People who learn on Cisco hardware tend to think of networking concepts in terms of how Cisco presents and manages them. A good example is 802.11Q. Cisco has this concept of trunking that a lot of other hardware vendors facilitate through simply tagging/non-tagging. If all you know about networking is what you learned from Cisco Press(tm), you will have a hard time getting that HP switch to pass tagged frames to your Cisco network, and ultimately give up saying "Ugh, HP switches suck, we need Cisco gear".
If Tim Berners-Lee wants to advocate for network neutrality, then he should do that. Masking it as a "right to web access" is downright silly, and ultimately counterproductive to honest network neutrality aims.
Of course, I suppose if your advocacy for network neutrality is simply a means for getting political control over the internet, then I guess classifying it as a "right" would help make that happen. After all, the government must ultimately control the internet in order to ensure access to all.
I think all but one site made sense. The Smithsonian because that is where we normally house things of great historical importance. Kennedy Space Center because that was where the shuttles were launched. Los Angeles because the Shuttles were built in Palmdale and a west coast location would allow more people to see one.
But New York City? It seems a strange choice for a couple of reasons. What contribution did they make to the Shuttle program?
Second, where are they planning on putting it? It was my understanding that any potential location would need to have a climate-controlled facility so as to preserve the shuttles for many years. But where in the vicinity of the USS Intrepid is there a place to put Enterprise? I mean, they can't just throw it on a barge like they did with the Concorde and call it a day (unless they have some serious political power behind them).
It makes me sad that so-called "flyover country" will have to go to the coast to see one of these things.
By the way, you seem to have an incorrect understanding of how nuclear decay works in regards to half-lives. When a material, such as Pu-239, has a high half-life that means it decays very slowly and thus has low radioactivity. The danger of plutonium is in long-term exposure due to inhalation or ingestion.
As for letting "old technology die", if you have a suitable alternative I am sure we would all be happy to entertain it.
The United States has not been an empire, if you could ever call us an empire, for quite some time. Our imperialism was fairly limited to establishing a nation that stretched from "sea to shining sea". In doing so we did a lot of damage to native civilizations and culture. If you want to criticize our history there, be my guest. I might even join in.
However, since our war with Spain have we invaded any place with the intention of making it part of our nation? I can not think of any. We have invaded places, but always with the idea of reforming that nation and giving it back to its people. Nation building is not imperialism. And again, if you want to criticize us for thinking we can nation build, be my guest. I might even join in.
Finally, unless you are a citizen of the United States or a middle eastern nation, you will excuse us while give your opinion on our affairs there the attention it deserves: none. As long as nations in the middle east keep asking for our help, and our people stay willing to give it to them, we will continue to be involved in these senseless conflicts. The opinions of some anti-American European slashdotter will not change that.
I believe it has already been determined that Discovery will be going to the Smithsonian. That is where Enterprise is located, so it seems Enterprise will be going somewhere else. It would be nice to see one end up at the USAF Museum in Dayton, OH. And likewise see the rest of the fleet find locations that are free to the public.
It would be nice if I could go down to the Secretary of State / DMV and obtain a digital ID certificate. I'd even pay a fee for this and it would cost the government very little to provide this service.
In the taxonomy of governments, ours is a republic by virtue of our constitution as a moderator for any government action. There is democracy in the world, but the USA is not, technically, a democracy because our elected leaders remain bound by our constitution.
No, we are not a representative democracy. In a representative democracy majority rules all at all times. We do not have that by virtue of our constitution, making us a constitutional republic.
Since you cite Wikipedia, then you share my confidence in its reliability for things like Slashdot debates. Therefore you should concede the point by looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States and seeing that the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a "Representative Democracy".
There is a problem with ideology being thrust into issues that are not ideological. Which is why I found it a bit strange you lump "pro-lifers" in with people who deny evolution. Doctors and other qualified medical people are not entirely on one side of the abortion debate. And it is often the case where two people can be well-informed on reproductive biology and still arrive at different positions on the issue.
This is because abortion is fundamentally an ideological issue, incorporating morality, reproductive freedom, and value of life. Which is wholly different from taking an ideological stance on an issue that is not at all ideological, like evolution. In contrast to abortion, with evolution it is very rare for two people who are well-informed of the facts to arrive at different positions on the issue.
So while I agree with you that ideology does get thrust into situations where it should not be, the reverse of that; taking an ideological issue and demanding that it be evaluated purely on scientific grounds, is equally problematic.
Not everyone needs 24/7 internet access wherever they go. Not everyone wants it either. But since smartphones are pretty much making PDAs obsolete, there won't be much of a choice in a few years. Hopefully then the data prices will be trivial.
It is our DNS. If you don't like it, create your own and compete. I realize the idea of competition may seem foreign to you, and difficult, but in the long run it will be easier than trying to get us to change our system against our wants and toward yours.
The concept of Abandonware does seem to be in-line with the original purpose of copyright; to grant creators the ability to make money from their creations. If creators are no longer interested in making money from a specific creation, then there is no need for the copyright. All this talk about piracy and copyright infringement is really a red herring from people who want to turn copyright into perpetual property rights rather than time-limited monopolies.
I totally suck at mind reading. However, in this case the story was posted as YRO, so it seems there is SOME sentiment there with regard to having the government step in.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAXm0dIuyug
People who learn on Cisco hardware tend to think of networking concepts in terms of how Cisco presents and manages them. A good example is 802.11Q. Cisco has this concept of trunking that a lot of other hardware vendors facilitate through simply tagging/non-tagging. If all you know about networking is what you learned from Cisco Press(tm), you will have a hard time getting that HP switch to pass tagged frames to your Cisco network, and ultimately give up saying "Ugh, HP switches suck, we need Cisco gear".
That isn't the 14th Amendment.
Remind me again: Where in the constitution does it say that? Because it seems to me the 4th amendment says otherwise.
If Tim Berners-Lee wants to advocate for network neutrality, then he should do that. Masking it as a "right to web access" is downright silly, and ultimately counterproductive to honest network neutrality aims.
Of course, I suppose if your advocacy for network neutrality is simply a means for getting political control over the internet, then I guess classifying it as a "right" would help make that happen. After all, the government must ultimately control the internet in order to ensure access to all.
I think all but one site made sense. The Smithsonian because that is where we normally house things of great historical importance. Kennedy Space Center because that was where the shuttles were launched. Los Angeles because the Shuttles were built in Palmdale and a west coast location would allow more people to see one.
But New York City? It seems a strange choice for a couple of reasons. What contribution did they make to the Shuttle program?
Second, where are they planning on putting it? It was my understanding that any potential location would need to have a climate-controlled facility so as to preserve the shuttles for many years. But where in the vicinity of the USS Intrepid is there a place to put Enterprise? I mean, they can't just throw it on a barge like they did with the Concorde and call it a day (unless they have some serious political power behind them).
It makes me sad that so-called "flyover country" will have to go to the coast to see one of these things.
What exactly do you plan to do with [Plutonium as a by-product of most reactors] if nuclear was our main source of energy?
I for one would use it to generate electricity.
By the way, you seem to have an incorrect understanding of how nuclear decay works in regards to half-lives. When a material, such as Pu-239, has a high half-life that means it decays very slowly and thus has low radioactivity. The danger of plutonium is in long-term exposure due to inhalation or ingestion.
As for letting "old technology die", if you have a suitable alternative I am sure we would all be happy to entertain it.
Did it strike anyone else as weird that the United States is sending robots to Japan? It seems the Japanese are famous for robotic technology.
The United States has not been an empire, if you could ever call us an empire, for quite some time. Our imperialism was fairly limited to establishing a nation that stretched from "sea to shining sea". In doing so we did a lot of damage to native civilizations and culture. If you want to criticize our history there, be my guest. I might even join in.
However, since our war with Spain have we invaded any place with the intention of making it part of our nation? I can not think of any. We have invaded places, but always with the idea of reforming that nation and giving it back to its people. Nation building is not imperialism. And again, if you want to criticize us for thinking we can nation build, be my guest. I might even join in.
Finally, unless you are a citizen of the United States or a middle eastern nation, you will excuse us while give your opinion on our affairs there the attention it deserves: none. As long as nations in the middle east keep asking for our help, and our people stay willing to give it to them, we will continue to be involved in these senseless conflicts. The opinions of some anti-American European slashdotter will not change that.
I believe it has already been determined that Discovery will be going to the Smithsonian. That is where Enterprise is located, so it seems Enterprise will be going somewhere else. It would be nice to see one end up at the USAF Museum in Dayton, OH. And likewise see the rest of the fleet find locations that are free to the public.
It would be nice if I could go down to the Secretary of State / DMV and obtain a digital ID certificate. I'd even pay a fee for this and it would cost the government very little to provide this service.
The electoral college is a good example of our government not being a representative democracy. Thank you.
In the taxonomy of governments, ours is a republic by virtue of our constitution as a moderator for any government action. There is democracy in the world, but the USA is not, technically, a democracy because our elected leaders remain bound by our constitution.
No, we are not a representative democracy. In a representative democracy majority rules all at all times. We do not have that by virtue of our constitution, making us a constitutional republic.
Since you cite Wikipedia, then you share my confidence in its reliability for things like Slashdot debates. Therefore you should concede the point by looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States and seeing that the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a "Representative Democracy".
You should have just grabbed the microphone and yelled...
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
There is a problem with ideology being thrust into issues that are not ideological. Which is why I found it a bit strange you lump "pro-lifers" in with people who deny evolution. Doctors and other qualified medical people are not entirely on one side of the abortion debate. And it is often the case where two people can be well-informed on reproductive biology and still arrive at different positions on the issue.
This is because abortion is fundamentally an ideological issue, incorporating morality, reproductive freedom, and value of life. Which is wholly different from taking an ideological stance on an issue that is not at all ideological, like evolution. In contrast to abortion, with evolution it is very rare for two people who are well-informed of the facts to arrive at different positions on the issue.
So while I agree with you that ideology does get thrust into situations where it should not be, the reverse of that; taking an ideological issue and demanding that it be evaluated purely on scientific grounds, is equally problematic.
Yet, have they been better or worse off than the communist government that existed before?
Not everyone needs 24/7 internet access wherever they go. Not everyone wants it either. But since smartphones are pretty much making PDAs obsolete, there won't be much of a choice in a few years. Hopefully then the data prices will be trivial.
It is our DNS. If you don't like it, create your own and compete. I realize the idea of competition may seem foreign to you, and difficult, but in the long run it will be easier than trying to get us to change our system against our wants and toward yours.
It's what meat craves.
People who don't know how to set up SSH.
That is only one house among three.
The concept of Abandonware does seem to be in-line with the original purpose of copyright; to grant creators the ability to make money from their creations. If creators are no longer interested in making money from a specific creation, then there is no need for the copyright. All this talk about piracy and copyright infringement is really a red herring from people who want to turn copyright into perpetual property rights rather than time-limited monopolies.
I totally suck at mind reading. However, in this case the story was posted as YRO, so it seems there is SOME sentiment there with regard to having the government step in.