Look at what happend to 4chan and "anonymous" over the last year of so. Somebody posted a video of Tom Cruise acting like...well...like himself. Scientology's attempts to take this video down caused a bunch of idiots to start posting videos on youtube and..well...acting like idiots. Scientology's further attempts to silence them have caused what started as a joke to turn into a national-news-making group of resourceful, hate-filled individuals bent on "dispelling your organization from the internet and systematically dismantling it blah blah blah"
I predict: Cisco makes a shitload of money selling filters a shitload of jobs are created to maintain all the censoring equipment a shitload of our money is spent to prevent us from communicating with one another a shitload of computer illiterates get angry when whatever side effects of this "regulation" start occuring a small number of geeks create a tool to allow a slightly larger number of geeks to continue doing what geeks have done since their beginning...that is: whatever they want.
It has been said before, and I will repeat it here.
The internet treats censorship like damage and simply routes around it.
This "war on free information" (isn't the the en vogue thing to call a power struggle?) like every other idealogical war, cannot be won, and is counterproductive. With every "blow" to us (us being those that desire freedom of information) we simply grow smarter, stronger, and more sophisticated in our measures to ensure the integrity of our freedoms. Our numbers are so so so so so much greater than theirs. Every time one of us is jailed, or sued, or defamed 10 pop up as replacements. Every attempt to silence our voices results in us retreating further and further into obscurity and anonymity.
I welcome an information war between those of us who want freedom of communication and those that don't. We, who have greater resources, intellect, and numbers, will prevail.
Think about it, you're taking a perfectly alive human being and... putting them at risk of death? For the purposes of?
The great thing about us going into another dark ages is the abundance of semi-retarded, meth-addicted, only-half-living creatures that would be willing to do a crazy medical experiment in exchange for more smack.
If 200 people each request the same block from me in a minute, do I really want to have to go through something like 'hi can I talk to you, what port should I use, hey here it comes, do you have it, ok, I'm done talking to you go away',
You NEED to do that for the same reason that you need to wait in line at the check stand when getting groceries. There NEEDS to be flow control, otherwise, with everybody just trying to bum-rush the checkout, nobody will be able to get anything done.
Yes, this might work out okay if one person decides that they are sick of waiting and shove a few ladies out of the way. When pushing and shoving become the norm, it stops.
This is NOT a good idea. Honestly, pirates, I get it; you're idealistic. Unfortunately, you're not thinking about the long term affects of doing this. Demonstrating that pirates (or people distributing linux ISOs or whatever...the media, and the ISPs see EVERYBODY that uses BT as a pirate) are willing to just shit all over the tubes in order to get what they makes a pretty good case for allowing the ISPs to start putting roadblocks in the way. It brings in legislation, more control, less freedom.
Seriously, guys, short-term win, long-term epic failure if this goes-large scale.
People have no freaking idea in this country what a real leftist is.
I think, and this is a totally silly assumption, i know, but I am almost positive that "left" "right" and "center" for politicians in the United States are all terms that are relative to OTHER politicians in the United States.
Yes, compared to Vladimir Lenin, Obama is a hard-core right winger. Compared to United States politicians (yeah, the ones from the same country as Obama) he is a far far far left-winger.
You mean that George Bush was controlling the banks in Germany too!!?!? I guess this goes deeper than I had thought.
Well, at least the Americans can rest easy. They almost elected a Socialist who advocates an increase in crime via a gun ban, and wants to punish business for being profitable so that he can funnel the money into social programs to reward those who don't want to work.
Formating hard disks and writing a message to the boot sector will be a bit more efficient than this. Remember, a clean install in case of an infection is recommended even by Microsoft.
You're modded funny, but I hope you're not serious. Yes, yes, I know that people should be performing backups (how many grandmothers do you know who do?).
How livid, or depressed would you be to loose a few years worth of photographs because somebody who was too annoyed with getting spam decided that you didn't deserve to have your data anymore?
Do something totally harmless like changing their default gateway to 0.0.0.0, then setting the background image on their desktop to a message with instructions on how to back up their personal information and take their computer in to be repaired.
Hell, i'm sure a few slashdotters could band together here and even do it for free. I will. If anybody brings me a bot-netted computer, I'll re-install their windows for free. If they are a little old lady, some freshly baked cookies would be nice:).
I'm not sure how things work in Russia (if the state owns the networks or not) but wouldn't it be the ISP or bandwidth provider ignoring this?
I know, I know, ISPs can't (and shouldn't) be held responsible for this sort of thing, but just jumping at the Russian government because technically the copper(or fiber, or whatever) exists in Russian territory is a little bit silly IMHO.
Really the only way that we could hold a foreign government responsible for the actions of their citizens on the Internet would be to expect government oversight on all the packets floating around on the networks that exist within their territories. I highly doubt that there are many people on slashdot that would advocate that. Really, the Internet needs to exist separately from real-world governments. I know that some are in favor of having no regulatory body of any kind on the networks, but I think things are starting to get out of hand. A government that exists for the internet only is starting to make sense, especially since people who have studied traditional, physical-world-based law have generally don't know head from ass when it comes to computer networks.
Right click on internet explorer and click "Run As" run it as admin. type C:\ into the address bar. Navigate to whatever folder the programs you want to run are in and run them. Anything that spawns from here will be running as admin.
but at the same time the manufacturers don't have a responsibility or a sound financial incentive to create those devices if consumers don't have the infrastructure to use it.
This is why businesses are not a 100% guarantee of success. The manufacturers have the responsibility of making an investment in a product that they HOPE the consumers will use.
What would have happened if auto manufacturers had never built their cars because there weren't any roads to drive them on? Or airplane manufacturers and pilots?
The responsibility IS on the manufacturer. It is why it is important to do market research.
The people don't need(want) the extra bandwidth right now because there isn't anything for them to use it for. It is not the responsibility of the consumer to make an investment in unnecessary bandwidth so that manufacturers can create devices for them.
Once consumers see that streaming video (and a fat pipe to the internet) is something that they want, they'll buy it. If there is nothing available for them to utilize their bandwidth, then they won't buy it.
However, if you look back in history to periods in which some countries had patent systems and some did not - the United Kingdom and Germany in the nineteenth century, for example - it's clear that lack of a patent system did not in the least hold back inventors in Germany from inventing and developing new technologies. On the contrary. So the intellectual justification for having a patent system in the first place looks a bit thin.
This is because in the 19th Century (and prior), things were large enough to be made by hand. A farmer could, using tools and materials that were readily available, create a machine that would revolutionize his industry (see: the cotton gin). This isn't true in today's world. Things are built to almost-atom scale. The sometimes-multiple-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars cost of entry to an industry is the reason why patents have become a necessity (see: jets, microprocessors, exotic-materials, space exploration, telecommunications).
Really, the last area in which an entrepreneur can enter the global market is software. Because of this, patents need to be reformed, but the basis of the system needs to remain intact.
A reason to ban guns completely in a society is because it makes it harder to kill a lot of people at once. Ever wondered why you don't hear about a punching spree or a knifing spree?
This statement assumes that a ban on guns makes it completely impossible to obtain them. It doesn't.
Really, this is where the gun control (see: gun ban) argument falls apart. A ban on guns, a total eradication of them from society are two drastically different things. Banning guns is akin to passing a law stating that only criminals are allowed to have them; it tips the physical balance in favor of those willing to obtain firearms illegally and does nothing to discourage violence.
I really don't think that the average consumer is going to care about something like this.
For most, a 5Mbps cable connection is much much much more than they ever will (or can) use. The only thing that will drive high-bandwidth stuff like this is media. Websites like this are certainly a step in the correct direction, but until we start seeing dedicated media appliances in peoples homes, it isn't going to happen.
On top of that, think of something (other than streaming media) that your average home-owning consumer is going to use that would require large bandwidth. There aren't many. Sure, some of us geeks use services like Usenet or (and I've never seen this in practice, only rumors of it) bittorrent that are capable of filling up our connection but, relative to the amount of joe-sixpack/plumbers there are out there, we are a small small minority.
Website layout changes like this have never made any sense to me.
Firstly, this is a technical website. We aren't impressed by idiotic 2 year old CSS trends. The ability to collapse or expand stories doesn't wow us anymore and it probably never did.
Second, if this is somehow easier on the database, or faster (which i really really highly doubt), TELL US! Explain it to use! WHYYY are you changing the default layout?
I'll admit that most of the results from google seem to come from websites that are far from non-biased, but here is an example of the least crazy one: Gun ownership vs Crime If you google for: Gun Control vs Violent Crime, you'll find quite a few articles that back up what I said.
The idea that a gun ban would decrease crime is illogical. Violent criminals don't generally buy their guns at hunting stores, they buy them from illegal gun dealers.
If you have 1 maniacal individual order a platoon of soldiers to slaughter a village, the individual human soldiers may refuse to follow the order.
There is a flip side to that coin. Machines don't think. Machines don't get PTSD and decide to go on a killing rampage. Machines don't "go rogue".
In addition, soldiers are trained not to think, they're trained to follow orders. If anything, replacing them will save lives. I imagine that leaders will think twice about how bad they want us invading them when we've got an army full of machines that we have no emotion or time invested in.
It is like our fleet of submarines. Simply the threat that we can deploy them keeps us out of wars. On a smaller level, societies where people own guns are usually more peaceful ones. Why? Because people can see them. Just the threat of being shot is enough to deter people from starting shit.
Ummm... it's not the computers you bribe, it's their programmers.
AHA! So! How is this any different than humans?
Bribe a human to kill a person (or have their army kill a shitload of people). Bribe a human to have their robot kill a person (or have their army of robots kill a shitload of people).
I think that the problem is people having misconceptions about robots. They're not sentient. They don't think. They only do what we tell them to. Sure there are horror stories about robots coming to life, but there are also horror stories about dead people coming to life, or cars coming to life.
It takes a special set of skills to corrupt a single human being, it takes another set of skills, not that special, to corrupt an entire battalion of robots
Do you live in a society without Money? Or women? Or sports cars? Or Fancy houses? Or Gold? Or "Change" posters?
As far as I know, my computers have never accepted a bribe, or made a power-grab.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about now...but I used to monitor bugtraq and it scared me into never, EVER using phpBB.
They let you stream a lot of the Independent and Documentary stuff...
I have a feeling that this is pretty appealing to the Slashdot crowd. /got netflix this weekend.
Look at what happend to 4chan and "anonymous" over the last year of so. Somebody posted a video of Tom Cruise acting like...well...like himself. Scientology's attempts to take this video down caused a bunch of idiots to start posting videos on youtube and..well...acting like idiots. Scientology's further attempts to silence them have caused what started as a joke to turn into a national-news-making group of resourceful, hate-filled individuals bent on "dispelling your organization from the internet and systematically dismantling it blah blah blah"
I predict: Cisco makes a shitload of money selling filters
a shitload of jobs are created to maintain all the censoring equipment
a shitload of our money is spent to prevent us from communicating with one another
a shitload of computer illiterates get angry when whatever side effects of this "regulation" start occuring
a small number of geeks create a tool to allow a slightly larger number of geeks to continue doing what geeks have done since their beginning...that is: whatever they want.
It has been said before, and I will repeat it here.
The internet treats censorship like damage and simply routes around it.
This "war on free information" (isn't the the en vogue thing to call a power struggle?) like every other idealogical war, cannot be won, and is counterproductive.
With every "blow" to us (us being those that desire freedom of information) we simply grow smarter, stronger, and more sophisticated in our measures to ensure the integrity of our freedoms.
Our numbers are so so so so so much greater than theirs. Every time one of us is jailed, or sued, or defamed 10 pop up as replacements. Every attempt to silence our voices results in us retreating further and further into obscurity and anonymity.
I welcome an information war between those of us who want freedom of communication and those that don't. We, who have greater resources, intellect, and numbers, will prevail.
Think about it, you're taking a perfectly alive human being and ... putting them at risk of death? For the purposes of?
The great thing about us going into another dark ages is the abundance of semi-retarded, meth-addicted, only-half-living creatures that would be willing to do a crazy medical experiment in exchange for more smack.
Then why bother trying to get these people on Linux? I won't help since it won't benefit me? Who will it benefit?
Except that it will benefit you (if you are a linux user).
With th massive influx of more users, comes greater vendor support.
If 200 people each request the same block from me in a minute, do I really want to have to go through something like 'hi can I talk to you, what port should I use, hey here it comes, do you have it, ok, I'm done talking to you go away',
You NEED to do that for the same reason that you need to wait in line at the check stand when getting groceries. There NEEDS to be flow control, otherwise, with everybody just trying to bum-rush the checkout, nobody will be able to get anything done.
Yes, this might work out okay if one person decides that they are sick of waiting and shove a few ladies out of the way. When pushing and shoving become the norm, it stops.
This is NOT a good idea.
Honestly, pirates, I get it; you're idealistic. Unfortunately, you're not thinking about the long term affects of doing this. Demonstrating that pirates (or people distributing linux ISOs or whatever...the media, and the ISPs see EVERYBODY that uses BT as a pirate) are willing to just shit all over the tubes in order to get what they makes a pretty good case for allowing the ISPs to start putting roadblocks in the way. It brings in legislation, more control, less freedom.
Seriously, guys, short-term win, long-term epic failure if this goes-large scale.
World Net Daily is trash
I suppose that Obama's Website is also trash?
I guess they DID soften the wording after the citizens flipped out....
People have no freaking idea in this country what a real leftist is.
I think, and this is a totally silly assumption, i know, but I am almost positive that "left" "right" and "center" for politicians in the United States are all terms that are relative to OTHER politicians in the United States.
Yes, compared to Vladimir Lenin, Obama is a hard-core right winger. Compared to United States politicians (yeah, the ones from the same country as Obama) he is a far far far left-winger.
Wait a second...
You mean that George Bush was controlling the banks in Germany too!!?!?
I guess this goes deeper than I had thought.
Well, at least the Americans can rest easy. They almost elected a Socialist who advocates an increase in crime via a gun ban, and wants to punish business for being profitable so that he can funnel the money into social programs to reward those who don't want to work.
Formating hard disks and writing a message to the boot sector will be a bit more efficient than this. Remember, a clean install in case of an infection is recommended even by Microsoft.
You're modded funny, but I hope you're not serious. Yes, yes, I know that people should be performing backups (how many grandmothers do you know who do?).
How livid, or depressed would you be to loose a few years worth of photographs because somebody who was too annoyed with getting spam decided that you didn't deserve to have your data anymore?
Do something totally harmless like changing their default gateway to 0.0.0.0, then setting the background image on their desktop to a message with instructions on how to back up their personal information and take their computer in to be repaired.
Hell, i'm sure a few slashdotters could band together here and even do it for free. I will. If anybody brings me a bot-netted computer, I'll re-install their windows for free. If they are a little old lady, some freshly baked cookies would be nice :).
I'm not sure how things work in Russia (if the state owns the networks or not) but wouldn't it be the ISP or bandwidth provider ignoring this?
I know, I know, ISPs can't (and shouldn't) be held responsible for this sort of thing, but just jumping at the Russian government because technically the copper(or fiber, or whatever) exists in Russian territory is a little bit silly IMHO.
Really the only way that we could hold a foreign government responsible for the actions of their citizens on the Internet would be to expect government oversight on all the packets floating around on the networks that exist within their territories. I highly doubt that there are many people on slashdot that would advocate that.
Really, the Internet needs to exist separately from real-world governments. I know that some are in favor of having no regulatory body of any kind on the networks, but I think things are starting to get out of hand. A government that exists for the internet only is starting to make sense, especially since people who have studied traditional, physical-world-based law have generally don't know head from ass when it comes to computer networks.
A little windows trickery:
Right click on internet explorer and click "Run As" run it as admin.
type C:\ into the address bar. Navigate to whatever folder the programs you want to run are in and run them. Anything that spawns from here will be running as admin.
but at the same time the manufacturers don't have a responsibility or a sound financial incentive to create those devices if consumers don't have the infrastructure to use it.
This is why businesses are not a 100% guarantee of success. The manufacturers have the responsibility of making an investment in a product that they HOPE the consumers will use.
What would have happened if auto manufacturers had never built their cars because there weren't any roads to drive them on?
Or airplane manufacturers and pilots?
The responsibility IS on the manufacturer. It is why it is important to do market research.
Isn't this another 'chicken and egg' problem
No, it isn't.
The people don't need(want) the extra bandwidth right now because there isn't anything for them to use it for. It is not the responsibility of the consumer to make an investment in unnecessary bandwidth so that manufacturers can create devices for them.
Once consumers see that streaming video (and a fat pipe to the internet) is something that they want, they'll buy it. If there is nothing available for them to utilize their bandwidth, then they won't buy it.
However, if you look back in history to periods in which some countries had patent systems and some did not - the United Kingdom and Germany in the nineteenth century, for example - it's clear that lack of a patent system did not in the least hold back inventors in Germany from inventing and developing new technologies. On the contrary. So the intellectual justification for having a patent system in the first place looks a bit thin.
This is because in the 19th Century (and prior), things were large enough to be made by hand. A farmer could, using tools and materials that were readily available, create a machine that would revolutionize his industry (see: the cotton gin).
This isn't true in today's world. Things are built to almost-atom scale. The sometimes-multiple-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars cost of entry to an industry is the reason why patents have become a necessity (see: jets, microprocessors, exotic-materials, space exploration, telecommunications).
Really, the last area in which an entrepreneur can enter the global market is software. Because of this, patents need to be reformed, but the basis of the system needs to remain intact.
A reason to ban guns completely in a society is because it makes it harder to kill a lot of people at once. Ever wondered why you don't hear about a punching spree or a knifing spree?
This statement assumes that a ban on guns makes it completely impossible to obtain them.
It doesn't.
Really, this is where the gun control (see: gun ban) argument falls apart. A ban on guns, a total eradication of them from society are two drastically different things.
Banning guns is akin to passing a law stating that only criminals are allowed to have them; it tips the physical balance in favor of those willing to obtain firearms illegally and does nothing to discourage violence.
I really don't think that the average consumer is going to care about something like this.
For most, a 5Mbps cable connection is much much much more than they ever will (or can) use. The only thing that will drive high-bandwidth stuff like this is media. Websites like this are certainly a step in the correct direction, but until we start seeing dedicated media appliances in peoples homes, it isn't going to happen.
On top of that, think of something (other than streaming media) that your average home-owning consumer is going to use that would require large bandwidth. There aren't many. Sure, some of us geeks use services like Usenet or (and I've never seen this in practice, only rumors of it) bittorrent that are capable of filling up our connection but, relative to the amount of joe-sixpack/plumbers there are out there, we are a small small minority.
Any devs wnat to make a "hulu" box with me?
Website layout changes like this have never made any sense to me.
Firstly, this is a technical website. We aren't impressed by idiotic 2 year old CSS trends. The ability to collapse or expand stories doesn't wow us anymore and it probably never did.
Second, if this is somehow easier on the database, or faster (which i really really highly doubt), TELL US! Explain it to use! WHYYY are you changing the default layout?
I'll admit that most of the results from google seem to come from websites that are far from non-biased, but here is an example of the least crazy one:
Gun ownership vs Crime
If you google for: Gun Control vs Violent Crime, you'll find quite a few articles that back up what I said.
The idea that a gun ban would decrease crime is illogical. Violent criminals don't generally buy their guns at hunting stores, they buy them from illegal gun dealers.
If you have 1 maniacal individual order a platoon of soldiers to slaughter a village, the individual human soldiers may refuse to follow the order.
There is a flip side to that coin. Machines don't think. Machines don't get PTSD and decide to go on a killing rampage. Machines don't "go rogue".
In addition, soldiers are trained not to think, they're trained to follow orders. If anything, replacing them will save lives. I imagine that leaders will think twice about how bad they want us invading them when we've got an army full of machines that we have no emotion or time invested in.
It is like our fleet of submarines. Simply the threat that we can deploy them keeps us out of wars.
On a smaller level, societies where people own guns are usually more peaceful ones. Why? Because people can see them. Just the threat of being shot is enough to deter people from starting shit.
Ummm... it's not the computers you bribe, it's their programmers.
AHA! So! How is this any different than humans?
Bribe a human to kill a person (or have their army kill a shitload of people).
Bribe a human to have their robot kill a person (or have their army of robots kill a shitload of people).
I think that the problem is people having misconceptions about robots. They're not sentient. They don't think. They only do what we tell them to. Sure there are horror stories about robots coming to life, but there are also horror stories about dead people coming to life, or cars coming to life.
We need to drop the term "robot".
It takes a special set of skills to corrupt a single human being, it takes another set of skills, not that special, to corrupt an entire battalion of robots
Do you live in a society without Money?
Or women?
Or sports cars?
Or Fancy houses?
Or Gold?
Or "Change" posters?
As far as I know, my computers have never accepted a bribe, or made a power-grab.
It would be completely inhumane (haha) and tilt the outcome of a war towards those who can afford to develop such technology.
Hmmm...an interesting debate.
What, then, is your opinion missiles with guidance? Or active terrain avoidance? Is it the fact that these things are on the ground that bothers you?
Howabout UAV bombers?
At what point does something go from being a "smart bomb" to a "killer robot".
Link for those of us with whom the nerd is not strong.