The NTP protocol uses history to measure normal and intermittent errors in the entire thread to get the time and record the time. Another router won't change that.
Plus, can you trust the tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 Internet providers to not be changing routing on a daily basis for the very same reason? What about the system the NTP server is running on? Unless this guy is so anal that he keeps absolutely the bare minimum and does not change anything in his environment, the entire point is moot. And the fact that he doesn't own all of the Internet provider routers between him and all of his subscribers make the entire point moot anyway. Which is precisely why the PhD at Deleware created the NTP protocol. For this reason, we're discussing right now.
This isn't very good for NTP. It violates the intent of running NTP servers and is causing problems for this particular stratum that is being abused innappropriately. You really want to use an NTP server as close to you as possible. That's the intent to ensure you get more stable time and a tigher errors from true time.
Why doesn't this guy set up a filter to ensure that only people in his stratum can hit his NTP server? Seems like the best way to enforce the intent of NTP. That's what I would do. Heck.. I recall when NTP servers and these stratums were first being set up that I had to request and *justify* why I should be able to be a client to a particular server. Now I use my ISP's NTP server.. which seems completely appropriate to me. But I should check since I do have one of the offending Dlink products...
"Ah. I thought you were referring to the business model of investing money in a product and then selling it to recoup the investment, but I guess you're talking about the distribution model. I agree with you here; I think I've seen the same studies that show that physical media like CDs are going to be a niche product in another decade."
I am referring to a business model. The music industry's main revenue stream IS their distribution. Over 80% of their profits come from their distribution model.. which IS their business model. See the point I'm making? This isn't even my opinion. Its' been written about before and this is even the reason why they artificially inflated CD prices high because they knew they were going to take it in the shorts... because their profits are based on distribution.. not on the music itself. The Internet is replacing over 80% of their business model. See the issue? Why the RIAA is so hostile toward this?
The model is broken. Most people want music downloads.. not free. Even the sale statistics prove this that were just recently published.
The problem is an antiquated business model that they are struggling to keep in tact.. even though it's going to fail unless they can take control of the Internet.
Lots of businesses go away because they fail to adapt to a new business model when their old model is no longer profitable.
"I am not sure what you mean here. You mean online distribution?" "If by "new distribution mechanism" you mean "allow free,"
The music industry's main business has always been in "exlusive distribution" deals. They make their money on the distribution of the music. Not selling the music, or producing the music, and not even the road shows. They make it all on selling and distributing LPs, 8 tracks, cassette tapes, and CDs. The Internet changed all that.. but they failed to embrace the new distribution mechanism that people wanted. It wasn't free that people wanted, it was the new distribution mechanism.. coupled with the power to choose what you want. That's why the music industry is fighting it so hard. They know they failed to change their business model to the new technologies. My comment has nothign to do with free.. or the people downloading MP3s for free. There are a lot of people that buy online music even though they could download for free. Why? Most people aren't thieves. Mostly college students are.. which is never going to change. Never has, never will.
"I haven't ever really understood what the RIAA hopes to achieve from all their lawsuits and extortion rackets, I mean all they are doing is alienating their core market the way they have been going recently I can't wait for someone to make a stand against them in court."
Exactly. I owned about 150 CDs before Napster that I purchased over about 8 years. During Napster's prime, I bought another 170 CDs *because* Napster helped me find great music that I otherwise would have never known about. Since the RIAA insanity started.. I have purchased ZERO CDs in protest of their trying to become a branch of our Government. They are writing laws, ratifying them, passing judgement, and enforcing them. The problems with merging all three branches into one entity is bad enough, but these guys weren't even elected and have no legal premise to even act as our government.. yet they are. So I refuse to support them. It pains me sometimes because I want to buy CDs.. I almost do it.. and then refuse to because of how they are behaving.
They failed to embrace a new distribution mechanism. That isn't our fault.. that's theirs. Some companies go out of business just because what they sell/do is no longer necessary. Either they need to adapt to new technologies.. or they will fail.
It's not all about class. A lot of it has to do with the lingering dot.com attitude. I work with a lot of dot.com'ers that got all of their experience from companies that failed. They still come in like anything we're doing is old school, and clearly the wrong way to do it, and everything they are doing is the only way to do it. I'm open minded and see the value to wise application of Open Source in development and deployment, but the heavy push for Open Source adoption is mostly coming from computer nerds that all have come from dot.coms that have failed. That's not a comforting message to clients and management.
A little professionalism and consideration for wise use might be good for everyone in this industry.
The US government has most definitely been trying hard to hire qualified people with these skills and it pays extremely well if you have them. Sure, it sounds stupid. Look at the open job recs at NSA and CIA. It's all there. But you'd rather be a conspiracy theorist. Watch out for those black helos. They really are out there.
I certainly agree that anyone should be rewarded for the work. Especially when it is of tangible benefit such as health knowledge.
To me this patent indicates that a lawsuit should follow it. In my eyes, this patent isn't any different than the tobacco companies knowingly harming people by not sharing with them the knowledge that tobacco is dangerous. In this case, this company is deliberately harming everyone's health by not allowing us to know the knowledge they have gained so they can sell us their products the way they want to. It worked with the tobacco companies, I say we stick it to them the same way we did with big tobacco.
" This whole story is odd. The American government has an annual budget exceeding $2.0 trillion [cia.gov], yet that same government cannot seem to buy top-notch translators graduating from the academic pentagon: Harvard University, Princeton University, Yale University, University of Illinois (at Urbana-Champagne), and University of Wisconson (at Madison)?"
Yes. That is exactly the case. It isn't a matter of money. It's a matter of not enough people with the required skillset. The US government has had numerous open jobs looking for people with these skills for many years and they cannot fill them. This led to a lot of the Intel problems we had prior to Afghanistan and Iraq.
That really isn't the problem with Sony. Sony's real problem is they are more anti-competitive than Microsoft and they do so at the very risk of loosing huge dollars and every single thing they sell. You know what? There are a lot of morons that think Sony shit is superior to all other consumer electronics makers. I've had so many problems with Sony products that I refuse to ever buy another one again.
That's all this is. Another attempt by Sony to own us. We should be treating this no different than our reaction to DIVX that Circuit Shity tried pushing on us. Thankfully we were smart enough to win that one. Let's hope we are smart enough to not let Sony strong arm their way into our living rooms.
We definitely have choices. There are a lot of parties. Start voting for the candidate you want, instead of playing in to the two mega party's scheme to keep you tied to them. The one thing the two mega parties agree on, is to disagree on everything to ensure they remain in power.
Start voting your voting, and stop playing their game. People talk about wasting votes. If you believe we have no choices, YOU ARE WASTING YOUR VOTE.
Now go vote for the candidate you want in every primary and election there is. Unless you actually cast *your vote* you are wasting your vote.
Stop playing their game. Both of the mega parties equally suck.
Exactly.
I'm definitely a big critic of false associations with studies. Especially since many times people deliberately turn around the cause and affect to support their needs. However, there are some things that we should not wait for the ultimate proof on because the cost is too great.
I'm not trying to stir up a political debate but let's take the environment as an example. We still haven't proven for a fact that CFCs is spray cans contributes in any significant way to global warming. Heck, we don't even have evidence that global warming is real. But should we continue the use of these potentially harmful chemicals until it is truly proven that they are harmful? Absolutely not.. because the perceived damage is way too great a price to simply find another propellant. Even if in the end we eventually determine that the CFCs never caused any harm. Was the cost to find another propellant really that great compared to the perceived cost of waiting until it is truly proven?
I see this violent video game with children as the same thing. Maybe it is a problem, maybe it is not. But is it worth the risk until we know for sure? My opinion is "no".
They are selling Broadband Internet Service, but are actually *not* providing the broadband and deliberately violating the Internet Service portion (should be called limited IP service). So the day they turned on the VoIP filters to favor their own service that comes with another fee, will they be giving all "Broadband" users a discount since it is no longer Broadband IP service?
I'm not arguing in favor of or against anything. You are assuming that I am. Go back and read all of my posts. All I've ever said were facts without any opinions... and asked one question for you to answer to yourself.... are you willing to pay for what you ask? That is not a loaded question with some hidden agenda behind it. By asking that question it does not imply that i am against those cost. By asking that question it does not imply that I am against liberty. I'm most certainly for liberty.. I'm a libertarian extremist with only a few more extreme than I am. Please check your anger at the door... you're barking up the wrong tree with your quest to pick fights.
*I* wasn't trying to make any point about what our government *is* doing. I was trying to make the point that are you willing to pay for what you want? It's a question on to you. You came at me for everyting you wanted me to be.. and you attacked teh wrong person. Don't vilanize people because you don't like the facts they acknowledge... which is exactly what you did.
"History shows it's vitally important that they follow the laws. "
WHat history is that? From what I know of military history since this nation was created the government followed a different set of laws than those for the people.
I'm a freedom guy... heck I'm an extremist Libertarian. But let's be real... our government today only seems worse than yesterday because the Internet allows us to see better what they are doing. Don't fool yourself into believing there is a new trend. Our government has always sucked...
The only reason anything seems new to you is because you're living it. If you think things are awful now with a horrible and evil government... look back to our ancestors in Europe for all the real history you need to compare against.
Our government is easy to hate because we have the freedom to hate it and remain living.
Slashdot Mirror
How is that?
The NTP protocol uses history to measure normal and intermittent errors in the entire thread to get the time and record the time. Another router won't change that.
Plus, can you trust the tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 Internet providers to not be changing routing on a daily basis for the very same reason? What about the system the NTP server is running on? Unless this guy is so anal that he keeps absolutely the bare minimum and does not change anything in his environment, the entire point is moot. And the fact that he doesn't own all of the Internet provider routers between him and all of his subscribers make the entire point moot anyway. Which is precisely why the PhD at Deleware created the NTP protocol. For this reason, we're discussing right now.
This isn't very good for NTP. It violates the intent of running NTP servers and is causing problems for this particular stratum that is being abused innappropriately. You really want to use an NTP server as close to you as possible. That's the intent to ensure you get more stable time and a tigher errors from true time.
Why doesn't this guy set up a filter to ensure that only people in his stratum can hit his NTP server? Seems like the best way to enforce the intent of NTP. That's what I would do. Heck.. I recall when NTP servers and these stratums were first being set up that I had to request and *justify* why I should be able to be a client to a particular server. Now I use my ISP's NTP server.. which seems completely appropriate to me. But I should check since I do have one of the offending Dlink products...
"Ah. I thought you were referring to the business model of investing money in a product and then selling it to recoup the investment, but I guess you're talking about the distribution model. I agree with you here; I think I've seen the same studies that show that physical media like CDs are going to be a niche product in another decade."
I am referring to a business model. The music industry's main revenue stream IS their distribution. Over 80% of their profits come from their distribution model.. which IS their business model. See the point I'm making? This isn't even my opinion. Its' been written about before and this is even the reason why they artificially inflated CD prices high because they knew they were going to take it in the shorts... because their profits are based on distribution.. not on the music itself. The Internet is replacing over 80% of their business model. See the issue? Why the RIAA is so hostile toward this?
"I don't think it means the model is broken."
The model is broken. Most people want music downloads.. not free. Even the sale statistics prove this that were just recently published.
The problem is an antiquated business model that they are struggling to keep in tact.. even though it's going to fail unless they can take control of the Internet.
Lots of businesses go away because they fail to adapt to a new business model when their old model is no longer profitable.
I use www.pandora.com to get my new music fix, or listen to the radio.
"I am not sure what you mean here. You mean online distribution?"
"If by "new distribution mechanism" you mean "allow free,"
The music industry's main business has always been in "exlusive distribution" deals. They make their money on the distribution of the music. Not selling the music, or producing the music, and not even the road shows. They make it all on selling and distributing LPs, 8 tracks, cassette tapes, and CDs. The Internet changed all that.. but they failed to embrace the new distribution mechanism that people wanted. It wasn't free that people wanted, it was the new distribution mechanism.. coupled with the power to choose what you want. That's why the music industry is fighting it so hard. They know they failed to change their business model to the new technologies. My comment has nothign to do with free.. or the people downloading MP3s for free. There are a lot of people that buy online music even though they could download for free. Why? Most people aren't thieves. Mostly college students are.. which is never going to change. Never has, never will.
Thanks. I'm too stupid/ingorant of how the biz really works to know what does and does not support the madness. So I've been avoiding it all.
Beautiful!
"I haven't ever really understood what the RIAA hopes to achieve from all their lawsuits and extortion rackets, I mean all they are doing is alienating their core market the way they have been going recently I can't wait for someone to make a stand against them in court."
Exactly. I owned about 150 CDs before Napster that I purchased over about 8 years. During Napster's prime, I bought another 170 CDs *because* Napster helped me find great music that I otherwise would have never known about. Since the RIAA insanity started.. I have purchased ZERO CDs in protest of their trying to become a branch of our Government. They are writing laws, ratifying them, passing judgement, and enforcing them. The problems with merging all three branches into one entity is bad enough, but these guys weren't even elected and have no legal premise to even act as our government.. yet they are. So I refuse to support them. It pains me sometimes because I want to buy CDs.. I almost do it.. and then refuse to because of how they are behaving.
They failed to embrace a new distribution mechanism. That isn't our fault.. that's theirs. Some companies go out of business just because what they sell/do is no longer necessary. Either they need to adapt to new technologies.. or they will fail.
It's not all about class. A lot of it has to do with the lingering dot.com attitude. I work with a lot of dot.com'ers that got all of their experience from companies that failed. They still come in like anything we're doing is old school, and clearly the wrong way to do it, and everything they are doing is the only way to do it. I'm open minded and see the value to wise application of Open Source in development and deployment, but the heavy push for Open Source adoption is mostly coming from computer nerds that all have come from dot.coms that have failed. That's not a comforting message to clients and management.
A little professionalism and consideration for wise use might be good for everyone in this industry.
Isn't that sort of a paradox?
The US government has most definitely been trying hard to hire qualified people with these skills and it pays extremely well if you have them. Sure, it sounds stupid. Look at the open job recs at NSA and CIA. It's all there. But you'd rather be a conspiracy theorist. Watch out for those black helos. They really are out there.
I knew of the hiring issue but it never occurred to me that the majority of the people with the required skills are suspect. What crappy situation.
Thanks for the reply. I didn't know about that.
Cheers,
Scott
Does that mean they can sue my body?
I certainly agree that anyone should be rewarded for the work. Especially when it is of tangible benefit such as health knowledge.
To me this patent indicates that a lawsuit should follow it. In my eyes, this patent isn't any different than the tobacco companies knowingly harming people by not sharing with them the knowledge that tobacco is dangerous. In this case, this company is deliberately harming everyone's health by not allowing us to know the knowledge they have gained so they can sell us their products the way they want to. It worked with the tobacco companies, I say we stick it to them the same way we did with big tobacco.
Thoughts on this analogy?
" This whole story is odd. The American government has an annual budget exceeding $2.0 trillion [cia.gov], yet that same government cannot seem to buy top-notch translators graduating from the academic pentagon: Harvard University, Princeton University, Yale University, University of Illinois (at Urbana-Champagne), and University of Wisconson (at Madison)?"
Yes. That is exactly the case. It isn't a matter of money. It's a matter of not enough people with the required skillset. The US government has had numerous open jobs looking for people with these skills for many years and they cannot fill them. This led to a lot of the Intel problems we had prior to Afghanistan and Iraq.
"I call, "BS", on this story. "
Why? Ignorance?
That really isn't the problem with Sony. Sony's real problem is they are more anti-competitive than Microsoft and they do so at the very risk of loosing huge dollars and every single thing they sell. You know what? There are a lot of morons that think Sony shit is superior to all other consumer electronics makers. I've had so many problems with Sony products that I refuse to ever buy another one again. That's all this is. Another attempt by Sony to own us. We should be treating this no different than our reaction to DIVX that Circuit Shity tried pushing on us. Thankfully we were smart enough to win that one. Let's hope we are smart enough to not let Sony strong arm their way into our living rooms.
We definitely have choices. There are a lot of parties. Start voting for the candidate you want, instead of playing in to the two mega party's scheme to keep you tied to them. The one thing the two mega parties agree on, is to disagree on everything to ensure they remain in power. Start voting your voting, and stop playing their game. People talk about wasting votes. If you believe we have no choices, YOU ARE WASTING YOUR VOTE. Now go vote for the candidate you want in every primary and election there is. Unless you actually cast *your vote* you are wasting your vote. Stop playing their game. Both of the mega parties equally suck.
I understand your sarcasm and appreciate it. I really do. :)
There really is a reason though.
The worry is something else.
Exactly. I'm definitely a big critic of false associations with studies. Especially since many times people deliberately turn around the cause and affect to support their needs. However, there are some things that we should not wait for the ultimate proof on because the cost is too great. I'm not trying to stir up a political debate but let's take the environment as an example. We still haven't proven for a fact that CFCs is spray cans contributes in any significant way to global warming. Heck, we don't even have evidence that global warming is real. But should we continue the use of these potentially harmful chemicals until it is truly proven that they are harmful? Absolutely not.. because the perceived damage is way too great a price to simply find another propellant. Even if in the end we eventually determine that the CFCs never caused any harm. Was the cost to find another propellant really that great compared to the perceived cost of waiting until it is truly proven? I see this violent video game with children as the same thing. Maybe it is a problem, maybe it is not. But is it worth the risk until we know for sure? My opinion is "no".
They are selling Broadband Internet Service, but are actually *not* providing the broadband and deliberately violating the Internet Service portion (should be called limited IP service). So the day they turned on the VoIP filters to favor their own service that comes with another fee, will they be giving all "Broadband" users a discount since it is no longer Broadband IP service?
I'm not arguing in favor of or against anything. You are assuming that I am. Go back and read all of my posts. All I've ever said were facts without any opinions... and asked one question for you to answer to yourself.... are you willing to pay for what you ask? That is not a loaded question with some hidden agenda behind it. By asking that question it does not imply that i am against those cost. By asking that question it does not imply that I am against liberty. I'm most certainly for liberty.. I'm a libertarian extremist with only a few more extreme than I am. Please check your anger at the door... you're barking up the wrong tree with your quest to pick fights.
*I* wasn't trying to make any point about what our government *is* doing. I was trying to make the point that are you willing to pay for what you want? It's a question on to you. You came at me for everyting you wanted me to be.. and you attacked teh wrong person. Don't vilanize people because you don't like the facts they acknowledge... which is exactly what you did.
"History shows it's vitally important that they follow the laws. " WHat history is that? From what I know of military history since this nation was created the government followed a different set of laws than those for the people. I'm a freedom guy... heck I'm an extremist Libertarian. But let's be real... our government today only seems worse than yesterday because the Internet allows us to see better what they are doing. Don't fool yourself into believing there is a new trend. Our government has always sucked...
The only reason anything seems new to you is because you're living it. If you think things are awful now with a horrible and evil government... look back to our ancestors in Europe for all the real history you need to compare against. Our government is easy to hate because we have the freedom to hate it and remain living.