I press a button on my keyboard when I leave and my PC goes into standby in 2~3 seconds. I press the button again and 2~3 seconds later it's exactly as I left it. I've personally saved over $100 this year alone by telling my system to stop doing all the things it's doing. On the down side I did have to stop watching movies on my PC to avoid having to close the software in order to stand-by. But I've got a bigger TV now so it's not a big problem.
I'm not surprised that manufacturers aren't for net neutrality when net neutrality would keep service providers from having to buy as much hardware when they have to make updates to their existing hardware every time a new protocol comes out that the current hardware can no longer effectively/efficently process. Net Neutrality keeps costs down for ISP's by allowing them to invest in bandwidth instead of toll-booths and it allows them to avoid legal battles over not filtering out illegal content. I really don't think telcos have thought this one through and are really only hoping to kill their cableco competition. I personally like competition, it gives me options and provides an incentive for things to keep getting better, something the telcos have lost track of with thier charging exorbant prices for the simplest of phone services. Don't belive me, go check out the free O'Riely book on Asterisk.
I don't like that Blockbuster participates in corporate censorship of films, but I also think Netflix shouldn't be so damned greedy in its patenting practices. I'd cancel my Netflix account over this but then they might have just gotten the patent so that they could sue Blockbuster. Anything to kill Blockbuster is ok with me but there's a legitimate line to draw somewhere. Hrmm... burn in Hell Blockbuster, you un-American bunch of fascists.
Reminds me of my language translators class. In writing my translator I saved myself a bunch of gorilla work by using Macros in order to avoid having to manually type many common sets of machine code instructions to translate to.
Of course you could do things with a stack and think you're flying fast shit but then you're really just flying slow shit. You should give a processor with a proper matrix instruction set a try some time and you'll see that there's far superior methods to handling, maintaining, and engineering problem solutions than just using a simple stack. Too bad the prices on real matrix operating processors haven't gotten to be affordable yet, perhaps then people would become a lot more programming literate.
I've seen more sell out articles in these past few days... It's like a bunch of marketing and lobying whores managed to socialy hack the articles that get/.'ed in order to promote their craptastic ideas and push their whacked out spin. I've seen drug pushers levy less effort and better products! Please, somebody, buy a gun and go on a good spree through publishing firms throughout the country. Start with the one's that haven't a pair of solid balls but rather a pair of spread opened legs and work your way up until there's a sensible degree of levity and common sense in our articles again. Bunch of friggin cheap 4$$ WHORES!!!
Ok, add supported OS idea just set me off. I'm sure it was really just a prank.
First of all P3titPrince, I think you should go read the current legislation as well as the proposed new legislation and the proposed amendments. Net Neutrality is the status quo.
What is happening is the backbone providers are big, and nationally funded, enough that they can invest in research that allows them to make things run smoother. Upon discovering that they can make things such as VOIP, SIP, RTP and the other high bandwidth protocols run smoother by discriminating against protocols that don't need as much guaranteed bandwidth the marketing end of these companies put their two cents in and said why limmit the discrimination to the type of protocol when we can make more money by discriminating against who the company is and what type of service plan they have. Now under the proposed new legislation the protocol type is the good part, with an exception that I'll explain in a bit, but when amendments are submitted to make sure that the buck stops there and that companies/organizations are not the objects of discrimination.... well for some reason the lobbiests are fighting like hell against those amendments.
I'm no politician, so I don't know the inner workings of what goes on in politics, but it has been my experience in life that people don't fight like hell for the right to do something unless they're bloody well going to do it once they have the right!
With that point made let's get to the problem of long term costs:
Backbones are currently using a lot of dumb networks (again, the status quo). Dumb networks don't care what type of packet it is. They don't care who the packet came from. All they care about is where the packet's going and how to get it there. The hardware for this has been developed to be tightly coupled with the logical software mechanisms over the past decades to the point where it doesn't need to do as much software level work in order for the networking equipment to work and thus we have create highly efficient networking equipment that makes sure things move as optimally as our nice little routing routines can process them.
The newer technology is moving away from that and is making decisions based on the type of packet as well as well as potentially, who it came from. This is good stuff when it comes to being able to address more needy protocols as well as redirecting attacks to the eternal bit bucket in the sky.
The down side to the new technology is that it looses a bit of flexibility when it comes to being able to tightly couple the hardware to the routing routines. Since we have decisions being made on packet types and where they came from we're going to want to have optimal hardware for storing this information. But as the number of packet types grows in order to allow for more efficient transmissions, as well as to avoid being discriminated against, we will then have to replace the routing hardware in order accomodate this growth and change. So instead of investing money into laying down extra (can't resist the toung and cheek analogy) pipes for things to travel through we will find that we have our investments being spent on replacing the devices that are used to regulate what goes through those pipes.
So in the long run, we're simply pouring our money down a bottomless pit if we move away from the real status quo. No thanks! I'll pass! Stop spending money on your toll booths and just build me an extra lane of traffic to use. I'll be happy to send you an extra check if it'll ensure you make a wiser, less greedy as sin, investment with the money I've already given you.
You also have to keep track of what type of encryption mechanism you're using. Some packets are bigger than others, some packets fit under the payload of a specific encryption protocol, others, in order to guarantee quick compression->delivery->decompression have to stay at a relatively fixed size for the end-to-end software to work optimally. From there you can usually tell what type of packet it is whether its encypted or not. Do you really think they're going to keep things to the first two layers of the stack in order to implement this?
In short, encryption only encrypts the contents, not the type of the contents. Of course there are exceptions to this statement that depend on the type of encryption you're implementing.
I'd recommend a little civil disobedience, on behalf of the Canadian based Desire2Learn, in the event that the US judicial branch decided to take the Patent Office's lead. Being outside of the US boundaries can be an advantage here. Let them threaten and litigate all they want. Let the judicial system make its blunder, but if the system is broken then draw some more attention to its faults by being disobedient; simply don't pay any fines or extortionary fees.
Slashdot Mirror
I press a button on my keyboard when I leave and my PC goes into standby in 2~3 seconds. I press the button again and 2~3 seconds later it's exactly as I left it. I've personally saved over $100 this year alone by telling my system to stop doing all the things it's doing. On the down side I did have to stop watching movies on my PC to avoid having to close the software in order to stand-by. But I've got a bigger TV now so it's not a big problem.
I'm not surprised that manufacturers aren't for net neutrality when net neutrality would keep service providers from having to buy as much hardware when they have to make updates to their existing hardware every time a new protocol comes out that the current hardware can no longer effectively/efficently process. Net Neutrality keeps costs down for ISP's by allowing them to invest in bandwidth instead of toll-booths and it allows them to avoid legal battles over not filtering out illegal content. I really don't think telcos have thought this one through and are really only hoping to kill their cableco competition. I personally like competition, it gives me options and provides an incentive for things to keep getting better, something the telcos have lost track of with thier charging exorbant prices for the simplest of phone services. Don't belive me, go check out the free O'Riely book on Asterisk.
I don't like that Blockbuster participates in corporate censorship of films, but I also think Netflix shouldn't be so damned greedy in its patenting practices. I'd cancel my Netflix account over this but then they might have just gotten the patent so that they could sue Blockbuster. Anything to kill Blockbuster is ok with me but there's a legitimate line to draw somewhere. Hrmm... burn in Hell Blockbuster, you un-American bunch of fascists.
Reminds me of my language translators class. In writing my translator I saved myself a bunch of gorilla work by using Macros in order to avoid having to manually type many common sets of machine code instructions to translate to. Of course you could do things with a stack and think you're flying fast shit but then you're really just flying slow shit. You should give a processor with a proper matrix instruction set a try some time and you'll see that there's far superior methods to handling, maintaining, and engineering problem solutions than just using a simple stack. Too bad the prices on real matrix operating processors haven't gotten to be affordable yet, perhaps then people would become a lot more programming literate.
I've seen more sell out articles in these past few days... It's like a bunch of marketing and lobying whores managed to socialy hack the articles that get /.'ed in order to promote their craptastic ideas and push their whacked out spin. I've seen drug pushers levy less effort and better products! Please, somebody, buy a gun and go on a good spree through publishing firms throughout the country. Start with the one's that haven't a pair of solid balls but rather a pair of spread opened legs and work your way up until there's a sensible degree of levity and common sense in our articles again. Bunch of friggin cheap 4$$ WHORES!!!
Ok, add supported OS idea just set me off. I'm sure it was really just a prank.
First of all P3titPrince, I think you should go read the current legislation as well as the proposed new legislation and the proposed amendments. Net Neutrality is the status quo.
What is happening is the backbone providers are big, and nationally funded, enough that they can invest in research that allows them to make things run smoother. Upon discovering that they can make things such as VOIP, SIP, RTP and the other high bandwidth protocols run smoother by discriminating against protocols that don't need as much guaranteed bandwidth the marketing end of these companies put their two cents in and said why limmit the discrimination to the type of protocol when we can make more money by discriminating against who the company is and what type of service plan they have. Now under the proposed new legislation the protocol type is the good part, with an exception that I'll explain in a bit, but when amendments are submitted to make sure that the buck stops there and that companies/organizations are not the objects of discrimination.... well for some reason the lobbiests are fighting like hell against those amendments.
I'm no politician, so I don't know the inner workings of what goes on in politics, but it has been my experience in life that people don't fight like hell for the right to do something unless they're bloody well going to do it once they have the right!
With that point made let's get to the problem of long term costs:
Backbones are currently using a lot of dumb networks (again, the status quo). Dumb networks don't care what type of packet it is. They don't care who the packet came from. All they care about is where the packet's going and how to get it there. The hardware for this has been developed to be tightly coupled with the logical software mechanisms over the past decades to the point where it doesn't need to do as much software level work in order for the networking equipment to work and thus we have create highly efficient networking equipment that makes sure things move as optimally as our nice little routing routines can process them.
The newer technology is moving away from that and is making decisions based on the type of packet as well as well as potentially, who it came from. This is good stuff when it comes to being able to address more needy protocols as well as redirecting attacks to the eternal bit bucket in the sky.
The down side to the new technology is that it looses a bit of flexibility when it comes to being able to tightly couple the hardware to the routing routines. Since we have decisions being made on packet types and where they came from we're going to want to have optimal hardware for storing this information. But as the number of packet types grows in order to allow for more efficient transmissions, as well as to avoid being discriminated against, we will then have to replace the routing hardware in order accomodate this growth and change. So instead of investing money into laying down extra (can't resist the toung and cheek analogy) pipes for things to travel through we will find that we have our investments being spent on replacing the devices that are used to regulate what goes through those pipes.
So in the long run, we're simply pouring our money down a bottomless pit if we move away from the real status quo. No thanks! I'll pass! Stop spending money on your toll booths and just build me an extra lane of traffic to use. I'll be happy to send you an extra check if it'll ensure you make a wiser, less greedy as sin, investment with the money I've already given you.
You also have to keep track of what type of encryption mechanism you're using. Some packets are bigger than others, some packets fit under the payload of a specific encryption protocol, others, in order to guarantee quick compression->delivery->decompression have to stay at a relatively fixed size for the end-to-end software to work optimally. From there you can usually tell what type of packet it is whether its encypted or not. Do you really think they're going to keep things to the first two layers of the stack in order to implement this? In short, encryption only encrypts the contents, not the type of the contents. Of course there are exceptions to this statement that depend on the type of encryption you're implementing.
I'd recommend a little civil disobedience, on behalf of the Canadian based Desire2Learn, in the event that the US judicial branch decided to take the Patent Office's lead. Being outside of the US boundaries can be an advantage here. Let them threaten and litigate all they want. Let the judicial system make its blunder, but if the system is broken then draw some more attention to its faults by being disobedient; simply don't pay any fines or extortionary fees.