Yeah. For about $3 a week (obviously price varies depending on who you lease off - that's just the cheapest I've seen and that was on special) we can get ones that connect over 3G. They just spin up a mobile broadband connection and process the transaction. Almost all our taxis have them nowadays. I've seen some that work over WiFi too (that'd be our restaurant options). The bonus point is that they work with bank cards too, not just credit and debit (we use a network called EFTPOS, which has cards which are neither debit nor credit).
Here in NZ, that expense is $3 a week. Really. $156 a year. I can't imagine what business turning any sort of profit wouldn't be using swipe readers. Honestly, even American Express growls at us if we use imprint machines (zip zaps) nowadays, and those guys are so 1990s it isn't funny.
In the case of Exchange, it's either your corporate server or your server, and so one would hope the person admining it (perhaps you?) is backing it up.
Disruption of other people’s services... like the service of having nice comfortable seats to sit in when they ride buses?
In both cases, the target of the protest was the government. However, it should be noted that the Boston Tea Party was not in fact Civil Disobedience. Rosa Parks did engage in an act of Civil Disobedience (specifically, the violated the segregation law because the felt it was immoral).
To engage in Civil Disobedience, one has to violate the specific law they feel is immoral or unjust. Committing a Distributed Denial of Service against MasterCard for refusing to do business with Wikileaks (funny how Slashdot is OK with Freedom of Association until it's used against someone they like) is not a protest against an immoral law, it's being jackasses. To protest the whistleblower laws, they'd have to themselves acquire state secrets and distribute them.
I'd agree, except that the target of their "civil disobedience" is a private enterprise, and not in fact the state itself. And it should be noted that civil disobedience only applies where the subjects are violating a law because they believe it immoral. The law against DDoS is hardly immoral, although the law against whistleblowing might well be - except that the law against whistleblowing isn't what they're violating here.
No, destruction of property/disruption to other people's services is not civil disobedience. It is plain, flat out, illegal. It is, and should be, punishable with large fines and jail time.
You're right, it's not a case of being clueless noobs. It's a case of being self-centred arrogant pricks.
apk, the bollocks is this whole tirade on how you were supposedly right... 6 months ago. And I'm still uncertain how it is that you think my agreement that large files read slower than small files is some sort of amazing admission of defeat.
Really. I'd agree with twitter if he posted that, and god knows I almost never agree with him.
Let it go already.
Oh, and by the way... just stuck an entry in my hosts file on Windows 7, and Server 2008 (not R2 - so it's the same IP stack as Vista):
Don't you have anything better to do than follow me around posting bollocks? I wasn't even replying to you (and because of the lack of bold, I already knew that wasn't you;))
Ok, maybe I should clarify - "properly configured" is one where the environment doesn't belong to you - i.e corporate or even home where you're not the admin. In those cases, you should not have the ability to resolve before requesting content from the proxy.
apk, really. Let it go, you're not doing yourself any favours. This is exactly the sort of behaviour that gets you downmodded, you know. It's a bit like that twitter fellow.
You do realise, apk, that Slashdot's moderation system actually prevents providing justification, as any successive post nullifies all moderation to a conversion, right?
Personally, I'd suspect that you were downmodded for being completely off-topic - you're going on about hosts files in a discussion on the DISA not getting access to the Android and iPhone OS security APIs.
Softlayer doesn't have plans promising 100TB a month. And Softlayer didn't terminate services - the agreement is between SimpleCDN and 100TB.com (UK2 Group).
I should clarify that by saying you could buy 100TB a month from Softlayer, but it'd cost you $10,000 per month and I doubt they'd kick a customer paying that sort of dosh.
Oh, I'd say they're a LOT different from Akamai. Akamai is a gigantic company with direct peering arrangements with virtually every Tier 1 operator on the planet, and cache clusters physically located within the NOC of a giant majority of the ISPs on Earth as well.
Also, Akamai has drafted contracts with their suppliers, and a legal team to back it up if all else fails.
That's all well and good, but one clause that's always been there is that customers may not resell Softlayer services at less than their own list price. One would conjecture then that if SimpleCDN costed less than CDNLayer, that would run afoul of that rule.
I don't much care about the definitions (as in, they can't be used as an argument against me in this scenario because you know exactly what I mean).
No, you can't redefine words when it suits you. You specifically said "you can't lose something you never had". This is patently false.
You can't own an opportunity, nor are you harmed by 'losing' one.
Incorrect, again. Well, to an extent. While you cannot own an opportunity (insofar as you can't really own any intangible concept), you can lose one, and whether any harm comes from it is directly determined based on whether that opportunity would have been fulfilled or not. Claiming that it is impossible to be harmed by the loss of an opportunity is disingenuous and incorrect.
Then I don't really see what your point was.
Of course you don't. It doesn't agree with yours, so you're ignoring it. Pretty much par for the course on this site when discussing topics like this.
Actually, I think the really ironic part is they miss the really big picture - they don't realise that someone has to produce the content if the free-for-all is to continue, If no-one produces, then no one gets anything, and that includes the legitimate consumers who aren't selfish gits.
The costs of writing and recording the music are paid before hand.
That's nice, but that wasn't his point. When you copy something, no one has lost anything due to that copying. In order for them to lose something, they must already have it in the first place. See my other post for more details.
You can't blame the file sharer because the company spent money to produce it. The file sharer had absolutely nothing to do with those costs. It was the company's own decision. That's like saying everyone should have to buy the music because the musician spent money to make it, even if they had nothing to do with that cost (that's essentially what the file sharer is doing: not paying them money to make up for losses that the file sharer didn't even inflict upon them in the first place).
Actually, your logic is flawed in a significant way. If the file sharer downloads the product, then they have demonstrated that the product does have an inherent value to them. Hence, they in fact are depriving the author of potential money. The only undefined component of that equation is, what exactly was the value to which the file sharer would have assigned it were they to legitimately acquire it and had the opportunity to offer what they considered fair value for it.
Before you say "the value they assigned it is zero" - and I know you were about to - you're wrong, and that's incredibly disingenuous. If the inherent value to that individual is zero, that means they have absolutely no desire for it, and therefore would not download it. Since they downloaded it, they clearly consider it of some value, and therefore should compensate the author of the work a fair market value for that enjoyment. I do not define fair market value here as it is subjective, and in no way related to current market value.
I should also point out that lost also has a definition (from the venerable Oxford English Dictionary) "of time or an opportunity not used advantageously; wasted". The opportunity to derive income is clearly removed here by the actions of the file sharer, therefore an actual loss is present. Whether that equates to harm is not addressed, and I have no intention of addressing that.
Slashdot Mirror
Alright, I'll concede that point - I'd never heard the full story before and that's actually quite interesting.
Yeah. For about $3 a week (obviously price varies depending on who you lease off - that's just the cheapest I've seen and that was on special) we can get ones that connect over 3G. They just spin up a mobile broadband connection and process the transaction. Almost all our taxis have them nowadays. I've seen some that work over WiFi too (that'd be our restaurant options). The bonus point is that they work with bank cards too, not just credit and debit (we use a network called EFTPOS, which has cards which are neither debit nor credit).
Here in NZ, that expense is $3 a week. Really. $156 a year. I can't imagine what business turning any sort of profit wouldn't be using swipe readers. Honestly, even American Express growls at us if we use imprint machines (zip zaps) nowadays, and those guys are so 1990s it isn't funny.
In the case of Exchange, it's either your corporate server or your server, and so one would hope the person admining it (perhaps you?) is backing it up.
There's stuff between your computer and Amazon's too you know. Did it occur to you that that is what sucks?
Destruction of property... property like tea?
Disruption of other people’s services... like the service of having nice comfortable seats to sit in when they ride buses?
In both cases, the target of the protest was the government. However, it should be noted that the Boston Tea Party was not in fact Civil Disobedience. Rosa Parks did engage in an act of Civil Disobedience (specifically, the violated the segregation law because the felt it was immoral).
To engage in Civil Disobedience, one has to violate the specific law they feel is immoral or unjust. Committing a Distributed Denial of Service against MasterCard for refusing to do business with Wikileaks (funny how Slashdot is OK with Freedom of Association until it's used against someone they like) is not a protest against an immoral law, it's being jackasses. To protest the whistleblower laws, they'd have to themselves acquire state secrets and distribute them.
I'd agree, except that the target of their "civil disobedience" is a private enterprise, and not in fact the state itself. And it should be noted that civil disobedience only applies where the subjects are violating a law because they believe it immoral. The law against DDoS is hardly immoral, although the law against whistleblowing might well be - except that the law against whistleblowing isn't what they're violating here.
Hence, not civil disobedience. Just being dicks.
No, destruction of property/disruption to other people's services is not civil disobedience. It is plain, flat out, illegal. It is, and should be, punishable with large fines and jail time.
You're right, it's not a case of being clueless noobs. It's a case of being self-centred arrogant pricks.
apk, the bollocks is this whole tirade on how you were supposedly right... 6 months ago. And I'm still uncertain how it is that you think my agreement that large files read slower than small files is some sort of amazing admission of defeat.
Really. I'd agree with twitter if he posted that, and god knows I almost never agree with him.
Let it go already.
Oh, and by the way... just stuck an entry in my hosts file on Windows 7, and Server 2008 (not R2 - so it's the same IP stack as Vista):
0 www.google.com
Wanna take a guess what happens?
Are you in China? If not, a .cn is out of the question.
Don't you have anything better to do than follow me around posting bollocks? I wasn't even replying to you (and because of the lack of bold, I already knew that wasn't you ;))
Ok, maybe I should clarify - "properly configured" is one where the environment doesn't belong to you - i.e corporate or even home where you're not the admin. In those cases, you should not have the ability to resolve before requesting content from the proxy.
apk, really. Let it go, you're not doing yourself any favours. This is exactly the sort of behaviour that gets you downmodded, you know. It's a bit like that twitter fellow.
Stop. Just... stop.
They're also completely useless in proxied environments. Or at least, properly configured ones.
You do realise, apk, that Slashdot's moderation system actually prevents providing justification, as any successive post nullifies all moderation to a conversion, right?
Personally, I'd suspect that you were downmodded for being completely off-topic - you're going on about hosts files in a discussion on the DISA not getting access to the Android and iPhone OS security APIs.
Not Softlayer, 100TB (UK2)
Softlayer doesn't have plans promising 100TB a month. And Softlayer didn't terminate services - the agreement is between SimpleCDN and 100TB.com (UK2 Group).
I should clarify that by saying you could buy 100TB a month from Softlayer, but it'd cost you $10,000 per month and I doubt they'd kick a customer paying that sort of dosh.
Oh, I'd say they're a LOT different from Akamai. Akamai is a gigantic company with direct peering arrangements with virtually every Tier 1 operator on the planet, and cache clusters physically located within the NOC of a giant majority of the ISPs on Earth as well.
Also, Akamai has drafted contracts with their suppliers, and a legal team to back it up if all else fails.
That's all well and good, but one clause that's always been there is that customers may not resell Softlayer services at less than their own list price. One would conjecture then that if SimpleCDN costed less than CDNLayer, that would run afoul of that rule.
I don't much care about the definitions (as in, they can't be used as an argument against me in this scenario because you know exactly what I mean).
No, you can't redefine words when it suits you. You specifically said "you can't lose something you never had". This is patently false.
You can't own an opportunity, nor are you harmed by 'losing' one.
Incorrect, again. Well, to an extent. While you cannot own an opportunity (insofar as you can't really own any intangible concept), you can lose one, and whether any harm comes from it is directly determined based on whether that opportunity would have been fulfilled or not. Claiming that it is impossible to be harmed by the loss of an opportunity is disingenuous and incorrect.
Then I don't really see what your point was.
Of course you don't. It doesn't agree with yours, so you're ignoring it. Pretty much par for the course on this site when discussing topics like this.
Actually, I think the really ironic part is they miss the really big picture - they don't realise that someone has to produce the content if the free-for-all is to continue, If no-one produces, then no one gets anything, and that includes the legitimate consumers who aren't selfish gits.
I think you're lying.
There's no such thing as a bug free copy of Fallout 3.
Except that the law is not unjust. The extent and the penalties are.
The costs of writing and recording the music are paid before hand.
That's nice, but that wasn't his point. When you copy something, no one has lost anything due to that copying. In order for them to lose something, they must already have it in the first place. See my other post for more details.
You can't blame the file sharer because the company spent money to produce it. The file sharer had absolutely nothing to do with those costs. It was the company's own decision. That's like saying everyone should have to buy the music because the musician spent money to make it, even if they had nothing to do with that cost (that's essentially what the file sharer is doing: not paying them money to make up for losses that the file sharer didn't even inflict upon them in the first place).
Actually, your logic is flawed in a significant way. If the file sharer downloads the product, then they have demonstrated that the product does have an inherent value to them. Hence, they in fact are depriving the author of potential money. The only undefined component of that equation is, what exactly was the value to which the file sharer would have assigned it were they to legitimately acquire it and had the opportunity to offer what they considered fair value for it.
Before you say "the value they assigned it is zero" - and I know you were about to - you're wrong, and that's incredibly disingenuous. If the inherent value to that individual is zero, that means they have absolutely no desire for it, and therefore would not download it. Since they downloaded it, they clearly consider it of some value, and therefore should compensate the author of the work a fair market value for that enjoyment. I do not define fair market value here as it is subjective, and in no way related to current market value.
I should also point out that lost also has a definition (from the venerable Oxford English Dictionary) "of time or an opportunity not used advantageously; wasted". The opportunity to derive income is clearly removed here by the actions of the file sharer, therefore an actual loss is present. Whether that equates to harm is not addressed, and I have no intention of addressing that.
Right. Just as soon as they develop the magical F15 that works at 22,000 miles in the air.