So wait, person #1 is a law abiding driver driving under the speed limit and person #2 is breaking the law by driving over it... and you're saying that person #1 is creating the unsafe conditions? I think you need your logic circuit checked.
Also, please tell me how driving 5mph under the speed limit is any worse than a bicyclist on the road, which technically counts as a vehicle and is subject to the same speed laws.
OK, this might not be true everywhere- my apologies if what I said isn't the case in Europe or something. But as far as I know what I said is true in the US and I don't see how that can be construed as being a troll.
Not to entirely justify it, but sometimes a person will pull into the left lane and either maintain the same speed as the right lane (two-lane scenario, for simplification), or so minimally faster that it will take several miles before they pass the car on their right.
I'd just like to point out that the speed limit is just that. Emphasis on LIMIT. It's not the speed at which you should be driving. It's not even the speed that you're entitled to drive. Technically, the only time you have to maintain a speed higher than 1 is when you're on a freeway, but you still usually have a good 20mph or so range of speed between the max and min.
I'm tired of people that feel they're entitled to drive 10mph over the limit and are willing to tailgate me while serving back and forth trying to get around me.
So, to put it another way, the person ahead of you driving 5mph under the speed limit is perfectly in their right to do so. Deal with it and drive like a mature human being by keeping your distance.
A good point, and all I can think of is that Wave isn't meant for all types of communications. A cop-out, I know, but nobody is suggesting using this to write code in a bazaar environment.
There are at least as many types of projects that instant feedback and collaboration are a boon, however. For instance, I see this easily replacing IM and email for "light" conversations between friends and family.
Not really. My point was that posting a bug about it on Opera's site was the wrong move. The problem is (likely) with the web interface, not the browser. Call up customer support for the firewall and complain that the interface doesn't work with your browser.
Of course, they will have a canned "our product is only compatible with IE" response, but that is an entirely different problem.
I don't use Opera myself, but as far as I'm concerned, if Opera passes ACID, the problem is with your firewall's web interface. It's not Opera's fault your software is non compliant.
Pandora preorder-er here- I was under the impression that a couple things weren't totally open, like the analog nubs they created specifically for the Pandora.
I'm reasonably sure (I haven't investigated this, but I doubt I need to) that most "analog button" designs like you're talking about are patented.
While there may be a novel way to do it, there aren't too many other ways of doing this that don't require huge tracts of land on the PCB to implement. Sadly.
True, but you also have chunk sizes to think about. Most p2p files are much, much larger than the typical apt package, which is why you'll usually download in 1 meg chunks or so from multiple clients. When you're only downloading 300k, it wouldn't be worth it to chunk it up (your download would likely go slower, not faster) so I would imagine you would download from only one source.
Just in case it isn't obvious, I don't know how apt-p2p implements this either.
Look at it this way. Imagine if, instead of some random person, this blogger was instead a member of the Republican National Committee executing a covert strategy to take down this Democratic representative. Would their privacy be protected then? If not, why not?
Yes, it should be.
You are considering the message and the messenger as part of the whole. If a the blogger was a Republican, does that make the message any less truthful than if the blogger was Random J Hacker? Sure, it establishes that there is a bias but if you have an ounce of gray matter between your ears you've already figured out that nobody in the political arena (or anywhere) is unbiased. And while you should take everything you read with a grain of salt, ad hominem attacks (He's a Republican! He's full of shit and wrong!) has no place in a debate.
Yeah but not "Life... as defined as vaguely as possible and analogizing non-life behaviors to living behaviors".
Yes, I'll admit I'm playing the role of devil advocate a little here, but I believe my point still stands. We have no way of knowing what alien life might be like. We might try to imagine what their biology may be like, but oftentimes end up trying to shoehorn their biology into our framework. No, I don't believe fire is actually alive, but I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong. Maybe the seemingly chaotic emission of energized particles and light are its thought patterns. I don't see how it's any more far-fetched than our own thought process involving electric pulses and various chemicals.
Frankly, I don't understand the hangup on entropy. It exists, yes, and everything we know increases it. To me, trying to use entropy in an argument like this is like dividing both sides of an equation by 1. Both fire and humans create entropy. Actually, at a fast enough time scale and from the correct vantage point, humans spreading and fire spreading look the same. Hell, a way to measure how successful an organism is is by the amount of energy it uses from its environment, aka entropy. It is things like that that make me doubt definitions of life that include the word entropy.
This whole conversation is talking about "life... but not as we know it." I don't think your mind is quite open enough.
Frankly, I don't understand how you can readily believe a sperm cell and an egg can create life (which is itself a slow combustion, see above) but a stream of photons from a magnifying glass and a piece of paper don't count.
Besides, without getting into religious creationism / evolution debates, you have a chicken/egg problem here.
Fire is not "spontaneously created" any more than humans or mules are. Just like normal life, fire requires a set of certain environmental criteria to be met. And just like other life, fire requires some sort of spark to create it.
Just because the timeframe is vastly accelerated doesn't mean it's instant or "spontaneous".
I'm *still* waiting to play Deus Ex 2. Bought it at launch, could play it due to game crashing ever couple minutes. Shelved it, installed it again last year, patched it up, still crashes all the damn time.
You seem to throw the word 'right' around a lot. I know you think there are 'natural rights' (which has since been shot down numerous times above), but I'm very curious how you define a 'right'.
It seems to me that you're of the opinion that anything you want to do is a right. Or perhaps you're basing it on morals, which is basically the same thing and just as dangerous.
In your example above, you claim you have a right to test drive a car before you buy it. This is incorrect. The car is owned by the dealership, as is the property on which it sits. They *allow* you to test drive it, on their terms, because they understand most people wouldn't pay that much money for something unless they made sure it fit their personal tastes. Do not mistake somebody allowing you to do something as a personal right you have.
If you want to test this out, dress like a homeless person and ask to test drive an expensive BMW. I bet you'll find out fairly quickly that you actually don't even have the right to step foot on their showroom floor.
They may be get past the first encryption but what after that.
Best case: You get put on a list (if you weren't already).
Slightly worst case: They stop by your place while you're away and help themselves to your hard drives.
Worst case: They stop by while you're home and take you for questioning. Even if they believe it was all a joke, do you think they'll like that?
First of all, the onus is on you to prove your point, not somebody else.
Secondly, I'm not entirely sure that Comcast has been throttling all locations equally. I have no idea how their network works, but I am assuming that this throttling takes some new hardware or at least software changes. I doubt they would do a full rollout without doing a pilot first. So it's entirely possible you are not being throttled at all... yet.
And just to play the devil's advocate, I don't buy the whole "Comcast is doing this to prevent piracy" stance you seem to be taking. They are doing this to save money, nothing more. Even if your point is simply "why should I care, I don't pirate stuff", what will you do when they decide that Linux downloads should be throttled because they may infringe on patents? Or security sites because they could be used for cracking? The point is, it's a slippery slope and no good can come of it. Better to bitch and complain now and hopefully stop the practice before it becomes established. If it's not already too late.
That probably depends on the ratio of how much shit they did right over how much they did wrong. From what I've heard so far about application compatibility being worse, I wouldn't expect there to be a huge rush to adopt.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what they said about Skynet.
No, that's what they WILL say about Skynet.
Wait, are you a killer robot sent from the future?
So wait, person #1 is a law abiding driver driving under the speed limit and person #2 is breaking the law by driving over it... and you're saying that person #1 is creating the unsafe conditions? I think you need your logic circuit checked.
Also, please tell me how driving 5mph under the speed limit is any worse than a bicyclist on the road, which technically counts as a vehicle and is subject to the same speed laws.
How did this get rated troll. Arg.
OK, this might not be true everywhere- my apologies if what I said isn't the case in Europe or something. But as far as I know what I said is true in the US and I don't see how that can be construed as being a troll.
Not to entirely justify it, but sometimes a person will pull into the left lane and either maintain the same speed as the right lane (two-lane scenario, for simplification), or so minimally faster that it will take several miles before they pass the car on their right.
I'd just like to point out that the speed limit is just that. Emphasis on LIMIT. It's not the speed at which you should be driving. It's not even the speed that you're entitled to drive. Technically, the only time you have to maintain a speed higher than 1 is when you're on a freeway, but you still usually have a good 20mph or so range of speed between the max and min.
I'm tired of people that feel they're entitled to drive 10mph over the limit and are willing to tailgate me while serving back and forth trying to get around me.
So, to put it another way, the person ahead of you driving 5mph under the speed limit is perfectly in their right to do so. Deal with it and drive like a mature human being by keeping your distance.
A good point, and all I can think of is that Wave isn't meant for all types of communications. A cop-out, I know, but nobody is suggesting using this to write code in a bazaar environment.
There are at least as many types of projects that instant feedback and collaboration are a boon, however. For instance, I see this easily replacing IM and email for "light" conversations between friends and family.
What an interesting childhood you must have had...
Not really. My point was that posting a bug about it on Opera's site was the wrong move. The problem is (likely) with the web interface, not the browser. Call up customer support for the firewall and complain that the interface doesn't work with your browser.
Of course, they will have a canned "our product is only compatible with IE" response, but that is an entirely different problem.
I don't use Opera myself, but as far as I'm concerned, if Opera passes ACID, the problem is with your firewall's web interface. It's not Opera's fault your software is non compliant.
Because I can't put a netbook in my front pocket?
Pandora preorder-er here- I was under the impression that a couple things weren't totally open, like the analog nubs they created specifically for the Pandora.
I'm reasonably sure (I haven't investigated this, but I doubt I need to) that most "analog button" designs like you're talking about are patented.
While there may be a novel way to do it, there aren't too many other ways of doing this that don't require huge tracts of land on the PCB to implement. Sadly.
True, but you also have chunk sizes to think about. Most p2p files are much, much larger than the typical apt package, which is why you'll usually download in 1 meg chunks or so from multiple clients. When you're only downloading 300k, it wouldn't be worth it to chunk it up (your download would likely go slower, not faster) so I would imagine you would download from only one source.
Just in case it isn't obvious, I don't know how apt-p2p implements this either.
Look at it this way. Imagine if, instead of some random person, this blogger was instead a member of the Republican National Committee executing a covert strategy to take down this Democratic representative. Would their privacy be protected then? If not, why not?
Yes, it should be.
You are considering the message and the messenger as part of the whole. If a the blogger was a Republican, does that make the message any less truthful than if the blogger was Random J Hacker? Sure, it establishes that there is a bias but if you have an ounce of gray matter between your ears you've already figured out that nobody in the political arena (or anywhere) is unbiased. And while you should take everything you read with a grain of salt, ad hominem attacks (He's a Republican! He's full of shit and wrong!) has no place in a debate.
Yes, I'll admit I'm playing the role of devil advocate a little here, but I believe my point still stands. We have no way of knowing what alien life might be like. We might try to imagine what their biology may be like, but oftentimes end up trying to shoehorn their biology into our framework. No, I don't believe fire is actually alive, but I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong. Maybe the seemingly chaotic emission of energized particles and light are its thought patterns. I don't see how it's any more far-fetched than our own thought process involving electric pulses and various chemicals.
Frankly, I don't understand the hangup on entropy. It exists, yes, and everything we know increases it. To me, trying to use entropy in an argument like this is like dividing both sides of an equation by 1. Both fire and humans create entropy. Actually, at a fast enough time scale and from the correct vantage point, humans spreading and fire spreading look the same. Hell, a way to measure how successful an organism is is by the amount of energy it uses from its environment, aka entropy. It is things like that that make me doubt definitions of life that include the word entropy.
This whole conversation is talking about "life... but not as we know it." I don't think your mind is quite open enough.
Frankly, I don't understand how you can readily believe a sperm cell and an egg can create life (which is itself a slow combustion, see above) but a stream of photons from a magnifying glass and a piece of paper don't count.
Besides, without getting into religious creationism / evolution debates, you have a chicken/egg problem here.
Fire is not "spontaneously created" any more than humans or mules are. Just like normal life, fire requires a set of certain environmental criteria to be met. And just like other life, fire requires some sort of spark to create it.
Just because the timeframe is vastly accelerated doesn't mean it's instant or "spontaneous".
I'm *still* waiting to play Deus Ex 2. Bought it at launch, could play it due to game crashing ever couple minutes. Shelved it, installed it again last year, patched it up, still crashes all the damn time.
You seem to throw the word 'right' around a lot. I know you think there are 'natural rights' (which has since been shot down numerous times above), but I'm very curious how you define a 'right'.
It seems to me that you're of the opinion that anything you want to do is a right. Or perhaps you're basing it on morals, which is basically the same thing and just as dangerous.
In your example above, you claim you have a right to test drive a car before you buy it. This is incorrect. The car is owned by the dealership, as is the property on which it sits. They *allow* you to test drive it, on their terms, because they understand most people wouldn't pay that much money for something unless they made sure it fit their personal tastes. Do not mistake somebody allowing you to do something as a personal right you have.
If you want to test this out, dress like a homeless person and ask to test drive an expensive BMW. I bet you'll find out fairly quickly that you actually don't even have the right to step foot on their showroom floor.
They may be get past the first encryption but what after that.
Best case: You get put on a list (if you weren't already).
Slightly worst case: They stop by your place while you're away and help themselves to your hard drives.
Worst case: They stop by while you're home and take you for questioning. Even if they believe it was all a joke, do you think they'll like that?
Awwww, but I don't wanna be a noob!
First of all, the onus is on you to prove your point, not somebody else.
Secondly, I'm not entirely sure that Comcast has been throttling all locations equally. I have no idea how their network works, but I am assuming that this throttling takes some new hardware or at least software changes. I doubt they would do a full rollout without doing a pilot first. So it's entirely possible you are not being throttled at all... yet.
And just to play the devil's advocate, I don't buy the whole "Comcast is doing this to prevent piracy" stance you seem to be taking. They are doing this to save money, nothing more. Even if your point is simply "why should I care, I don't pirate stuff", what will you do when they decide that Linux downloads should be throttled because they may infringe on patents? Or security sites because they could be used for cracking? The point is, it's a slippery slope and no good can come of it. Better to bitch and complain now and hopefully stop the practice before it becomes established. If it's not already too late.
Perhaps the FCC took RFC1149 seriously.
That probably depends on the ratio of how much shit they did right over how much they did wrong. From what I've heard so far about application compatibility being worse, I wouldn't expect there to be a huge rush to adopt.