifiers to disassemblers is just facetious; they're on an entirely different scope.
I really don't understand the arguments against proprietary software. It's generally just people whining about things not being free (as in cost). That's not to say I don't get the benefits of open source software. Open source is awesome. It allows amortization of technical debt across an industry, rather than a company. Which is a great thing. However, a company choosing to keep their software internal is not a sin. Sometimes it's stupid, but sometimes it's not (e.g. maintaining competitive advantage in your industry). Sometimes it just doesn't make economic sense to release your software to the world, and people should understand and respect that. (Not to imply I know your thoughts on subject.)
Your arguments makes the same level of sense as saying that every software is open source because disassemblers exist. Hint: they don't give you back source code.
Completely different beasts. Have you poked at an unminifier before? They provide easily readable code at the push of a button. Minified JS is not compiled source.
If there is an option to get at the un-minified stuff, I'd be astonished if you heard another word on the matter from the FSF about the use of the minified form for the sake of bandwidth use and efficiency.
I'm probably going to regret replying to this. AC + caps everywhere + anti-corporate screed probably adds up to a big pile of flamebait. Please prove me wrong.
Anyway, I do agree with some things that you said. The no-servers clause they have is a bullshit loophole they added but only enforce when they need leverage. But, that's a net neutrality issue, and doesn't really have much relevance here. Support net neutrality and that problem goes away.
As for Verizon Internet as a Utility. Firstly, I don't know if they're considered a Utility in the original story. If not, the point is moot, as they're not bound by all the special regulation of a Utility, and have the right to refuse service. The power and water companies in your example are considered public utilities, and hence are treated differently. They do not have the right to refuse service, as normal companies do. (Why do you think I said "most" companies in my original comment? Utilities are a jumble of red tape and backroom deals.) However, even if Verizon Internet is considered a Utility there, then they only need to comply with local regulations regarding equal access, which they probably did by offering him a business plan. As you put it, only the rule of law is important here. If they obeyed that law, where's the problem?
I'd also like to point out that no one, including large companies, can simply "change" contracts at will. A contract is a binding agreement between two (or more) parties, and can only be changed with the consent of those involved. Large companies do, however, have a larger bargaining power when it comes to making these contracts, as they don't need everyone's business, while they certainly want it. If you don't like their contract, propose a counter offer, or walk away. This is simple and emergent from the factors involved. There is nothing evil here.
The original story had nothing at all to do with the service they advertised. It was simply a customer costing them 3000 times more than average, and them cutting him loose in a manner according to their contract and local regulations. Nothing more, nothing less. He got the service he paid for, clearly. There was no throttling, no data caps, no usage charges. His service was the unlimited service he originally paid for. Verizon just decided that they no longer wished to offer him that service, as is their right. (Again, barring any utility regulations. I have no knowledge of these in the given jurisdiction.)
There is one thing about your post that really struck me. It's the main reason I'm replying. You said a sole proprietorship exists as a "natural right", but a corporation does not. I'm very curious about your meaning in this. How is a corporation inherently different than a sole proprietorship? Both exist as societal constructs. What about partnerships? Do they exist as a natural right? How about a corporation with only one person? I run a small corporation with 2 other officers and 1 employee. Because we're incorporated, do we not have a right to do business in your eyes? A corporation is made of people, run by people. It is merely a form of organization. The people running a corporation do not lose their inherent rights just because they are part of a corporation. That is to say, corporations have just as much right as a sole proprietorship to discriminate, by whatever criteria they decide. There is no law saying a corporation can't pick a group that the owners don't like and refuse to do business with them (not that I'm advocating one does as such), it's just generally not a good idea because of bad press. Of course, there are exceptions such as equal banking and housing laws, but those are specific regulations (good ones), and not the general law. A corporation is in essence no different than a sole proprietorship, just run, taxed, and registered differently. (Also losses are handled differently, as a sole proprietorship is inextricably linked to the owner whereas a corporation is not.) This is not an attack, mind you, I am legitimately curious as to your thoughts on the matter. Sorry for the long post, in particular this last paragraph.
The "(most)" in my comment was referring to utility companies granted a government monopoly. I tend to have a problem with that in the first place, but that's another discussion. Things certainly get murkier when the city or state decides that no one else can do business in that sector. If that sector is a "necessary good or service", then the company is mandated to make service available to all. The problem is we start getting into murky semantics as to what's necessary, and what's available.
I have no idea if Verizon Internet (which is different than Verizon Phone in this case) is considered a utility in regards to the original story, and if it is, whether making available a "business" plan for him is enough to meet their requirements. But questions about utility practices are probably best directed at your city hall, because they certainly don't follow 90% of "normal" business rules.
Slashdot Mirror
Much of his talk references the fact that many of the "new" ideas in computing were actually discussed and implemented in the early days of programming. Multiple core processing, visual tools and interactions, and higher level languages are not novel in any way; he's trying to point out that the earliest programmers had these ideas too, but we ignored or forgot them due to circumstances. For example, it is difficult to break out of the single processing pipeline mold when one company is dominating the CPU market by pushing out faster and faster units that excel at exactly that kind of processing..
I can attest to this. The phrase "Everything old is new again." (Or "All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again." for you BSG fans) is uttered so frequently in our office that we might as well emblazon it on the door. It's almost eerie how well some of the ideas from the mainframe era fit into the cloud computing ecosystem.
Thanks for the well thought out response. I do believe, however, that you've missed something rather critical. In a corporation, there are two types of stock: voting and non-voting (often called preferred stock, because in exchange for the voting rights you are given first priority for payouts). Institutional entities purchasing stock tend to take non-voting stock. Any holders of non-voting stock can be seen as amoral (or mechanical) third parties. It is only the holders of voting stock to which we can account moral responsibility.
Further, even if a mutual fund, investment bank, or other financial entity were to purchase voting stock, and actually use that influence to direct the company in question, then the burden of moral responsibility for the actions of the invested company does not stop at the investor, which is a non-sentient entity to which morality is not defined, it rather further divests into the moral holdings (to co-opt some investment terminology) of the investor's shareholders.
At the end of the day, as it were, every action that has been effected by humanity carries with it the moral burden of one or more humans. There is no action taken in the ontology of business that cannot be traced directly back to a human, and thus moral, source. Even taking HFT, for example, wherein computer algorithms act without human intervention to trade stock, resulting in possible real world moral consequences, there is still a moral locus: those who created and used those machines.
Side note: Thanks for the interesting debate. It's refreshing to meet level-headed intelligent people on the internet. :-P
While I agree that wealth is simply a tool, with no associative morality, I have to disagree with your view of corporations as amoral (or more accurately, that only corporations are amoral). Businesses of any form, whether sole proprietorships, non-profits, etc., are all inherently amoral (which is different from immoral), as they are merely organizational structures, and we do not assign morality to non-sentient entities. Therefore, morality of a business must derive from the directors of said business' actions, i.e. the owners.
For closely held businesses, such as a sole proprietorship, the moral impetus is easy to locate. For a corporation, it is not so much. The actions of a large corporation are resultant of Officers, who are hired and act on directives from the Board of Directors, who are chosen by shareholder votes. It would not be unreasonable, then, to say that the product morality of a corporation is derived from the collective morals of its shareholders, individually weighted by the number of shares each owns.
That is not to say that the individuals who act as instantiators of corporate policy do not bear moral responsibility for their actions in their positions. They do, but the chain of responsibility ultimately rests with the shareholders. Because each corporate management structure is unique, it is impossible to generalize an equation representing assignment of moral responsibility, though it is possible to do so on a per company basis, given adequate information.
Unfortunately, this system often goes awry because the moral individuals with the most wealth have a proportionately greater say in the moral direction of a Corporation. Corporate malfeasance is the result of conglomerated individual immorality, in an ontology wherein immoral actions are oft rewarded with increased wealth, and consequently influence. Unchecked, this pattern can spiral until immorality supplants morality as the driving force of the Corporate entity.
To sum, a Corporation is only amoral in the sense that it in itself bears no moral responsibility. That responsibility is divided amongst its management and shareholders, who are individually moral (or immoral) entities.
For $60, I can get an 80GB SSD or I can get a 2TB HDD. That 80GB SSD is going to require an additional HDD anyway for storage for many people.
...that's if you ignore the performance benefits of using a SSD as your system drive. I stuck a SSD in my 2-year old system and it felt like a new machine - its not just about loading/copying large files - the vastly reduced seek times put the skates under virtually anything that uses the disk. That's worth money.
Well, if you're like me, then 90+% of the bits on your drives are not accessed on a daily basis. There's long term storage (data rarely changes, read occasionally), and then there's interactive storage (unpredictable read/write patterns, heavy use). Caching of the sort proposed by TFA would certainly increase performance for HDD use as interactive storage, but not to the level of SSD. Conversely, the performance enhancements offered by SSD are almost entirely wasted when used for long term storage.
So, in a desktop scenario, what makes the most sense is to have small, fast SSDs for your OS, Virtual Memory, Temp storage, and any frequently used applications, and then large, cheap, HDDs for straight storage.
Their ISP, RIAA/MPAA, law enforcement and the FBI do not constitute "anybody". Anybody encompasses some guy sitting in a basement on the other side of the planet. I don't believe you could create a compelling argument that it would be "easy" for him to see their search data.
If they were using WiFi, or somebody taps into their outgoing internet line (Cable/DSL/What have you), then it is possible to snoop on non-https traffic. Though I would only consider it to be "with ease" if it was unencrypted WiFi. Not that I believe that's what took place, as that would mean that the couple in question were under suspicion and investigation prior to those searches.
you are confused.
first of all, we paid the telcoms *billions* of dollars in the 1990s to provide us with high speed networking. guess what they did with that money instead?
now we get 1/20 or less the bandwidth of the rest of the world.
the bandwidth leeches are the telecoms.
if I am paying for x mBytes down and y kbytes up, there is no ambiguity about what that means I am paying for (and note again, fhese rates are *pitifully slow*)
so no, we're not to cry you a river about what the lines can carry. those LEECHES, who have stolen billions from we the taxpayer and we the subscribers, can upgrade their gear so they can provide what they claim to have sold us.
quit being a shill for the LEECHES
Ok then... Firstly, I am not confused. I merely stated two facts. One, that shared residential lines can have their bandwidth clogged by abusers, or "leechers". Two, that this debate is not a net neutrality one; it's about business and advertising.
Strike that, actually. I am confused. I am confused as to how an ad hominem attack got modded +5 insightful.
You call me a shill, but would it surprise you to know that I agree pretty much with everything you said? (Apart from the ad hominem, of course.) I would absofrakkinglutely love some honesty and transparency from ISPs overselling their shared connections.
However, as I said, this is a matter of advertising, not net neutrality. If they don't claim to offer "unlimited" internet, then their competitors will, and the customers will jump ship. So, because, they advertise "unlimited", they have to pull stunts like the "no servers" clause so that people don't clog up their networks and piss off other customers. I am not defending this. I do not agree with this. I am merely stating the situation.
On another note, why is it that Google is held to a higher standard than other companies? These practices are extremely commonplace, however much I wish they weren't. If it were some other ISP, there would be (and indeed there have not been) a story in every tech news site about a ToS. But because it's Google, they can magically "do no wrong"? So when they do what every other major US ISP does, it's suddenly news? People need to realize that Google is just another company, and stop acting surprised when they behave like one.
The solution to this is to simply not oversell your backhaul: don't sell speeds and quotas you can't deliver. I know quotas and bandwidth control are not popular here, but no matter how fat you make your pipes, people will clog them, and if you want the best overall experience for everyone, you need to do something about it.
Have a certain maximum burst up/down rate, throttle it to a maximum sustained rate under continuous load, after say five minutes saturated, and ramp it back up when the usage backs off. Also implement a monthly up/down transfer quota.
Let people use their quota as they like, and importantly be transparent about it: give them tools to monitor their usage, current restrictions, etc. This will let them see if the service is adequate for their needs and plan for upgrades if necessary.
I would love for that to happen, honestly. If it were me I'd have tiered priorities, habitually heavy users would have a lower percentage access to bandwidth during peak use.
Unfortunately, that's not likely. It's an advertising thing; the average consumer doesn't know or care about network limitations, they just hear "but it's not unlimited", see that your competitors offer "unlimited", and jump ship. :-/
...But just using your own bandwidth for something someone doesn't smile on? Where's the leeching in that? Now get off my lawn!
The problem is that you're not just using your bandwidth. These are residential lines, not dedicated, and as such are shared between other nearby users. It's not the type of traffic that they care about, it's the quantity. These no server clauses are there so they have a framework to cancel users who are running a datacenter out of their house, using terabytes of traffic per month. People who do so "leech" the available bandwidth from everyone in the area.
Yes, it's unfortunately vague, but it is not about net neutrality. (Or at least it's not until there's an incident of abuse shutting down a small server they don't like. That would be newsworthy.)
There are other factors you haven't considered. Perhaps larger, thicker, or heavier packages tend to jamb in the automatic processing machines more often, requiring more manual intervention and slowing everything down. And even if that doesn't apply to gamefly's specific case, it may apply to packages greater than 1 ounce in general. And if that's the case, it would justify the post office making a special exception for gamefly since they wouldn't actually be costing more.
Haven't claimed to have considered all factors, just refuting one. :-P
For example, the Ars article indicates that because Netflix does ~97% of the DVD mailer volume, and because of that, and the fact that Netflix mailers are easily identifiable due to their red packaging, they are often sorted out from standard mail and handled differently, reducing costs. I'm not sure how I feel about this, as on the one hand, a business has the right to pass costs (or savings) on to the customer, but on the other, a governmental institution should not be favoring or discriminating.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/03/the-cost-difference-in-mailing-netflx-vs-gamefly-all-of-gameflys-profits/
The reason GameFly pays more is because their mailers weigh more. Netflix keeps the mailer at 1 ounce and pays 44 cents each. GameFly's mailer is 2 ounces and they pay the two ounce price. The big giant clue in the linked article is that the USPS is considering changing the price of the 2 ounce mailer to the price of a 1 ounce mailer.
So the real story is that GameFly wants a discount with zero actual justification.
The packaging for GameFly costs more. Work it into your business model or reduce the packaging weight.
I don't do business with GameFly but if I did, I'd cancel. They actually have the nerve to pretend Netflix is getting some kind of special treatment while they are the ones seeking it.
There is nothing unfair about what the USPS is doing. The rest of us have to pay by the ounce for our mail.
Just read the article you linked. While interesting, it does kinda support Gamefly's case. A 2-ounce mailer cost $1.05, whereas a 1-ounce mailer cost $0.44. In other words Gamefly pays ~238% of what Netflix pays, 38% above any differences in weight. Further, at these weights, the majority of the cost of delivery is a flat cost, rather than an increase in fuel consumption due to weight. The cost of fuel to transport 1 ounce of additional weight is certainly less than a penny; the vehicle, occupant, and other cargo make up the vast majority of the weight (and the occupant's time is no small factor on the cost). Just basing numbers on the weight of the packages alone, charging ~$0.10 extra for the additional ounce will more than make up for the added costs.
Given the wide range of companies targeted by this group, I'm inclined to believe that there was some bit of underlying software they all used that had a vulnerability for the hackers to exploit. Otherwise I'm not sure I believe that 5 hackers alone managed to compromise diverse systems developed independently from each other; finding SQL injection vulnerabilities is like probing for weak spots in armor, it's a very time consuming process that can't be automated (decently) and often ends in failure despite considerable effort. Sometimes some idiot doesn't bother sanitizing inputs and makes it easy, but considering these are major international companies, I doubt every single one of the listed failed basic security measures.
What probably happened is that one of the hackers through some channel got hold of the source for some common bit of internal web portal code used by employees of these companies (stuff that isn't intended for public access generally has less security). They examined said source, and found an obscure (one would hope obscure) SQL injection vulnerability. They then searched for companies using the software, and leveraged the known vulnerability to compromise machines, gaining footholds in their internal networks. From there it's just a matter of figuring out what valuables you can get using your access.
Huh? Did you read the same article as I did? As far as I can tell, the article is about a TCP congestion control algorithm, which runs on both endpoints of the connection, and has nothing to do with QoS on intermediate routers. The algorithm generates a set of rules based on three parameters resulting in a set of actions to take like increasing advertised receive window and tx rate control. The result of which is a vastly improved total network throughput (and lower latency) without changing the network itself.
I fail to see the relevance of predictive/adaptive caching. It isn't even mentioned in the article.
I think the GP got confused by the "Machine Learning" part of the headline, and thought that the network algorithm uses some sort of adaptive mechanism. What the software actually does is uses genetic learning (i.e. natural selection) to generate sets of network algorithms, each generation of which is better than the one before (that's how Genetic AI works). The actual algorithms in question are a set of static rules, not much different in function than the existing TCP algorithms, just more efficient.
I'll give you a hint brilliant jerks that are social enough to offend somebody rarely work directly for companies consulting pays much much better and gives them new and interesting things on a steady basis..
I co-founded a software consulting company, for pretty much those exact reasons. Give me a steady stream of new, interesting, and challenging problems to solve, and I am a very happy (brilliant jerk of a) programmer. :-p
Well, I guess that's my cue.
I work in a pretty successful technology company. We have a "no brilliant jerks" policy. Doesn't matter how good someone is, if they're actively corrosive to working with people, they're gone.
That doesn't mean I don't see developers getting into heated discussions about the merits of technical issues. But those heated discussions are professional, utterly impersonal, and without a shred of meanness. They just disagree.
This whole "good engineers are assholes" myth is, well, a myth that has been promulgated by a group of people more dominated by assholes than by good engineers.
I applaud Sarah Sharp and, blankinthefill, I want you know not all environments are like this. Not even all successful FOSS projects.
Seriously. Being professional and communicating clearly are by no means mutually exclusive.
I'm probably the type of person who would fall under the category of "brilliant jerks", at least on the surface. I'm very direct, saying what I think without prevarication, or worrying about hurting someone's feelings. I don't use subtext, or passive aggressive politicking; what I say has no hidden meanings. This directness can be abrasive to some people, particularly those who don't know me, who sometimes see subtext when there is none. However, any abrasiveness is indirect, meaning not intentional. This directness of mine is useful in maintaining clear communication. My colleagues rely on my ability to, as one of them put it, "cut through the bullshit".
However, I never attack someone directly, or insult them, and any profanity is mild, never directed at someone, and is usually just for emphasis. You can be direct and clear without being unprofessional. By professional, I don't mean biting back valid comments for fear of hurting someone's feelings, or hiding vitriol behind a polite facade, I mean having some basic respect for the people you work with, whether in person at an office, or online in an OSS project. Somehow, what people think "professionalism" implies is often the exact opposite of what it really means. To be "professional", one just needs to treat those they work with as an ally and an asset, rather than an enemy and a liability. In those instances where someone actually is an enemy/liability, it is that person who is acting unprofessional, and adding more unprofessionalism to the mix is just going to make things worse. So long as some professionalism standards are enforced, people like that will be taken care of without others needing to stoop to the same level.
Problems of a professional nature are usually endemic of a lack of respect for one's peers. Being able to communicate clearly and get work done is completely orthogonal to that concept.
just because someone likes playing mortal kombat doesnt mean they "aren't very good" which im assuming means "low functioning individual." if this is what you meant, you are dead wrong.
violence has always been a part of life. the problem is that the soccer mom hamsters running things now ('prosocial' is a newspeak term) naively assume that whitewashing away all aggressive expression and capability from society will eliminate violent action. it doesnt. if anything, the resultant bottling up that occurs when people try to comply with such inhuman expectation triggers more extreme responses to mundane situations. there is nothing wrong with having outlets no matter what the oprahs and dr phils preach. they provide a needed pressure release valve do today's ever more passive aggressive culture, which, for the high functioning rational people who must live in it, is essential. the people who cant or wont see this are the low functioning hamsters.
I read the GP as saying that video games, in lieu of actual physical violent behavior, don't expose an individual to the risk of physical injury (i.e. being "scarred"), for those individuals who are less skilled in that specific behavior (i.e. aren't good at it). Thus, video games provide an outlet for violent impulses without the inherent risks involved in violent behavior.
I think you two are actually in agreement.
Who says that I'm limited to worrying about one agency at a time? I can multitask.
I dont expect it to be hidden, but i also dont expect LOGGING of everything. Its a terrible road we are going down.
Don't worry. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy, so things can't possibly get worse.
It may not be slippery, but there sure as hell is a definite downward trend.
You would be absolutely correct... if this was 1995. Web sites haven't been a "static, read-only experience" in ages (many of them, anyway). You interact with web pages, not merely consume them, as you would an RSS feed. While I hate javascript with a passion, it has made it possible for us to move from web pages to web apps. Many of the sites most people use everyday would be completely impossible without client side scripting. I wish that scripting would be done in something that doesn't suck as hard as javascript, but that's neither here nor there.
Doesn't actually work like that. Each "coin" or wallet does not maintain it's own separate chain. There is one block chain which contains all transactions. New transactions are added to the chain with each block mined. That's simplified a bit, but more or less accurate.
Specifically what happens is a miner (disregarding mining pools for now, as a pool can be treated as a single miner for the purposes of the mechanics of bitcoin) gets a list of transactions from other miners and clients in the peer-to-peer network, each with a transaction fee attached. The miner uses this transaction list in conjunction with the most recent block hash to generate a hash of a new block which meets certain requirements (based on the current difficulty of mining, which is self-regulated by the network). This new block is sent off to the network, and once that block is used to generate another, the transactions in the created block are "verified", including the 25BTC (currently) transaction to the address of the miner, from nowhere. The miner also gets all transaction fees for transactions in the block. Not counting attempts to manipulate the block chain (i.e. forking, making a series of fake blocks and attempting to pass them off as legitimate), there is only ever the one block chain, just many copies of it.
Right. Except that Google Docs is already free as in cost.
If you think Google Docs is free (as in cost) you are deluding yourself. Google didn't create and release this webapp just because they're nice people. It's a platform play, drawing in users to sell their true product, advertising. Do you really think they take on the costs of servers, bandwidth, and storage, without any intention of recouping these costs? Besides hardware costs, there's also the cost of developing and maintaining the software. While, true, they could amortize these costs by making Google Docs Open Source, if they do so it becomes trivial for someone else to set up a competing service using the software Google developed, meaning Google loses the point of developing the app in the first place, that Platform play. If Google were forced to release all of their web apps as open source, Google Docs wouldn't have been made in the first place. I love open source software as much as the next guy, and I would absolutely love it if everyone decided to release everything as open source, but the real world isn't so simple. So, before you start on the "Proprietary software is evil" bandwagon, stop for two seconds and consider the economics of the system you're trying to derail.
That's true, but it's generally enough information to figure out what you need to. Comparing unminifiers to disassemblers is just facetious; they're on an entirely different scope.
I really don't understand the arguments against proprietary software. It's generally just people whining about things not being free (as in cost). That's not to say I don't get the benefits of open source software. Open source is awesome. It allows amortization of technical debt across an industry, rather than a company. Which is a great thing. However, a company choosing to keep their software internal is not a sin. Sometimes it's stupid, but sometimes it's not (e.g. maintaining competitive advantage in your industry). Sometimes it just doesn't make economic sense to release your software to the world, and people should understand and respect that. (Not to imply I know your thoughts on subject.)
Your arguments makes the same level of sense as saying that every software is open source because disassemblers exist. Hint: they don't give you back source code.
Completely different beasts. Have you poked at an unminifier before? They provide easily readable code at the push of a button. Minified JS is not compiled source.
>
If there is an option to get at the un-minified stuff, I'd be astonished if you heard another word on the matter from the FSF about the use of the minified form for the sake of bandwidth use and efficiency.
You realize a bunch of tools already exist to un-minify javascript, yes?
I'm probably going to regret replying to this. AC + caps everywhere + anti-corporate screed probably adds up to a big pile of flamebait. Please prove me wrong.
Anyway, I do agree with some things that you said. The no-servers clause they have is a bullshit loophole they added but only enforce when they need leverage. But, that's a net neutrality issue, and doesn't really have much relevance here. Support net neutrality and that problem goes away.
As for Verizon Internet as a Utility. Firstly, I don't know if they're considered a Utility in the original story. If not, the point is moot, as they're not bound by all the special regulation of a Utility, and have the right to refuse service. The power and water companies in your example are considered public utilities, and hence are treated differently. They do not have the right to refuse service, as normal companies do. (Why do you think I said "most" companies in my original comment? Utilities are a jumble of red tape and backroom deals.) However, even if Verizon Internet is considered a Utility there, then they only need to comply with local regulations regarding equal access, which they probably did by offering him a business plan. As you put it, only the rule of law is important here. If they obeyed that law, where's the problem?
I'd also like to point out that no one, including large companies, can simply "change" contracts at will. A contract is a binding agreement between two (or more) parties, and can only be changed with the consent of those involved. Large companies do, however, have a larger bargaining power when it comes to making these contracts, as they don't need everyone's business, while they certainly want it. If you don't like their contract, propose a counter offer, or walk away. This is simple and emergent from the factors involved. There is nothing evil here.
The original story had nothing at all to do with the service they advertised. It was simply a customer costing them 3000 times more than average, and them cutting him loose in a manner according to their contract and local regulations. Nothing more, nothing less. He got the service he paid for, clearly. There was no throttling, no data caps, no usage charges. His service was the unlimited service he originally paid for. Verizon just decided that they no longer wished to offer him that service, as is their right. (Again, barring any utility regulations. I have no knowledge of these in the given jurisdiction.)
There is one thing about your post that really struck me. It's the main reason I'm replying. You said a sole proprietorship exists as a "natural right", but a corporation does not. I'm very curious about your meaning in this. How is a corporation inherently different than a sole proprietorship? Both exist as societal constructs. What about partnerships? Do they exist as a natural right? How about a corporation with only one person? I run a small corporation with 2 other officers and 1 employee. Because we're incorporated, do we not have a right to do business in your eyes? A corporation is made of people, run by people. It is merely a form of organization. The people running a corporation do not lose their inherent rights just because they are part of a corporation. That is to say, corporations have just as much right as a sole proprietorship to discriminate, by whatever criteria they decide. There is no law saying a corporation can't pick a group that the owners don't like and refuse to do business with them (not that I'm advocating one does as such), it's just generally not a good idea because of bad press. Of course, there are exceptions such as equal banking and housing laws, but those are specific regulations (good ones), and not the general law. A corporation is in essence no different than a sole proprietorship, just run, taxed, and registered differently. (Also losses are handled differently, as a sole proprietorship is inextricably linked to the owner whereas a corporation is not.) This is not an attack, mind you, I am legitimately curious as to your thoughts on the matter. Sorry for the long post, in particular this last paragraph.
The "(most)" in my comment was referring to utility companies granted a government monopoly. I tend to have a problem with that in the first place, but that's another discussion. Things certainly get murkier when the city or state decides that no one else can do business in that sector. If that sector is a "necessary good or service", then the company is mandated to make service available to all. The problem is we start getting into murky semantics as to what's necessary, and what's available.
I have no idea if Verizon Internet (which is different than Verizon Phone in this case) is considered a utility in regards to the original story, and if it is, whether making available a "business" plan for him is enough to meet their requirements. But questions about utility practices are probably best directed at your city hall, because they certainly don't follow 90% of "normal" business rules.