To prevent this, you get your modem/firewall to "shape" your traffic at say 9.5Mbps (leave enough headroom for the initial TCP connection bursts) and choose which packets you want to drop when it goes past 9.5Mbps (for instance drop http packets first instead of your interactive or VOIP stuff, or the other way round if http traffic is more important to you for some reason). This way you control what happens AND the buffers never fill up at the ISP end since the traffic doesn't even hit 10Mbps (if their buffers don't fill up, there is no increase in latency). This also applies to your outbound connections - if your upload bandwidth is 5Mbps, shape it at 4.5Mbps or so.
Isn't is too late to effectively shape incoming traffic by the time it reaches your modem/router? If that were truly the bottleneck, couldn't you get a faster connection just by buying a faster modem?
So what can be done? There's only one solution: strict limits on government power and revenue. STRICT limits, as the founders of the US intended. Of course, strict limits on the scope of government is nothing but a pipe dream for radicals and libertarians, right?
It is a pipe dream, but for different reasons. Who is going to enforce these "strict limits"? Why, the selfsame organization that is supposed to be limited by them! "Limited government" is an oxymoron: once you grant ultimate authority to an entity, any limits you try to place on it are moot.
We keep trying to create "safe" engines of mass subjugation, and somehow they keep getting abused. When will we finally realize that whatever difficulties we might face without a master, it's the only way we'll ever achieve lasting freedom?
And on their youtube site Google is yanking videos "because criticizing the president violates community standards" or "video of US soldiers killing journalists/children is not acceptable".
2. The ability to type in an URL that they saw in an advertisment, magazine, or other off-line source.
I'm not even convinced they need to do that. Google searches are easier and more reliable (typo correction, auto-suggest, even basic phishing/malware protection).
Really, there's no reason moderation should be limited to a set of pre-chosen tags at all. Just let people type an arbitrary tag along with the actual +1/-1 moderation, just like they already do for the stories themselves.
This already exists, and it's called Bodega. It hasn't caught on. There's also MacPorts and Homebrew, which are popular among devs but have no presence among regular users because they're for *nix command-line tools.
I believe the reason open app distribution systems like APT work so well on Linux is the "open culture": the vast majority of software Linux users want to run is Free Software. But can an APT-like system work as well with proprietary, for-sale apps? I know there are proprietary drivers and such on various repos, but I'm talking about stuff like Photoshop, Office, or the thousands of little paid apps you can get on iOS.
Yes, it'd be great if Mac users embraced FOSS more, but they won't do it as long as FOSS lags in ease of use and polish. And it will continue to do so because polish is hard work, and devs working for their bread are more willing to dish out the elbow grease. I'd love for this to change, but I don't really see how it can.
At that point the only rational choice is to not participate online at all, or allow pictures to be taken, comments to be made, anything that relates to you. What a sad life that seems.
Or you could try working at a place that doesn't treat you like an elementary school student. Look at small businesses in particular (though there are many such large businesses as well). And don't give me the excuse of a poor job market, either-- if you can't find work, it means you need to loosen your job requirements to fit the market. Accept a lower salary, consider relocation, diversify your skills, or become self-employed. It's all a matter of priorities.
There is no such thing as "real probability" in this case, unless you're suggesting we run a few thousand universes just like this one and then count up the ones in which aliens make contact with Earth in 2010.
Pointers. Some people just can't this concept. Dereferencing, etc, are most likely alien concepts. Also, header files and the general mechanics of Obj-C/C/C++ are very different from Java/.NET type languages.
You don't really need to understand pointers to use ObjC, though. You use object pointers all over the place but you never dereference them, just send them messages. It amounts to the same thing as Java's object references, just with an extra asterisk in the declaration. You can of course use raw C arrays and pointers, but there's little reason to do so in most cases.
Manual memory management, though, that I'll certainly grant you. Mac OS programmers haven't had to deal with that since ObjC 2.0, but ObjC on iOS doesn't do garbage collection (supposedly for performance reasons). Autorelease pools ease the pain, but obviously not having to deal with deallocation at all is easier still.
Also, header files and the general mechanics of Obj-C/C/C++ are very different from Java/.NET type languages.
Writing header files can be a pain, but they're not hard to grasp once you understand what a function declaration is, which you need to do for any language. Different from Java and a bit of extra typing, sure, but not particularly hard.
I'm an embedded SW engineer, I do a lot of my work in C/C++, so Obj-C wasn't a problem for me. That said, I really don't like Obj-C at all. Its rather annoying. The syntax for function calls, and func definitions is less intuitive than C. Also things like "+" and "-" to differentiate class vs instance methods seems silly.Why not use static like everything else does? And whats the deal with the @property and @synthesize stuff? Not really a fan.
Of course the SEC would "admit" to being understaffed and underfunded, regardless of the actual cause. That's how you get Congress to throw more money at you.
This could be related to the previously-discussed 'bug' in how the number of bars is calculated. As I understand it, the bar count is/was heavily weighted such that you'd still get 4-5 bars even when the signal strength was actually marginal. So even though you previously had 5 bars, you may not have had that strong a signal to begin with. See here for more details.
You know, it's entirely possible to have a Facebook account without spending excessive amounts of time on it. Nothing forces you to play these insipid games, update your profile every day, or respond to every message you get.
But the free market theory postulates a few more effects of it, though. That's why it's still being argued. Not because it would just continue to work better or worse, but because it's supposed to lead to an optimum point.
I've never heard an argument that free markets always produce some idealized, perfect outcome. What is argued is that markets tend to allocate scarce resources very efficiently. NOT perfectly efficiently, nor with perfect consistency. You are simply putting up a straw man.
Which really have only been argued on that ideal model. The whole behaviour of the free market as a perfectly self-correcting mechanism, and which does this or that so well without government intervention, is only argued to any satisfactory degree for that ideal market model and not at all on even the most laissez faire RL model. Much less on one which diverges as massively as what Monsanto wants.
Again, you are the only one calling the free market a "perfectly self-correcting mechanism".
The more you deviate from it, the more, well, you may not get the same results. Most of that theory was never proven at all on a case which differs from the ideal at all. E.g., go ahead and try to prove the first welfare theorem _without_ assuming perfectly competitive markets or perfect information and a few more such perfect assumptions. And then try the same for the second theorem, which requires even more such assumptions.
Of course you can only prove theorems about an idealized form of the market. But the welfare theorems are a much stronger form of the argument that markets tend to allocate scarce resources efficiently, and as such need not be assumed to apply perfectly in the real world.
And when you get to the extremes that Monsanto wants, where not just you don't know it all, but basically you know _nothing_ at all about the product you just bought, or at least not know if you got product A or B because they don't want them labeled... well, if you have some market theory which can sort the good from the bad without even knowing which is which, I'm all ears.
If you want non-GM products, then buy ones that are labeled as such. Nothing forces you to buy a product that is not labeled in the way you require. And if not many products are so labeled, it means not that many people actually care about having that information (e.g. Kosher foods). Besides, even without such labels, you can visit sites like this to get the information you require. Seems like the market is functioning pretty well to me.
At any rate, which to read? Well, you can start with say Milton Friedman. Should be palatable enough to the right wing, right?
Are you serious? Friedman was a monetarist. Monetarists advocate monetary intervention in the form of a central bank, which is directly contradictory to a laissez-faire approach. Try Rothbard, Mises, or Hayek instead.
But the concept of a free market is based on some key concepts, one of which is: perfectly informed buyers. No, really. It would be fun if all the Austrian school proponents (mostly libertarians) and the other right-wingers actually read what it says instead of just the bulleted propaganda points. That's the key assumption behind the idea that the market will sort out good from bad: the buyers actually know all aspects of it, and make an informed choice which to buy.
Bullshit. What you're talking about is an idealized, "perfect" free market, which economists sometimes talk about in the same way physicists sometimes talk about frictionless surfaces. Real markets do not in any way require perfect information to function well. And what, exactly, is "it" in the phrase "read what it says"? The dictionary? I find nothing about "perfectly informed buyers" in mine.
Slashdot Mirror
To prevent this, you get your modem/firewall to "shape" your traffic at say 9.5Mbps (leave enough headroom for the initial TCP connection bursts) and choose which packets you want to drop when it goes past 9.5Mbps (for instance drop http packets first instead of your interactive or VOIP stuff, or the other way round if http traffic is more important to you for some reason). This way you control what happens AND the buffers never fill up at the ISP end since the traffic doesn't even hit 10Mbps (if their buffers don't fill up, there is no increase in latency). This also applies to your outbound connections - if your upload bandwidth is 5Mbps, shape it at 4.5Mbps or so.
Isn't is too late to effectively shape incoming traffic by the time it reaches your modem/router? If that were truly the bottleneck, couldn't you get a faster connection just by buying a faster modem?
bin Laden knows what he's doing, and his greatest weapon is fear.
And surprise!
So what can be done? There's only one solution: strict limits on government power and revenue. STRICT limits, as the founders of the US intended. Of course, strict limits on the scope of government is nothing but a pipe dream for radicals and libertarians, right?
It is a pipe dream, but for different reasons. Who is going to enforce these "strict limits"? Why, the selfsame organization that is supposed to be limited by them! "Limited government" is an oxymoron: once you grant ultimate authority to an entity, any limits you try to place on it are moot.
We keep trying to create "safe" engines of mass subjugation, and somehow they keep getting abused. When will we finally realize that whatever difficulties we might face without a master, it's the only way we'll ever achieve lasting freedom?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-KczCp0OQ4
And on their youtube site Google is yanking videos "because criticizing the president violates community standards" or "video of US soldiers killing journalists/children is not acceptable".
[citation needed]
2. The ability to type in an URL that they saw in an advertisment, magazine, or other off-line source.
I'm not even convinced they need to do that. Google searches are easier and more reliable (typo correction, auto-suggest, even basic phishing/malware protection).
Really, there's no reason moderation should be limited to a set of pre-chosen tags at all. Just let people type an arbitrary tag along with the actual +1/-1 moderation, just like they already do for the stories themselves.
You down with entropy?
Identifying people I don't want to be friends with?
God made the universe 6000 years ago as if it were made much longer ago.
That contradicts the idea that God does not deceive, which most Christians believe.
In the USA it's illegal to be communist.
Oh, really? You'd better inform these guys, then: http://cpusa.org/
This already exists, and it's called Bodega. It hasn't caught on. There's also MacPorts and Homebrew, which are popular among devs but have no presence among regular users because they're for *nix command-line tools.
I believe the reason open app distribution systems like APT work so well on Linux is the "open culture": the vast majority of software Linux users want to run is Free Software. But can an APT-like system work as well with proprietary, for-sale apps? I know there are proprietary drivers and such on various repos, but I'm talking about stuff like Photoshop, Office, or the thousands of little paid apps you can get on iOS.
Yes, it'd be great if Mac users embraced FOSS more, but they won't do it as long as FOSS lags in ease of use and polish. And it will continue to do so because polish is hard work, and devs working for their bread are more willing to dish out the elbow grease. I'd love for this to change, but I don't really see how it can.
Failing to put out a fire is not arson. Please stop calling it that.
At that point the only rational choice is to not participate online at all, or allow pictures to be taken, comments to be made, anything that relates to you. What a sad life that seems.
Or you could try working at a place that doesn't treat you like an elementary school student. Look at small businesses in particular (though there are many such large businesses as well). And don't give me the excuse of a poor job market, either-- if you can't find work, it means you need to loosen your job requirements to fit the market. Accept a lower salary, consider relocation, diversify your skills, or become self-employed. It's all a matter of priorities.
There is no such thing as "real probability" in this case, unless you're suggesting we run a few thousand universes just like this one and then count up the ones in which aliens make contact with Earth in 2010.
Pointers. Some people just can't this concept. Dereferencing, etc, are most likely alien concepts. Also, header files and the general mechanics of Obj-C/C/C++ are very different from Java/.NET type languages.
You don't really need to understand pointers to use ObjC, though. You use object pointers all over the place but you never dereference them, just send them messages. It amounts to the same thing as Java's object references, just with an extra asterisk in the declaration. You can of course use raw C arrays and pointers, but there's little reason to do so in most cases.
Manual memory management, though, that I'll certainly grant you. Mac OS programmers haven't had to deal with that since ObjC 2.0, but ObjC on iOS doesn't do garbage collection (supposedly for performance reasons). Autorelease pools ease the pain, but obviously not having to deal with deallocation at all is easier still.
Also, header files and the general mechanics of Obj-C/C/C++ are very different from Java/.NET type languages.
Writing header files can be a pain, but they're not hard to grasp once you understand what a function declaration is, which you need to do for any language. Different from Java and a bit of extra typing, sure, but not particularly hard.
I'm an embedded SW engineer, I do a lot of my work in C/C++, so Obj-C wasn't a problem for me. That said, I really don't like Obj-C at all. Its rather annoying. The syntax for function calls, and func definitions is less intuitive than C. Also things like "+" and "-" to differentiate class vs instance methods seems silly.Why not use static like everything else does? And whats the deal with the @property and @synthesize stuff? Not really a fan.
These are just personal aesthetics.
Looks like an iced latte of some kind, maybe chai?
Well, html is unable to save session information. So you need cookies for that. There is no other reliable and non-user-unfriendly alternative.
I wouldn't consider putting a session ID in the URL to be "user-unfriendly". Maybe a little ugly, but how does it actually impact users?
Did you just use three paragraphs to say "the U.S. is OK now, but declining at an accelerating rate"?
Of course the SEC would "admit" to being understaffed and underfunded, regardless of the actual cause. That's how you get Congress to throw more money at you.
This could be related to the previously-discussed 'bug' in how the number of bars is calculated. As I understand it, the bar count is/was heavily weighted such that you'd still get 4-5 bars even when the signal strength was actually marginal. So even though you previously had 5 bars, you may not have had that strong a signal to begin with. See here for more details.
You know, it's entirely possible to have a Facebook account without spending excessive amounts of time on it. Nothing forces you to play these insipid games, update your profile every day, or respond to every message you get.
But the free market theory postulates a few more effects of it, though. That's why it's still being argued. Not because it would just continue to work better or worse, but because it's supposed to lead to an optimum point.
I've never heard an argument that free markets always produce some idealized, perfect outcome. What is argued is that markets tend to allocate scarce resources very efficiently. NOT perfectly efficiently, nor with perfect consistency. You are simply putting up a straw man.
Which really have only been argued on that ideal model. The whole behaviour of the free market as a perfectly self-correcting mechanism, and which does this or that so well without government intervention, is only argued to any satisfactory degree for that ideal market model and not at all on even the most laissez faire RL model. Much less on one which diverges as massively as what Monsanto wants.
Again, you are the only one calling the free market a "perfectly self-correcting mechanism".
The more you deviate from it, the more, well, you may not get the same results. Most of that theory was never proven at all on a case which differs from the ideal at all. E.g., go ahead and try to prove the first welfare theorem _without_ assuming perfectly competitive markets or perfect information and a few more such perfect assumptions. And then try the same for the second theorem, which requires even more such assumptions.
Of course you can only prove theorems about an idealized form of the market. But the welfare theorems are a much stronger form of the argument that markets tend to allocate scarce resources efficiently, and as such need not be assumed to apply perfectly in the real world.
And when you get to the extremes that Monsanto wants, where not just you don't know it all, but basically you know _nothing_ at all about the product you just bought, or at least not know if you got product A or B because they don't want them labeled... well, if you have some market theory which can sort the good from the bad without even knowing which is which, I'm all ears.
If you want non-GM products, then buy ones that are labeled as such. Nothing forces you to buy a product that is not labeled in the way you require. And if not many products are so labeled, it means not that many people actually care about having that information (e.g. Kosher foods). Besides, even without such labels, you can visit sites like this to get the information you require. Seems like the market is functioning pretty well to me.
At any rate, which to read? Well, you can start with say Milton Friedman. Should be palatable enough to the right wing, right?
Are you serious? Friedman was a monetarist. Monetarists advocate monetary intervention in the form of a central bank, which is directly contradictory to a laissez-faire approach. Try Rothbard, Mises, or Hayek instead.
Then please point me to the economics book that claims markets need perfect information to function.
But the concept of a free market is based on some key concepts, one of which is: perfectly informed buyers. No, really. It would be fun if all the Austrian school proponents (mostly libertarians) and the other right-wingers actually read what it says instead of just the bulleted propaganda points. That's the key assumption behind the idea that the market will sort out good from bad: the buyers actually know all aspects of it, and make an informed choice which to buy.
Bullshit. What you're talking about is an idealized, "perfect" free market, which economists sometimes talk about in the same way physicists sometimes talk about frictionless surfaces. Real markets do not in any way require perfect information to function well. And what, exactly, is "it" in the phrase "read what it says"? The dictionary? I find nothing about "perfectly informed buyers" in mine.