Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
I understand the words in your sentence, but could you clarify why it would be harder to oversell? They ought to be encouraging people to download more, and have the infrastructure to enable profit.
Because the amount of data to download is really huge and we always seem to find new ways to use more. Think about hard disks, every time we get a new, bigger one, we think is enough but after a few months its full.
Now they have a limited amount of bandwidth, if you sum up the bandwidth they sell to all their customers you get more bandwidth than what they have because they oversell. With data there is no limited supply. The limit is in the speed
Now we pay for something we don't use, we pay for a connection 24/7 with some speed but we only use it a few hours a day. With data we would be using up to the last byte.
As a side effect the heavy bloated sites would cost more to visit. So there will be an incentive for the web developers / designers to reduce the size of their sites.
If the pricing is reasonable it wouldn't be so bad. But as we already know the pricing won't be reasonable so...
Another nice side effect is that it also would be much harder for ISP to oversell because you can always find something else to download to use your paid for bytes.
No. The capacity of the network at any given time is finite. You are using a fraction of that available bandwith for some period of time.
Bandwidth x Time = Bytes Transferred.
And that's why you pay for bandwidth, you pay for a slice of the network capacity to use as you wish. You pay for the resource that is limited, bandwidth, not the unlimited one, data.
The problem is when you want some reduced group of people to read it, not the whole world. And more so when you want some people to read it but are not sure if you want it to remain readable for a long time.
Today we have a lot of ways to communicate something to a group of people, one of them are online social networks. They have flaws as everything else, but they are useful to a lot of people
I'd imagine it has more to do with those damn required "Security Questions", many of which use publicly available information. Even the services which allow you to specify the question and answer are probably no match for a cracker working in conjunction with an Ex.
Please, is not so hard to just type some garbage there, long, alpha-numeric garbage.
It is clearly less free than the GPL just as the GPL is less free than BSD.
Whether it is free enough to count as free is a matter of opinion.
Less free to whom? to the end user is just the same as they don't intend to redistribute the software. To some user who wants to distribute the code, it's less free. To the original developer no, it gives him the freedom to choose how his code is being distributed.
Of course, everyone fails to mention that Japan has the lowest rape rate per capita in the world. Perhaps it has something to do with the availability of such materials to quench the urge of would be rapists?
I thought the same thing, too. At first. Then I looked a little deeper: Far more likely is endemic bias in the system, both in reporting and in prosecuting cases:
In any case, if is just about equal than the rest of the world then we can say they have more freedom without any evident cost; shound't that be considered good?
On the other hand, why is it ok to depict a crime (murder in most FPS) in some cases and not in this one? I'm against any type of abuse, even more so when it is against young children, but I believe this is something worth thinking about. I'm not saying we should ban all games that allow the players to commit fake crimes; I'd like to know why as a society we accept murder without a problem but we just can't accept anything sex related.
What is believed to be the world's first robot that comes to take away rubbish from your house when you want it to has been unveiled in Italy.
The Dustbot can be summoned to your address through a mobile phone any time of the day.
The robot works with a combination of GPS navigation and with a gyroscope to keep it upright. There are also a number of sensors on the machine so it does not bump into anything.
There's also a video of the bot doing it's job."
Link to Original Source
So, a person 5 years old is not the same as a person 30 years old and is not the same as a person 90 years old. The things that can harm them are as different as the things they can take without any danger.
You can argue all day about the exact number of years to put the line but you just can't say there is no difference.
I run an unpatched machine with an obscure system that some friend of mine wrote. Probably anything but secure, knowing his code, but oddly, no spyware, no malware, no nothing. Why? Because it's no market either.
When you have a hundred systems all having an equal market share, any given threat can only infect 1% of the existing machines (provided they are not binary compatible). That is economically uninteresting for the malware businesses.
It is also uninteresting for software developers so you have a system without malware and almost useless because you just don't have any software to run on it. Also you can't comunicate with other peoples systems because yours is incompatible and different. Unfortunately the malware is the price we have to pay for having access to such a big network. If we had hundred different incompatible systems it would be a nightmare to write any software that runs on all of them (be it good or bad software). With some sort of common standard is easy (for certain values of easy) to develop software that can run everywhere, good software and evil software.
Half the world writes it 4/1 the other half 1/4, the one you use doesn't make it any better then the one they use.
Where I come from we write it dd/mm but after some thinking about it I realized that mm/dd is just easier to sort and compare.
Liberalism is more advantageous for everybody and benefits nobody in particular, while all systems we currently experiment today are attempts to favor certain groups while necessarily screwing everybody else in the process. Which is kind of why they're so popular today.
Do you really believe this? I think is just the opposite. The field is not leveled, there are (and always be) few people with a lot of power and a lot of people with little power. Without rules the ones standing on the top would remain there and increase their advantage over the others. Free markets leads to monopoly in most cases, and we know how that benefits us all.