Obviously circumventing the system would result in severe punishment by the regulatory agencies.

None. If a site absolutely must be blocked, then blackhole its IP addresses and fail resolution on the ISP's DNS servers. Middleboxes that inspect layer 4 and above are never OK, and never part of a trustworthy ISP network unless explicitly requested by the end-user.

If this kind of bandwidth is necessary for the operation of the institution, then it doesn't really matter what the hardware upgrade costs are, because they're the costs of doing business. You can't operate without paying them. That being said, if you need 1Gbps/1,000 users by 2015, and it's purely for academical purposes, then you're likely dealing with a bunch of streaming video and audio, or large applications. That kind of traffic doesn't need content filtering, and any router you'd sensibly put in front of servers hosting that kind of content will be able to handle the traffic at trivial cost. Firewalling also shouldn't be a large cost-issue in an environment with relatively few, long-lived flows, even at those speeds.

Do they have any idea what the price is for that kind of Internet connection?

In a larger metro area? Initial infrastructure costs would probably be in the tens of thousands, but network infrastructure isn't really an optional expense for larger educational institutions these days. Going with the 1Gbps per 1,000 users, about $10k USD for two devices to handle routing for a handful of 1Gbps uplinks with the necessary failover, roughly $1,000 per 1Gbps commitment, and about another $1k yearly for support contracts. At an institution with 10,000 students, that's $120k/year for the transport, plus $1k/year for support. Or about $6 per student per semester. Not exactly prohibitively expensive considering the "technology fees" charged these days, much less so considering the general cost of tuition.

At those prices, fuck caching.

Is that really the only plausible explanation that you can come up with?

Next up is a set of pinball schematics drawn by an arrogant teenager who refused to take showers. Yours for only two million dollars!

Contracting for a large U.S. manufacturing corporation, the emphasis put on "diversity" is sickening, and reminds me that it's somehow still necessary to point out that people are different, even when gender, race and background aren't reflected in any way in the work performed. It's modern, corporate feel-good idiocy that does nothing but foster division where none exists.

"..mission-critical fields such as aerospace or military."

What? A mission-critical *field*? Critical to which mission?

Actually, never mind. Being able to throw "supercomputer" and "cloud" in the same sentence is definitely worthy of a full article at CIO Update. How are junk submissions like these accepted?

That's what's really amusing about this article. It talks about supposedly irrelevant Google search results, but how does "natural language search," whatever that's supposed to be, challenge Google in a way that Google couldn't easily adapt to? Search algorithms aren't magically better because you vocalise your search terms, and phrased searching certainly isn't a concept unfamiliar to Google.

I was around long before they started handing out 7-digit UIDs. It isn't arrogance; it's an accurate observation.

Everything you do deals with a bus somewhere. They're still hugely relevant, particularly in very dense, very fast electronics.

Slashdot in 2012 is largely technical support people and Windows administrators who hold their MCSAs more dear than their first born. This is how it has to be explained.

Lol, I never said it did. I said the movie + cut list equals a derivative work.

Why are you contradicting yourself? If a cut list isn't a derivative work by itself, then nor is it a derivative work in combination with a movie. Like I just told you in the previous post, a work has to contain significant elements of another work to be considered derivative. Running it atop another work does not magically make it derivative, and since we've already established that a cut list does not alter the content of the media, but merely establishes which parts the user does not wish to see, it is not a derivative work from a copyright law perspective. Not even Hollywood lawyers would go to court to argue that it is.

I never used the word interaction nor did I imply it through the use of a related other term. I used the words "rote" and "creative" which are orthogonal to the concept of human interaction.

You need to read your own posts. You said specifically that

The cut-list is a creative work in and of itself as it requires a human to make a determination as to what does and what does not qualify for censorship.

, suggesting that any human interaction makes a work creative according to copyright law definitions. I can tell that you're probably using Wikipedia as your main source for this material, because you're citing the "creative" and "rote" differentiation that determines whether or not the author of a derivative work can claim copyright on their derived work. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. In any way.

You've gone from arguing against yourself to arguing against ghosts. I don't think many rational people will find either approach persuasive.

Rather, I've been arguing against the points you've raised under the misconception that you understand what it is that you're talking about. I think most rational people who understand the subject matter will recognise this.