Just because I don't know how to fix it, and just because it's still functioning doesn't mean I shouldn't point out what I percieve to be flaws.
I may not know how to improve it, but at least I refuse to complacently accept that this is how it is and that's all there is to it. I still assert that the power of internet governance is too great to trust to any single centralized authority - even if that central authority is my nation's government, and even if I feel my nation's government to be perfect.
It all comes down to "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." That (in theory) is why the United States government is comprised of three major branches, with checks and balances built in (it works, BTW, but not perfectly).
Sorry, pal - looks like everybody (present company included) has their own agenda. Gotta fall back on the old "might makes right" philosophy. Maybe it's terribly flawed, but in the arena of international politics, it's the only game in town.
Not my idea of perfect. Just sayin', is all. At the end of the day, the US still pretty much is large and in charge when it comes to internet governance. Don't blame the messenger.
As a card-carrying republican (yes, there are a few of us left still proud of that), I view with deep misgivings the actions of the current administration regarding both our militant foreign policy and our new willingness to disregard constitutional guarantees regarding freedom in favor of (the perception of) enhanced security.
Somebody around here has a perfect sig for this moment:
Four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
(Incidentally, I understand why the administration was so adamant on the point of WMD's in Iraq - we friggin' delivered them ourselves, for use by the anti-soviet forces in Iraq. Now we're finding mass graves. Hmmm . . . I think we may be able to guess where all the WMD's went, eh?)
Unfortunately, while I know that the current system is broken, I don't know how to fix it.
There's the old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I paraphrased that elsewhere with "it's broke but it's still running; let's not try to fix it 'til we have replacement parts."
I'm running on empty at this point. Have you got any good suggestions? I've heard about distributed DNS, but that just seems to move the problem, not fix it.
If you wanted it badly enough, you could (for example) have a LAN party at your house.
Or you could set up an online web games server and bump the cheats. Again, more than you want to do.
I suspect with the game consoles, you'll have little choice but to pay a fee (as I doubt that the console/game manufacturers will tell you their proprietary protocols). At that point, you'll only be able to vote with your wallet, hoping to find an internet portal that bans cheats.
Personally, it's not worth it to me either. That's why I play cribbage using real cards in meatspace. Ditto for pool (except with balls, not cards). Likewise for darts (substitute game appropriate equipment here). The list goes on - I'm actually quite a gamester, truth to tell.
Yes, I can be a US citizen and still disagree with my government. I'm stating that I'm not having a knee-jerk "anti-US" reaction, as I felt you were implying.
I have not stated that the U. S. is responsible for anything that has happened; merely that the United States created the aforementioned technologies. While I disapprove of the current state of affairs I cannot concieve of a better solution than to continue permitting ICANN and IANA to perform their assorted functions, although it would be naive to the point of idiocy not to acknowledge the undeniable presence of the United States' hand behind both of those governing organizations.
As for returning ccTLDs to the countries who are supposed to control them, by extension that means the United States should only be capable of controlling the.usa domain? After all,.com,.net,.gov,.edu,.org, etc. . . . these are all not ccTLD's, right? I guess these should be completely un-governed?
The United States is responsible for nothing in this regard. If we choose to permit other nations to manage their own ccTLD's, well and good; but I don't percieve any moral reason we should be required to do so.
(By the way, an indicator of a recent news article? Uh, am I about to get a visit from the G-Men?
I'm a U. S. citizen (hence unlikely to knee-jerk respond against my own nation).
I have acknowledged that the current state of affairs, while unacceptable, is nonetheless the only one which works. Please find a better replacement and I will happily do all which I may to support it; for right now, the status-quo is the best thing going.
Machines and 'bots can only go so far to provide a challenging fun gaming experience - witness the number of Quake servers on the 'net at any given time.
Online gaming is about gaming getting back to it's roots - "me vs. you". Playing against a console is essentially a souped-up version of solitaire. Fun, distracting, but nothing like the rush of defeating an opponent with the same chance of victory as defeat.
Who will? Whoever the U. S. government allows to (at any given moment).
Should? Hmmm . . . centralization leads to too much power in too few hands (we have that now). Decentralization leads to a fragmented, discontinuous medium, tremendously reducing the utility and efficiency of the internet (and still leaving often unqualified hands with more power than they desserve).
The United States government should maintain its control of the internet until such time as a standard for decentralized management can be devised, agreed upon and implemented. A horrible solution; essentially, "it's busted but it's running. Don't fix it until we have replacement parts."
I disagree with you, sir. I have been well-respected and well-treated as a valuable co-worker (granted, half of my co-workers are "yellow-badge" types).
I have encountered no unreasonable prejudices or bigotry connected to my "yellow-badge" status here at IBM Rochester. I am, in fact, quite overjoyed to have found such a magnificent work environment.
Let's see . . . my badge is yellow, the guy behind me has a yellow badge (was blue up 'til two month ago), the guy next to him has a yellow badge (has had it for several years), the guy in the cubicle across the hall has a yellow badge, the guy I answer to has a yellow badge, as does his boss.
Cripes, I see more yellow than blue here (of course, much of the blue has gone home for the holidays, but still . ..)
Yes, I'm working as a contractor for IBM. In Rochester, in fact.
The prevalent argument here seems to be that the internet belongs to everyone; while that has seemed to be the case, it is patently not true.
Like it or not, the internet has been an invention of the United States government. Its explosive growth beyond that, and the seeming "openness" of it has been an illusion created by the incredible power and flexibility of the internet as a communication system. It is much like the Global Positioning System in that it has proven to have incredible utility beyond the military uses originally envisioned for the system. That the United States Military has <sarcasm>graciously</sarcasm> allowed use of the technologies whose creation they fostered has created the illusion that this is a "free for all, free as in beer" system; in fact, this has only been permitted because the use and implications of this technology balooned faster than the agencies behind its invention could adapt to limit and control it.
Now, of course, the problem is that the internet truly is both far larger and far more important to (global) society than was ever anticipated by DARPA. Control of the internet was largely lost (witness the fact that it's the one communications mechanism which our military was unable to completely disable when they invaded Iraq); is it any wonder then that the United States government is actively attempting to preserve whatever control it can over this medium?
Of course, given how enmeshed our society has become with the internet this leads to some disturbing issues. To accord the government (any government) the kind of power that control of the internet entails is tantamount to surrendering the vast majority of our individual rights to privacy. This is especially disturbing in view of recent spying actions by the United States government directed against its own citizens, actions which many view as diametrically opposed to the constitutional freedoms which we are ostensibly guaranteed as U. S. citizens. Are there any so naive as to think that the United States government doesn't intend to maintain its hold on internet governance, that the U. S. government will voluntary relinquish this incredibly powerful position? Or that having this powerful position, the United States government will permit constitutional limits to be applied to what can be done with this position?
It has been demonstrated (see the multiple {RI|MP}AA abuses of late) that the internet does not enjoy the same guarantees which telephone or postal mail does regarding privacy. The United States unstated (but demonstrated) position is "our bat, our ball, our rules". Constitutional guarantees (which prevent the government from reading our mail and used to prevent wiretapping our phones) do not apply to the internet.
</RANT> *puts on flame-retardant suit and gets ready to be baked alive*
Not that I'm against that - after all, going to the moon must've seemed like an impossible dream to most people in the 50's. A computer able to hold millions of bits of information and able to fit in a single room? Laughable.
Still, predictions that a nascent and unproven technology will sweep into widespread usage within a decade seems just a bit optimistic. I just hope that I'm wrong.
Did they use the same media for all their testing?
on
DVD Writer RoundUp
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
After all, I've seen huge differences for both CD-R and DVD+R performance caused by using different brands of media. I've even had outright failures while using Maxcel brand media (ymmv, that's just my experience).
In the CD-RW and DVD-RW arena, I'll be slower to judge as I haven't seen the same kind of variances; then again, once I've purchased RW media, I don't need to purchase more so I haven't seen a wide variety of brands in this area. I suspect that a similar situation exists.
I haven't even touched DL-R or DL-RW yet - the media costs are prohibitive. Who wants to pay 8-10x as much per platter for a medium which only delivers around 1.8x the data density?
In the end, I'm not too sure I care so much about write times (hey, I can spare a few extra seconds when I burn a DVD or CD - it's not like I do so for a living), so much as data reliability, medium durability, media cost and compatibility.
Bottom line - while the drive is important, it's nothing without the media; so long as the drive functions correctly, it seems likely that there's more to be gained by selecting the proper media for use in the drive.
I went back to contracting and voted myself a 200% raise (plus bennies).
BTW, sorry 'bout all that data that got lost - whaddya expect from a low-level, wage-earning slob? Oh, well . . . at least I didn't mind getting fired. Did you mind the lost revenue? Incidentally, I noticed that my old job is still unfilled;^D.
(at the risk of seeming like one of these AOL kiddies) -- ROTFLMAO.
Slashdot Mirror
The sperm cell has a one in ten-million chance of eventually becoming a human being!
Just because I don't know how to fix it, and just because it's still functioning doesn't mean I shouldn't point out what I percieve to be flaws.
I may not know how to improve it, but at least I refuse to complacently accept that this is how it is and that's all there is to it. I still assert that the power of internet governance is too great to trust to any single centralized authority - even if that central authority is my nation's government, and even if I feel my nation's government to be perfect.
It all comes down to "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." That (in theory) is why the United States government is comprised of three major branches, with checks and balances built in (it works, BTW, but not perfectly).
Anti-US sentiment? Where? Iraq? Afghanistan? Great Britain? Israel? Iran? China? Germany? France?
Sorry, pal - looks like everybody (present company included) has their own agenda. Gotta fall back on the old "might makes right" philosophy. Maybe it's terribly flawed, but in the arena of international politics, it's the only game in town.
Not my idea of perfect. Just sayin', is all. At the end of the day, the US still pretty much is large and in charge when it comes to internet governance. Don't blame the messenger.
Also, one size doesn't fit all.
Try playing in meatspace - also not perfect, but it does address most of your complaints pretty well.
Somebody around here has a perfect sig for this moment:
Four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
(Incidentally, I understand why the administration was so adamant on the point of WMD's in Iraq - we friggin' delivered them ourselves, for use by the anti-soviet forces in Iraq. Now we're finding mass graves. Hmmm . . . I think we may be able to guess where all the WMD's went, eh?)
There's the old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I paraphrased that elsewhere with "it's broke but it's still running; let's not try to fix it 'til we have replacement parts."
I'm running on empty at this point. Have you got any good suggestions? I've heard about distributed DNS, but that just seems to move the problem, not fix it.
Or you could set up an online web games server and bump the cheats. Again, more than you want to do.
I suspect with the game consoles, you'll have little choice but to pay a fee (as I doubt that the console/game manufacturers will tell you their proprietary protocols). At that point, you'll only be able to vote with your wallet, hoping to find an internet portal that bans cheats.
Personally, it's not worth it to me either. That's why I play cribbage using real cards in meatspace. Ditto for pool (except with balls, not cards). Likewise for darts (substitute game appropriate equipment here). The list goes on - I'm actually quite a gamester, truth to tell.
I may be quite wrong about that, of course; still, it seems a logical assumption.
I have not stated that the U. S. is responsible for anything that has happened; merely that the United States created the aforementioned technologies. While I disapprove of the current state of affairs I cannot concieve of a better solution than to continue permitting ICANN and IANA to perform their assorted functions, although it would be naive to the point of idiocy not to acknowledge the undeniable presence of the United States' hand behind both of those governing organizations.
As for returning ccTLDs to the countries who are supposed to control them, by extension that means the United States should only be capable of controlling the .usa domain? After all, .com, .net, .gov, .edu, .org, etc. . . . these are all not ccTLD's, right? I guess these should be completely un-governed?
The United States is responsible for nothing in this regard. If we choose to permit other nations to manage their own ccTLD's, well and good; but I don't percieve any moral reason we should be required to do so.
(By the way, an indicator of a recent news article? Uh, am I about to get a visit from the G-Men?
or perhaps stand up your own gaming server, and ban cheats! It's already been done.
I'm a U. S. citizen (hence unlikely to knee-jerk respond against my own nation).
I have acknowledged that the current state of affairs, while unacceptable, is nonetheless the only one which works. Please find a better replacement and I will happily do all which I may to support it; for right now, the status-quo is the best thing going.
Online gaming is about gaming getting back to it's roots - "me vs. you". Playing against a console is essentially a souped-up version of solitaire. Fun, distracting, but nothing like the rush of defeating an opponent with the same chance of victory as defeat.
Should? Hmmm . . . centralization leads to too much power in too few hands (we have that now). Decentralization leads to a fragmented, discontinuous medium, tremendously reducing the utility and efficiency of the internet (and still leaving often unqualified hands with more power than they desserve).
The United States government should maintain its control of the internet until such time as a standard for decentralized management can be devised, agreed upon and implemented. A horrible solution; essentially, "it's busted but it's running. Don't fix it until we have replacement parts."
It's called "skimming the market". The prices will drop . . . I'll wait.
I have encountered no unreasonable prejudices or bigotry connected to my "yellow-badge" status here at IBM Rochester. I am, in fact, quite overjoyed to have found such a magnificent work environment.
Personal experience only, ymmv.
Cripes, I see more yellow than blue here (of course, much of the blue has gone home for the holidays, but still . . .)
Yes, I'm working as a contractor for IBM. In Rochester, in fact.
Like it or not, the internet has been an invention of the United States government. Its explosive growth beyond that, and the seeming "openness" of it has been an illusion created by the incredible power and flexibility of the internet as a communication system. It is much like the Global Positioning System in that it has proven to have incredible utility beyond the military uses originally envisioned for the system. That the United States Military has <sarcasm>graciously</sarcasm> allowed use of the technologies whose creation they fostered has created the illusion that this is a "free for all, free as in beer" system; in fact, this has only been permitted because the use and implications of this technology balooned faster than the agencies behind its invention could adapt to limit and control it.
Now, of course, the problem is that the internet truly is both far larger and far more important to (global) society than was ever anticipated by DARPA. Control of the internet was largely lost (witness the fact that it's the one communications mechanism which our military was unable to completely disable when they invaded Iraq); is it any wonder then that the United States government is actively attempting to preserve whatever control it can over this medium?
Of course, given how enmeshed our society has become with the internet this leads to some disturbing issues. To accord the government (any government) the kind of power that control of the internet entails is tantamount to surrendering the vast majority of our individual rights to privacy. This is especially disturbing in view of recent spying actions by the United States government directed against its own citizens, actions which many view as diametrically opposed to the constitutional freedoms which we are ostensibly guaranteed as U. S. citizens. Are there any so naive as to think that the United States government doesn't intend to maintain its hold on internet governance, that the U. S. government will voluntary relinquish this incredibly powerful position? Or that having this powerful position, the United States government will permit constitutional limits to be applied to what can be done with this position?
It has been demonstrated (see the multiple {RI|MP}AA abuses of late) that the internet does not enjoy the same guarantees which telephone or postal mail does regarding privacy. The United States unstated (but demonstrated) position is "our bat, our ball, our rules". Constitutional guarantees (which prevent the government from reading our mail and used to prevent wiretapping our phones) do not apply to the internet.
</RANT> *puts on flame-retardant suit and gets ready to be baked alive*
Since they'll get what they pay for, the conclusion is obvious.
"Hey, Boss . . . I've just finished encrypting all of our communications to make us immune to eavesdropping."
"Yeah, John? How did you set it up?"
"I used this really secure CSS encryption . . . I downl - er, wrote the source code myself!"
Those massive meathooks appear to only have three fingers and a thumb each!
Still, predictions that a nascent and unproven technology will sweep into widespread usage within a decade seems just a bit optimistic. I just hope that I'm wrong.
In the CD-RW and DVD-RW arena, I'll be slower to judge as I haven't seen the same kind of variances; then again, once I've purchased RW media, I don't need to purchase more so I haven't seen a wide variety of brands in this area. I suspect that a similar situation exists.
I haven't even touched DL-R or DL-RW yet - the media costs are prohibitive. Who wants to pay 8-10x as much per platter for a medium which only delivers around 1.8x the data density?
In the end, I'm not too sure I care so much about write times (hey, I can spare a few extra seconds when I burn a DVD or CD - it's not like I do so for a living), so much as data reliability, medium durability, media cost and compatibility.
Bottom line - while the drive is important, it's nothing without the media; so long as the drive functions correctly, it seems likely that there's more to be gained by selecting the proper media for use in the drive.
BTW, sorry 'bout all that data that got lost - whaddya expect from a low-level, wage-earning slob? Oh, well . . . at least I didn't mind getting fired. Did you mind the lost revenue? Incidentally, I noticed that my old job is still unfilled ;^D.
(at the risk of seeming like one of these AOL kiddies) -- ROTFLMAO.
And somebody metamod his "Offtopic" rating as 'unfair'.
"Help. I've fallen and I can't get up!"