Ironically, this is exactly what facebook started out as.
An.edu email address was required to register for the first couple of years, and the entire system was designed to facilitate inter-class communication between students and professors.
Then they added the "friend" feature, non students started trying to register, Zuckerberg got greedy, and things went downhill from there.
Really? Which five?
The only ones I saw on our ballot were Dem, Rep, Green and Libertarian....
Also, is there any way to establish which parties are on enough ballots before the vote?
It would be nice to be able to avoid the mathmatically screwed candidates ahead of time.
feel free to google that phrase if you want references, but there are too many possible attackers out there to blacklist them all.
One will get through.
While there are more than two parties, the simple fact is that no third party candidate has even been on the ballot in every district in the past 20 years.
I've already talked about this in other threads over the past few years, but here it is again.
Last presidential election I was asked to leave my voting district after asking for a write in vote because the candidate I wanted was not available.
I even called the police department about it, expecting to have an officer preset to insure I didn't "disturb the peace".
Instead I was told to just vote for one of the people on the ballot and play nice.
How can we get anyone through the system that isn't a republican or democrat if they aren't allowed on the ballot, on TV, and aren't even allowed to participate in the "Open Debates" in places like ohio?
They give you 2 words, one is an already solved known value, and the other is an unknown word.
if you get the first word correct, they take the value from your second word and add it to the "possible solutions" list.
After 2000 or so people have solved the word, they examine the results for a statistically unique answer. If there is not outlier, (say 65% have the same answer) it goes back into the unknown pile.
Once they find a statistically significant answer, it's considered "solved" and is used as one of the initial validation words.
I have a problem with the police/a corporation seizing the computer of some small business that probably had nothing to do with the bot net.
What if the control servers were still using public IRC servers, should microsoft be allowed to seize freenode?
What if they were using public services as C&C?
What about AC slashdot comments , spam messages on blogger, random twitter accounts, or even a.gov?
Seized equipment disappears for year at a time, and if a business doesn't have IT that can notice a botnet, what makes you think they have backups?
It appears that you are incorrectly assuming that ownership has bearing on traffic costs and routing overhead.
The simple fact is that the users are both already renting service and space on that network.
Traffic between two people on the same node never hits the gateway, and thus doesn't cause any additional overhead. (unless the provider is using hubs instead of switches at the node level, which would be rather ill advised.)
Once you cross from one node to another, a small amount of routing overhead is incurred, but no more than the comcast servers generate.
The only difference between a third party server hosted in comcast's network and comcast's servers running in the same network is the name of the owner.
This means that charging for traffic to the third party while not charging for traffic to the comcast server is preferential treatment, and this probably qualifies as a net neutrality violation.
That is the meat of the argument you are arguing against.
Now, you can try to argue that the network neutrality rules are unfair or cause undue harm to the isp, but the alternative is companies like comcast lowering the caps to the point that using any other service is prohibitive.
( imagine a 500MB cap for data transfer with $20/Mb overage charges, but comcast hosts a search engine, video/music streaming services, a voip telephone service, and an exclusive "Peering agreement" with facebook that don't apply to the caps. What would happen to smaller service providers that want to compete? )
Also, it's been established that indirect collusion is the standard for larger competing isps, so they would actually get away with this as long as they implemented it in small steps.
Afterall, "If Comcast is profiting from it, why shouldn't we?"
I'm not sure you thought this argument through completely.
If you bring you laptop into my office and plug into a network jack, you are now part of my network.
I (or my equipment) have assigned you an ip that is part of my network block, and you are now occupying space in that block.
As long as you have a locally addressed IP on my network, you are part of that network. Period.
In the above examples, the user is using an IP provided by comcast, and as such is part of comcast's network.
The bandwidth caps should only apply to traffic that incurs additional bandwidth charges.
According to comcast, Internal traffic ( within the netblock they control ) doesn't cost comcast anything extra. This is why they aren't applying their services to the Cap.
The same should apply to third parties who are willing to purchase space within the comcast network.
I was using notepad as an example, especially since I know for a fact that I can code a simple web page design by hand in notepad faster than the office's contracted "web designer" with her wysiwyg tools. (we tested it one day after I got irritated and let my mouth get away from me)
I actually prefer to use Vim for editing. (with a ton of customization, and a few wrapper scripts)
If I am working on a web design, I have a large set of tricks that I use to get the best features of GUI editors without the issues.
For example,
I add a javascript autorefresh on a 10 second timer to the header of the page
ssh into the dev server and open the page in all of the browsers that I need to be compatible with. ........(I have a 3rd monitor set aside just for this, and if I have more than a few browsers, I'll open some on my laptop as well)
I also use a script that tests the page for validation errors every minute and changes the background color of my terminal window to let me know I broke something.
and a 27 inch monitor is not equal to 19-22 inches.
I want a crisp image, but with mutiple screens on my desk, a 27+ inch screen isn't a good fit.
That doesn't even address the lower PPI ("pixels per inch" aka DPI) issues with larger screens.
I don't want to see the pixels on my screen, and I don't want to sit 6 feet away to see the entire screen either.
The larger screens may have a higher number lof vertical pixels, but the pixels are larger and less dense.
This means the screen is actually less clear.
My home theater projector can display 1080p,and so can my cell phone.
On the projector's 110inch screen, each pixel is a forth of an inch square... on the phone you can't see them.
I don't want a bigger screen, I want a better image, and more available room for data.
I really love how a single image and a paragraph turns into a 2MB html file and 10 pages of markup.
Seriously though.
When a gui editor can create easily read code that loads faster than something I can do in the same amount of time with notepad, I'll think about switching, and so will the other 400,000 people on slashdot who do this type of work.
Until then, STFU about gui html editors and let the professionals talk.
I really wish more of the "steampunk" community did things like this instead of gluing gears onto modern electrical junk.....
That machine is a beautiful restoration, thanks for the link.
I have to assume that your definition of affordable is different from mine, or prices have dropped drastically in the last few months since I was shopping for a new screen. (just checked google shopping, the prices haven't changed. )
All of the monitors that see I with with higher resolutions are almost twice the price of the "1080p" units.
An extra $100 for 200 more rows of pixels? Not interested.
Additionally, I can't even FIND a 19-22inch monitor with anything higher than 1200p vertical resolution without shopping at medical supply shops. I can get the resolutions I want on screens designed for use on an MRI, but I'm not even going to consider a $2300 monitor. (especially since I need 4 of them...)
Slashdot Mirror
Ironically, this is exactly what facebook started out as. .edu email address was required to register for the first couple of years, and the entire system was designed to facilitate inter-class communication between students and professors.
An
Then they added the "friend" feature, non students started trying to register, Zuckerberg got greedy, and things went downhill from there.
Really? Which five?
The only ones I saw on our ballot were Dem, Rep, Green and Libertarian....
Also, is there any way to establish which parties are on enough ballots before the vote?
It would be nice to be able to avoid the mathmatically screwed candidates ahead of time.
"Blacklisting never works".
feel free to google that phrase if you want references, but there are too many possible attackers out there to blacklist them all.
One will get through.
While there are more than two parties, the simple fact is that no third party candidate has even been on the ballot in every district in the past 20 years.
I've already talked about this in other threads over the past few years, but here it is again.
Last presidential election I was asked to leave my voting district after asking for a write in vote because the candidate I wanted was not available.
I even called the police department about it, expecting to have an officer preset to insure I didn't "disturb the peace".
Instead I was told to just vote for one of the people on the ballot and play nice.
How can we get anyone through the system that isn't a republican or democrat if they aren't allowed on the ballot, on TV, and aren't even allowed to participate in the "Open Debates" in places like ohio?
Voting against someone implies voting for someone else.
All i'm seeing is the same shit sandwich with different kinds of bread.
Sorry, not hungry.
Looks like we are actually on the same page then.
Thanks for the discussion.
Not exactly, but pretty close.
They give you 2 words, one is an already solved known value, and the other is an unknown word.
if you get the first word correct, they take the value from your second word and add it to the "possible solutions" list.
After 2000 or so people have solved the word, they examine the results for a statistically unique answer. If there is not outlier, (say 65% have the same answer) it goes back into the unknown pile.
Once they find a statistically significant answer, it's considered "solved" and is used as one of the initial validation words.
Rinse, repeat.
Recaptcha works by using a known value with an unknown, it's why you have to type 2 words.
One of the two words is considered solved, and is the actual captcha, the second word is using you as an ocr.
After enough people provide the same solution for the second word, it goes into the solved category and is used for validation.
They don't have to pay people to validate the addresses, we're doing it for free.
I have a problem with the police/a corporation seizing the computer of some small business that probably had nothing to do with the bot net.
.gov?
What if the control servers were still using public IRC servers, should microsoft be allowed to seize freenode?
What if they were using public services as C&C?
What about AC slashdot comments , spam messages on blogger, random twitter accounts, or even a
Seized equipment disappears for year at a time, and if a business doesn't have IT that can notice a botnet, what makes you think they have backups?
It appears that you are incorrectly assuming that ownership has bearing on traffic costs and routing overhead.
The simple fact is that the users are both already renting service and space on that network.
Traffic between two people on the same node never hits the gateway, and thus doesn't cause any additional overhead. (unless the provider is using hubs instead of switches at the node level, which would be rather ill advised.)
Once you cross from one node to another, a small amount of routing overhead is incurred, but no more than the comcast servers generate.
The only difference between a third party server hosted in comcast's network and comcast's servers running in the same network is the name of the owner.
This means that charging for traffic to the third party while not charging for traffic to the comcast server is preferential treatment, and this probably qualifies as a net neutrality violation.
That is the meat of the argument you are arguing against.
Now, you can try to argue that the network neutrality rules are unfair or cause undue harm to the isp, but the alternative is companies like comcast lowering the caps to the point that using any other service is prohibitive.
( imagine a 500MB cap for data transfer with $20/Mb overage charges, but comcast hosts a search engine, video/music streaming services, a voip telephone service, and an exclusive "Peering agreement" with facebook that don't apply to the caps. What would happen to smaller service providers that want to compete? )
Also, it's been established that indirect collusion is the standard for larger competing isps, so they would actually get away with this as long as they implemented it in small steps.
Afterall, "If Comcast is profiting from it, why shouldn't we?"
I'm not sure you thought this argument through completely.
If you bring you laptop into my office and plug into a network jack, you are now part of my network.
I (or my equipment) have assigned you an ip that is part of my network block, and you are now occupying space in that block.
As long as you have a locally addressed IP on my network, you are part of that network. Period.
In the above examples, the user is using an IP provided by comcast, and as such is part of comcast's network.
The bandwidth caps should only apply to traffic that incurs additional bandwidth charges.
According to comcast, Internal traffic ( within the netblock they control ) doesn't cost comcast anything extra. This is why they aren't applying their services to the Cap.
The same should apply to third parties who are willing to purchase space within the comcast network.
Sorry.
The measurement I gave is not diagonal, that's the horizontal measurement.
I'll get the horizontal later and post it so that we can do the math correctly.
PS in 2001 Linux required you to be root in order to use your modem to dial into the internet to use Netscape
I'm not sure where you got this idea, but no, it didn't.
Perhaps some distributions did, but I was using gentoo and redhat on my laptop at that time and neither one required root to dial.
I was using notepad as an example, especially since I know for a fact that I can code a simple web page design by hand in notepad faster than the office's contracted "web designer" with her wysiwyg tools. (we tested it one day after I got irritated and let my mouth get away from me)
I actually prefer to use Vim for editing. (with a ton of customization, and a few wrapper scripts)
If I am working on a web design, I have a large set of tricks that I use to get the best features of GUI editors without the issues.
For example,
I add a javascript autorefresh on a 10 second timer to the header of the page
........(I have a 3rd monitor set aside just for this, and if I have more than a few browsers, I'll open some on my laptop as well)
ssh into the dev server and open the page in all of the browsers that I need to be compatible with.
I also use a script that tests the page for validation errors every minute and changes the background color of my terminal window to let me know I broke something.
And I never claimed to be a professional.
630 euros is $836 US.
1200euros is $1591
and a 27 inch monitor is not equal to 19-22 inches.
I want a crisp image, but with mutiple screens on my desk, a 27+ inch screen isn't a good fit.
That doesn't even address the lower PPI ("pixels per inch" aka DPI) issues with larger screens.
I don't want to see the pixels on my screen, and I don't want to sit 6 feet away to see the entire screen either.
The larger screens may have a higher number lof vertical pixels, but the pixels are larger and less dense.
This means the screen is actually less clear.
My home theater projector can display 1080p,and so can my cell phone.
On the projector's 110inch screen, each pixel is a forth of an inch square... on the phone you can't see them.
I don't want a bigger screen, I want a better image, and more available room for data.
Please go read my original comment.
1920x1080 is not a higher vertical resolution than 1200 pixels.
Yes, gui editors are great!
I really love how a single image and a paragraph turns into a 2MB html file and 10 pages of markup.
Seriously though.
When a gui editor can create easily read code that loads faster than something I can do in the same amount of time with notepad, I'll think about switching, and so will the other 400,000 people on slashdot who do this type of work.
Until then, STFU about gui html editors and let the professionals talk.
I really wish more of the "steampunk" community did things like this instead of gluing gears onto modern electrical junk..... That machine is a beautiful restoration, thanks for the link.
I already commented so I can't mod you up, but atm0 was the init code to disable the audio from your modem completely.
You have paper that can show video!? Damn, where can I get that product?
FDIC insurance is $100k PER ACCOUNT.
So if you spread your assets out properly, (you know, redundantly) then you're safe and covered.
plenty of affordable
I have to assume that your definition of affordable is different from mine, or prices have dropped drastically in the last few months since I was shopping for a new screen. (just checked google shopping, the prices haven't changed. )
All of the monitors that see I with with higher resolutions are almost twice the price of the "1080p" units.
An extra $100 for 200 more rows of pixels? Not interested.
Additionally, I can't even FIND a 19-22inch monitor with anything higher than 1200p vertical resolution without shopping at medical supply shops. I can get the resolutions I want on screens designed for use on an MRI, but I'm not even going to consider a $2300 monitor. (especially since I need 4 of them...)
can't spell "bill".
Who are you referring to?
The word bill was only used twice in this sub-thread, and it was spelled correctly both times...
Since I just woke up, I even double checked.
Putting an accused in lockup is completely different from seizing all assets and putting him out of business.
If you arrest someone, the judge gets to decide on the flight risk during arraignment. If the accused is likely to run, then they stay in jail.
Tradewars?