Heck, read the summary. The injuction and the suit involves sending e-mail to ISPs (presumably, OIRB's) and deleting e-mail addresses from complaints. This suit does not deal with listing OIRB as a domain that you may want to block.
"We're not going after IronPort because of their blocking. We're going after IronPort for the harassment," [OIRB's Scott Richter] said. "We're going to go after many antispam groups."
I think they are going after because of their blocking, but their suit does not complain about the blocking. They are going after anonymous e-mail complaints and sending e-mail to the ISP. Your argument does not address the issue at hand.
4-6GHz requires a 33%-100% increase from current speeds. That's 18 months away at the most, according to Moore's Law. 3x on graphics card takes a little longer: 29 months. Certainly not far away. 1GB is also easy, as 512MB is mid-range.
However, 1TB >> 120G that is standard now, and 120GB is effectively infinite for most people. When disks were ~40MB, every time I got a bigger drive, it became filled in about 2 months. It now takes me longer than three years, which is about my upgrade cycle, so it is "infinite". 1TB would represent the largest growth factor from current standard systems.
Who says the entire chip has to be in the same part of the clock cycle? You can make the pipeline 200 stages deep with each stage of the pipeline running on a clock with a different offset.
Such a system would allow clocks that run faster on larger chips than allowed by speed-of-light calculations.
My wife bought a cell phone that took ~400ms to scroll one line on a 6 line screen. It is very painful to use. My cell phone, on the other hand, scrolls almost instantaneously. The issue is that her phone is basically running a mini-OS, with configuration options everywhere (change menus, etc.). My phone is not configurable, except in basic ways (e.g., how to show the time on the display). My phone, even though it is older and likely has a worse processor, runs much quicker because it has fewer features than her phone.
The more CPU you have, the lazier the developers are in optimizing and the more the product managers want to add featuers. This is to be expected: why spend time optimizing an operation that takes 10msec that is only performed when a user presses a button? You could add a whistle intsead with that time.
As someone who has recently purchased a laptop after much searching, the trend appears to be towards portable desktops. People want laptops to use. Thus, they want to be able to do things like play FPS games on them. FPS games require high-end hardware. Some stores have gone to distinguishing "laptops" from "notebooks" to distinguish a 17" WXGA 9.3lb behemoths from a 12" 4.3lb laptop.
The hardware vendors seem to think that most people want power, not good mobility (more precisely, they think they can make more money there). If people do want power, than I suspect that notebooks will continue to push closer to desktops in terms of CPU speed.
Efficiency will not truly be viewed as a problem until Moore's law degrades to doubling every 4-5 years. Only then will software developers slow down on adding features and focus on optimality.
I beg to differ. esr is (or at least was) a novice at CUPS. He created a local queue for a remote printer, which is, apparently, the wrong thing to do (I've done very little with CUPS). This betrays that he is, in fact, unfamiliar with the system.
Novice/expert is not a global setting. My argument was that a user interface is usually designed to be very nice for the person just learning the system or very nice for the person who knows the system intimitely. esr was just learning CUPS.
Just because I know vi (I do) does not mean I can do anything with emacs (I cannot).
For Aunt Tillie, heck for ESR himself, the same distinction is valid between CUPS printing and Windows printing. CUPS can connect to a shared printer, but windows is more FUNCTIONAL.
As someone who has setup a shared printer under both systems, both are bad. It's much the same argument that others have put up - design for the expert or design for the novice, but it's nigh-impossible to do both.
In Microsoft Windows, I can try to share the printer very easily, but if that fails for some reason, good luck in debugging what is going wrong. Debugging involves understanding the process well-enough to decompose it into pieces that could be broken, and performing divide-and-conquer or blind elimination to determine which piece is actually broken. Microsoft Windows is designed to hide those pieces, making debugging near impossible (my wife's computer just had this problem with a local printer). (As a side comment, I found MacOS9 much worse about this - it had almost no concept of debugging problems; I have not used MacOSX enough to comment about it)
For most operations under FreeBSD (and Linux), before you can do almost anything, you have to understand the pieces well enough to set it up. Thus, any operation requires learning something about how the system functions. If it then breaks, you have at least some idea of how it could break, so you can narrow the focus down fairly quickly. Having the code means that, in many cases, if the problem is a bug or the lack of a simple function, you can alter the code to overcome the problem (an e-mail program not supporting SMTP/POP servers running on alternative ports is an example of a recent problem I had to deal with).
Microsoft Windows debugging often entails reinstalling the entire operating system (even if you installed it last week). Under FreeBSD (and Linux), somehow the developers were able to design a system that has this "solution" only when you have undergone or are undergoing a major upgrade, and, even then, it's more a function of reinstallation being simpler than the alternative (e.g. FreeBSD 4.x -> 5.x).
Now, if only I can figure out how to stop Microsoft Windows XP (eXtra Painful, IMHO) from resetting my wife's mouse wheel configuration back to 1 line every time she reboot.
Maybe Mark should give Google's pigeons some of his sandwich next time he's in the park, instead of selfishly eating it all himself.
Google chooses pigeons who have larger wing span, since they peck faster, but they tend to be less accurate and moodier. However, if you bribe them with some bread, they'll treat you kindly.
because it's GPL'd, they are specifically opting out of the ability to profit from selling licenses.
The truth is much more complex than that. Under GPL, you are granting others permission to distribute package A under restrictions designed to force them to distribute package B than uses package A under a similar license. If you will, "I'll give this to the community, but, if you use it, you have give your stuff too".
However, this does not preclude you from distributing the same software under a different license, such as MySQL does. Doing so might cause you problems with dealing with contributions back from the community (since they may not want their code to be available under a commercial license), but that is your choice.
The BSD license is much more likely to cause what you are talking about. If I can distribute your software near-free, why would I buy a license from you?
Any system where a voter can prove their vote to a third party will not work. In such a system, votes could be gained either by money ("bring your voter receipt for G. W. Bush for 10% off your next fill-up") or coercion ("prove you voted for J. Kerry or the RIAA will file a lawsuit against you").
Oh, yeah. The "super-sized" compares well to "Diet Coke" if you want to do anything reasonable with it.
Someone set-up a Microsoft WinXP w/ IIS installation for a webserver on which I was going to publish some files. As soon as I published it, it got hammered by 100 users. Not a problem to the operating system, but its license manager was not so happy (five active users
So, I turned off the box and used my FreeBSD system running Apache. Not as pretty (no message board, etc), but I had limited time to install it, since this was a one-day event (sort-of). FreeBSD, of course, dealt with the load without a problem.
"Super-size"? Whatever. The "Diet Coke" worked flawlessly, while the "super-size" complained that I forgot to buy the entire store. Microsoft charges an insane amount of money for their crippleware.
Of course, I'm comparing Microsoft WinXP to FreeBSD, not Linux. Maybe Linux would have thrown-up a license complaint like Microsoft did.:)
Re:Top 10 Rules of Debugging
on
Debugging
·
· Score: 2, Funny
If it works the first time, there's a bug, but you won't find it until you roll it out.
There truly is nothing more scary than a program that works the first time. You know there's a bug, but you cannot find it. It's sitting there, silently laughing at your vane attempts to distrurb it from it's hiding place with your testing.
The bug plots against you, with an evil grin on it's face, biding its time until you finally decide that maybe, somehow, your code actually was correct the first time. Then, just as you stop holding your breath everytime you here about that code piece being executed, BAM! Three critical, blocking bugs are filed against that code.
As you open the code, the bug sits there like a blinking red light of impossibility. You clearly did something wrong. It cannot possible work, much less ever have worked. Somehow, all those tests that your program passed before fail miserably. You must rewrite the entire program from scratch because of your flawed logic in the design.
Fear, programmers of the world! Fear the lurking bug that has learned patience!
The GPL is a license for distribution. Assuming SCO was not distributing nor had distributed the code, then there would be no need for GPL to agree to the license in order to sell their own license. Thus, no infringement.
The problem is, of course, that SCO has distributed and continues to distributed the code in question. This is either a license violation (section 7 of the GPL) or a copyright violation, depending on whether or not they purport to be using the GPL as the basis for their distribution.
Section 5 of the GPL basically says the same thing. You are not required to accept the license, but "nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works".
Silence remains golden. That more you say, the less attention what you say receives. Humans have limited bandwidth, and conserve it for interesting things. If you program continually spits out verbage, no one will notice the important line in the middle of the verbage. If you program throws up dialog boxes like there's no tomorrow (Are you certain you want to print this document?), then people will start answering "yes" to all of them without reading them (Are you certain you want to reformat your hard drive?).
In the world of programming pipes, output must be dealt with, making this maxim even more true. If your program outputs "Foo" to standard error, than my program, which is looking at your standard error for items of concern, must know all the noise you output and ignore it properly. The less you make me do this, the better.
Occasionally, the extra output is helpful. This is why the -v option exists (occasionally, annoyingly, -d).
"If you cannot say anything nice, do not say anything at all" is actually totally backwards. "If you cannot say anything bad has happened, do not say anything at all".
The rule of exceptions states "for every rule, there is an exception". This maxim is not an exception to the rule of exceptions. There are cases where you want to output noise. One such example is telnet, where you need to distinguish between "connected" and "trying to connect", and both situations are common.
There is another point too, and I could be wrong here as I am not a lawyer, but:
The Constitution sets forth the framework for government of the USA. It is not a law which directly applies to individuals except insofar as it *restricts* Congress from taking action. Therefore I have a hard time swallowing the idea that an agreement between two people (i.e. the GPL) can ever be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Does the US constitution ever say that an individual can't do something? If so, I would like to know how...
(IANAL, which is likely to become painfully clear) Several of the admendments do not say they limit themselves to governments. One such example is Admendment IV (No Unreasonable Search and Seizure). Apparently, robbery is unconstitutional.
More seriously, I suspect the specific claim would have to be that Copyright Law allowing license A is unconstitutional. Since we cannot have unconstitutional laws, Copyright Law does not allow license A. Ergo, license A is invalid, due to constitutionality.
On a related sidebar, I find the wording of admendment 1 a bit odd: Admendment I states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". A literal reading would be that a state or locality could make such a law, as they are not Congress. States and localities have laws that abridge freedom of speech and assembly, but they are typically limited and sometimes overturned based on First Admendment arguments.
I am not attempting to argue that states and localities should be able to limit free speech. I agree the principles of the First Admendment should apply to state and local governments. It's just that the literal words do not seem to imply that the First Admendment could ever be used in a case alleging the unconstitutionality of a state or local law.
Perhaps not consecutively, but implied consecutively by conjunction in Amendment I.
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Right to privacy is not a phrase used, but it does talk about "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,..." in Amendment IV.
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendmend I, III, IV, V, IX, and XIV are generally considered together to grant "the right to privacy".
I agree with your conclusion, just not the basis for which you give for those conclusions.
To some extent, this is already a problem. There is a common benchmark for connectivity (I've forgotten its name, for which I apologize). The benchmark is performend by looking at performance to a set of known locations (for the most part, peering point, by my recollection). Companies wanting good numbers connect to those peering points directly.
The problem you allude to is believed to be responsible for the power-law behavior of the Internet. If you look at the distribution of degrees, there are more highly-connected nodes than there should be if the graph was random. The distribution can be explained if people are more likely to connect to nodes that have high degree already.
On the other hand, these maps are not the cause for either of the behaviors above. These maps generally only show IP-level connectivity, ignoring link-layer tunneling, which can be very important. In addition, you have to additionally consider latency, loss rates, and bandwidth at least to some extent. Pure hop-count is what these maps show, and that is only a decent prediction of performance, not a great one (like clock rates for processor performance, if that helps at all).
There are other factors that go into location selection. One such factor is which machines will you talk with. You do not care much about your connectivity to hosts in Norway if you are running a US-only business. Another example factor is price. Few people are willing to pay for a T1 across North America to improve your speed by 10%. While you could put your computers in a co-lo instead, that only helps for servers and incurs yet more costs.
The maps are nice representations, but, generally, more analysis is necessary before useful data can be extracted from them, including computing the best location to connect to the network.
All that said, yes, most people connect to highly-connected nodes. They just generally estimate those nodes, rather than doing direct measurements.
Since I linked to his site, I should mention that Martin Dodge has gathered a nice collection of maps of the Internet on his CyberGeography site, including many historical maps. CyberGeography also includes many other interesting types of maps.
As a side comment, now I understand why my connection got so slow.
[Internet Mapping Project's] mapping also takes nearly six months to generate a single map. My comment was that, "I can write a program that can map the entire net in a single day."
The Internet Mapping Project maps the Internet in under two hours (105 minutes for this morning's run). I'm not certain where the six months came from. The rate limitation is the packet rate limit we set (500 packet per second).
Map layout time is not included in that time, but that is not done on a daily basis. A map layout take about six hours, as I recall. It only took a couple weeks to produce all the layouts necessary for a movie of the Internet from Aug 1998 to Jan 2001 based on the daily runs.
CAIDA also creates daily maps of the Internet as part of their Skitter project. Their schedule varies between measurement points. In addition, other projects, such as the Mercator project and the RocketFuel projects, also map or did map the Internet.
Each project has slightly different goals. Skitter focuses on paths to major web and DNS servers. Mercator attempted to discover networks with limited pre-knowledge. RocketFuel wants a very accurate map of a particular ISP. The Internet Mapping Project is focused on the router connectivity within and between public backbones.
God forbid that the folks making 90k+ a year are already paying 65% of the current tax load should have to pay -MORE- of the tax load (and those making 55k+ are paying almost 83%).
Ignoring the fact that you fail to cite those numbers (since they appear accurate), it's a meaningless figure. What percentage of the total money made are made by the people? A more accurate figure is the percentage of income that is paid as taxes by this group.
Tax Foundation has a table with just such data (cited as from the IRS for 2001). Their numbers match yours (65% paid by the top 10% (92k+)). However, the top 10% also makes 43% of the total money. At 21.4%, they do have higher tax rates than the average (14.2%). However, this takes into account only federal income tax, not other federal taxes, such as payroll and estate taxes, and not any state or local taxes.
And that would be good for you, bad for the store. They want you to wander.
Agreed, but the joy of competition is stores do not always get what they want. If store A has time-saving carts that provide navigation guide, and store B has time-snarfing carts that provide annoying ads, I'm probably going to store A. Store B will improve their carts quickly enough, or go under, either because of lack of business or from the cost of continually fixing their annoying carts.
By that argument, when I buy Dell's hardware, MS Windows comes free.
We can quantize the cost of MS Windows because it is made by a third party. OSX, on the other hand, cannot be so easily quantized, because the hardware and software vendors are the same. This does not mean it's "free".
Search on http://www.intuit.com for "apology letter" turns up nothing about Turbo Tax.
Search on http://turbotaxsupport.com for "apology" turns up nothing about Turbo Tax (uses same search engine, so not a big surprise.
You can find a link to a FAQ entry that is a mere two clicks away from universal keys, although no patch to remove the copy inhibitions. It does not sound paticularly penitent to me:
In response to customer feedback, we have removed the technology from TurboTax 2003 products. In addition, Intuit is changing its policy and updating the TurboTax software license agreement, enabling customers to use TurboTax software to install, prepare, file and print multiple returns for themselves and their family from multiple computers.
Can I install TurboTax for 2003 on multiple computers?
Yes. TurboTax for tax year 2003 can be used on multiple computers to prepare, print and file multiple returns for you and your family.
I still need to install my tax year 2002 product on multiple computers.
We've made it possible for customers to install and use their current 2002 version of TurboTax software on multiple computers. The anti-piracy technology is still included in the current software but the restrictions are not being enforced.
Too bad I don't speak arabic it would have been interesting to hear what al zereera was saying. Of course they were not allowed to broadcast in english in the US. Shows you how much we value free speech huh?
An interesting statement. Can you back it up? I presume you're talking about Al-Jazeera, as Google has zero matchis for "zereera".
Slashdot Mirror
"We're not going after IronPort because of their blocking. We're going after IronPort for the harassment," [OIRB's Scott Richter] said. "We're going to go after many antispam groups."
I think they are going after because of their blocking, but their suit does not complain about the blocking. They are going after anonymous e-mail complaints and sending e-mail to the ISP. Your argument does not address the issue at hand.
However, 1TB >> 120G that is standard now, and 120GB is effectively infinite for most people. When disks were ~40MB, every time I got a bigger drive, it became filled in about 2 months. It now takes me longer than three years, which is about my upgrade cycle, so it is "infinite". 1TB would represent the largest growth factor from current standard systems.
Such a system would allow clocks that run faster on larger chips than allowed by speed-of-light calculations.
The more CPU you have, the lazier the developers are in optimizing and the more the product managers want to add featuers. This is to be expected: why spend time optimizing an operation that takes 10msec that is only performed when a user presses a button? You could add a whistle intsead with that time.
As someone who has recently purchased a laptop after much searching, the trend appears to be towards portable desktops. People want laptops to use. Thus, they want to be able to do things like play FPS games on them. FPS games require high-end hardware. Some stores have gone to distinguishing "laptops" from "notebooks" to distinguish a 17" WXGA 9.3lb behemoths from a 12" 4.3lb laptop.
HP's "ultimate mobility" laptop weighs 6.5lb. To me, that is medium mobility. For "ultimate mobility", I want something under 5 pounds, such as Apple's Powerbook at 4.6 pounds or an Averetec 3150 at 4.3 pounds.
The hardware vendors seem to think that most people want power, not good mobility (more precisely, they think they can make more money there). If people do want power, than I suspect that notebooks will continue to push closer to desktops in terms of CPU speed.
Efficiency will not truly be viewed as a problem until Moore's law degrades to doubling every 4-5 years. Only then will software developers slow down on adding features and focus on optimality.
Novice/expert is not a global setting. My argument was that a user interface is usually designed to be very nice for the person just learning the system or very nice for the person who knows the system intimitely. esr was just learning CUPS.
Just because I know vi (I do) does not mean I can do anything with emacs (I cannot).
As someone who has setup a shared printer under both systems, both are bad. It's much the same argument that others have put up - design for the expert or design for the novice, but it's nigh-impossible to do both.
In Microsoft Windows, I can try to share the printer very easily, but if that fails for some reason, good luck in debugging what is going wrong. Debugging involves understanding the process well-enough to decompose it into pieces that could be broken, and performing divide-and-conquer or blind elimination to determine which piece is actually broken. Microsoft Windows is designed to hide those pieces, making debugging near impossible (my wife's computer just had this problem with a local printer). (As a side comment, I found MacOS9 much worse about this - it had almost no concept of debugging problems; I have not used MacOSX enough to comment about it)
For most operations under FreeBSD (and Linux), before you can do almost anything, you have to understand the pieces well enough to set it up. Thus, any operation requires learning something about how the system functions. If it then breaks, you have at least some idea of how it could break, so you can narrow the focus down fairly quickly. Having the code means that, in many cases, if the problem is a bug or the lack of a simple function, you can alter the code to overcome the problem (an e-mail program not supporting SMTP/POP servers running on alternative ports is an example of a recent problem I had to deal with).
Microsoft Windows debugging often entails reinstalling the entire operating system (even if you installed it last week). Under FreeBSD (and Linux), somehow the developers were able to design a system that has this "solution" only when you have undergone or are undergoing a major upgrade, and, even then, it's more a function of reinstallation being simpler than the alternative (e.g. FreeBSD 4.x -> 5.x).
Now, if only I can figure out how to stop Microsoft Windows XP (eXtra Painful, IMHO) from resetting my wife's mouse wheel configuration back to 1 line every time she reboot.
Google chooses pigeons who have larger wing span, since they peck faster, but they tend to be less accurate and moodier. However, if you bribe them with some bread, they'll treat you kindly.
The truth is much more complex than that. Under GPL, you are granting others permission to distribute package A under restrictions designed to force them to distribute package B than uses package A under a similar license. If you will, "I'll give this to the community, but, if you use it, you have give your stuff too".
However, this does not preclude you from distributing the same software under a different license, such as MySQL does. Doing so might cause you problems with dealing with contributions back from the community (since they may not want their code to be available under a commercial license), but that is your choice.
The BSD license is much more likely to cause what you are talking about. If I can distribute your software near-free, why would I buy a license from you?
Any system where a voter can prove their vote to a third party will not work. In such a system, votes could be gained either by money ("bring your voter receipt for G. W. Bush for 10% off your next fill-up") or coercion ("prove you voted for J. Kerry or the RIAA will file a lawsuit against you").
Someone set-up a Microsoft WinXP w/ IIS installation for a webserver on which I was going to publish some files. As soon as I published it, it got hammered by 100 users. Not a problem to the operating system, but its license manager was not so happy (five active users So, I turned off the box and used my FreeBSD system running Apache. Not as pretty (no message board, etc), but I had limited time to install it, since this was a one-day event (sort-of). FreeBSD, of course, dealt with the load without a problem.
"Super-size"? Whatever. The "Diet Coke" worked flawlessly, while the "super-size" complained that I forgot to buy the entire store. Microsoft charges an insane amount of money for their crippleware.
Of course, I'm comparing Microsoft WinXP to FreeBSD, not Linux. Maybe Linux would have thrown-up a license complaint like Microsoft did. :)
There truly is nothing more scary than a program that works the first time. You know there's a bug, but you cannot find it. It's sitting there, silently laughing at your vane attempts to distrurb it from it's hiding place with your testing.
The bug plots against you, with an evil grin on it's face, biding its time until you finally decide that maybe, somehow, your code actually was correct the first time. Then, just as you stop holding your breath everytime you here about that code piece being executed, BAM! Three critical, blocking bugs are filed against that code.
As you open the code, the bug sits there like a blinking red light of impossibility. You clearly did something wrong. It cannot possible work, much less ever have worked. Somehow, all those tests that your program passed before fail miserably. You must rewrite the entire program from scratch because of your flawed logic in the design.
Fear, programmers of the world! Fear the lurking bug that has learned patience!
The GPL is a license for distribution. Assuming SCO was not distributing nor had distributed the code, then there would be no need for GPL to agree to the license in order to sell their own license. Thus, no infringement.
The problem is, of course, that SCO has distributed and continues to distributed the code in question. This is either a license violation (section 7 of the GPL) or a copyright violation, depending on whether or not they purport to be using the GPL as the basis for their distribution.
Section 5 of the GPL basically says the same thing. You are not required to accept the license, but "nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works".
Silence remains golden. That more you say, the less attention what you say receives. Humans have limited bandwidth, and conserve it for interesting things. If you program continually spits out verbage, no one will notice the important line in the middle of the verbage. If you program throws up dialog boxes like there's no tomorrow (Are you certain you want to print this document?), then people will start answering "yes" to all of them without reading them (Are you certain you want to reformat your hard drive?).
In the world of programming pipes, output must be dealt with, making this maxim even more true. If your program outputs "Foo" to standard error, than my program, which is looking at your standard error for items of concern, must know all the noise you output and ignore it properly. The less you make me do this, the better.
Occasionally, the extra output is helpful. This is why the -v option exists (occasionally, annoyingly, -d).
"If you cannot say anything nice, do not say anything at all" is actually totally backwards. "If you cannot say anything bad has happened, do not say anything at all".
The rule of exceptions states "for every rule, there is an exception". This maxim is not an exception to the rule of exceptions. There are cases where you want to output noise. One such example is telnet, where you need to distinguish between "connected" and "trying to connect", and both situations are common.
(IANAL, which is likely to become painfully clear) Several of the admendments do not say they limit themselves to governments. One such example is Admendment IV (No Unreasonable Search and Seizure). Apparently, robbery is unconstitutional.
More seriously, I suspect the specific claim would have to be that Copyright Law allowing license A is unconstitutional. Since we cannot have unconstitutional laws, Copyright Law does not allow license A. Ergo, license A is invalid, due to constitutionality. On a related sidebar, I find the wording of admendment 1 a bit odd: Admendment I states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". A literal reading would be that a state or locality could make such a law, as they are not Congress. States and localities have laws that abridge freedom of speech and assembly, but they are typically limited and sometimes overturned based on First Admendment arguments.
I am not attempting to argue that states and localities should be able to limit free speech. I agree the principles of the First Admendment should apply to state and local governments. It's just that the literal words do not seem to imply that the First Admendment could ever be used in a case alleging the unconstitutionality of a state or local law.
Perhaps not consecutively, but implied consecutively by conjunction in Amendment I.
Right to privacy is not a phrase used, but it does talk about "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,..." in Amendment IV. Amendmend I, III, IV, V, IX, and XIV are generally considered together to grant "the right to privacy".I agree with your conclusion, just not the basis for which you give for those conclusions.
The problem you allude to is believed to be responsible for the power-law behavior of the Internet. If you look at the distribution of degrees, there are more highly-connected nodes than there should be if the graph was random. The distribution can be explained if people are more likely to connect to nodes that have high degree already.
On the other hand, these maps are not the cause for either of the behaviors above. These maps generally only show IP-level connectivity, ignoring link-layer tunneling, which can be very important. In addition, you have to additionally consider latency, loss rates, and bandwidth at least to some extent. Pure hop-count is what these maps show, and that is only a decent prediction of performance, not a great one (like clock rates for processor performance, if that helps at all).
There are other factors that go into location selection. One such factor is which machines will you talk with. You do not care much about your connectivity to hosts in Norway if you are running a US-only business. Another example factor is price. Few people are willing to pay for a T1 across North America to improve your speed by 10%. While you could put your computers in a co-lo instead, that only helps for servers and incurs yet more costs.
The maps are nice representations, but, generally, more analysis is necessary before useful data can be extracted from them, including computing the best location to connect to the network.
All that said, yes, most people connect to highly-connected nodes. They just generally estimate those nodes, rather than doing direct measurements.
Since I linked to his site, I should mention that Martin Dodge has gathered a nice collection of maps of the Internet on his CyberGeography site, including many historical maps. CyberGeography also includes many other interesting types of maps.
As a side comment, now I understand why my connection got so slow.
[Internet Mapping Project's] mapping also takes nearly six months to generate a single map. My comment was that, "I can write a program that can map the entire net in a single day."
The Internet Mapping Project maps the Internet in under two hours (105 minutes for this morning's run). I'm not certain where the six months came from. The rate limitation is the packet rate limit we set (500 packet per second).
Map layout time is not included in that time, but that is not done on a daily basis. A map layout take about six hours, as I recall. It only took a couple weeks to produce all the layouts necessary for a movie of the Internet from Aug 1998 to Jan 2001 based on the daily runs.
CAIDA also creates daily maps of the Internet as part of their Skitter project. Their schedule varies between measurement points. In addition, other projects, such as the Mercator project and the RocketFuel projects, also map or did map the Internet.
Each project has slightly different goals. Skitter focuses on paths to major web and DNS servers. Mercator attempted to discover networks with limited pre-knowledge. RocketFuel wants a very accurate map of a particular ISP. The Internet Mapping Project is focused on the router connectivity within and between public backbones.
God forbid that the folks making 90k+ a year are already paying 65% of the current tax load should have to pay -MORE- of the tax load (and those making 55k+ are paying almost 83%).
Ignoring the fact that you fail to cite those numbers (since they appear accurate), it's a meaningless figure. What percentage of the total money made are made by the people? A more accurate figure is the percentage of income that is paid as taxes by this group.
Tax Foundation has a table with just such data (cited as from the IRS for 2001). Their numbers match yours (65% paid by the top 10% (92k+)). However, the top 10% also makes 43% of the total money. At 21.4%, they do have higher tax rates than the average (14.2%). However, this takes into account only federal income tax, not other federal taxes, such as payroll and estate taxes, and not any state or local taxes.
And that would be good for you, bad for the store. They want you to wander.
Agreed, but the joy of competition is stores do not always get what they want. If store A has time-saving carts that provide navigation guide, and store B has time-snarfing carts that provide annoying ads, I'm probably going to store A. Store B will improve their carts quickly enough, or go under, either because of lack of business or from the cost of continually fixing their annoying carts.
By that argument, when I buy Dell's hardware, MS Windows comes free.
We can quantize the cost of MS Windows because it is made by a third party. OSX, on the other hand, cannot be so easily quantized, because the hardware and software vendors are the same. This does not mean it's "free".
swaret --upgrade Sarcasm
Wrong story for that command. Try:
portupgrade -rR Sarcasm
Search on http://turbotaxsupport.com for "apology" turns up nothing about Turbo Tax (uses same search engine, so not a big surprise.
You can find a link to a FAQ entry that is a mere two clicks away from universal keys, although no patch to remove the copy inhibitions. It does not sound paticularly penitent to me:
As a bonus, you get free research on the feasibility of the copy inhibition.
Too bad I don't speak arabic it would have been interesting to hear what al zereera was saying. Of course they were not allowed to broadcast in english in the US. Shows you how much we value free speech huh?
An interesting statement. Can you back it up? I presume you're talking about Al-Jazeera, as Google has zero matchis for "zereera".