Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Slashvertisement? (Score 1) 67

Sometimes.
A USB3 port, if you plug a USB3 hub into it, and 2 USB2 devices into it will go just as fast, and no faster than a USB2 hub.
Because that's what it is.
There are no transaction translators at all.
There are none even specced in the spec as optional, for high-end vendors to aspire to.

Comment: Re:"advertising is what powers the internet" (Score 1) 381

by queazocotal (#47493581) Attached to: Dealing With 'Advertising Pollution'

'Network effects are powerful. And the internet was the biggest network out there.'

I'm talking of pre 1992 or so, when it became possible to connect commercially to the internet - and shortly after.
Before this time was a window, when this wasn't quite true.
In terms of connected users, prodigy, compuserv, et al had more active accounts (AIUI) than the limited educational/military internet.

They failed, and became irrelevant as the internet grew rapidly past their number of users.

If they had arranged internetworking between them - in some form, so people could email and chat - the network effect may have been on the other foot.

Starting out with 'would have lost out to the internet' is the wrong way to think about this - because initially they were competing with something that was very, very much smaller and more limited compared to what the internet was even in 1995.

Comment: Re:"advertising is what powers the internet" (Score 1) 381

by queazocotal (#47493047) Attached to: Dealing With 'Advertising Pollution'

AOL/compuserv/prodigy were ISPs.
But, before this, they were their own thing that were not connected to the internet.
They added limited access to the internet, and then eventually became 'pure play' internet providers, with their own content being stubs.

There were features like messaging, various online services _before_ they connected to the internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

Comment: Re:"advertising is what powers the internet" (Score 4, Interesting) 381

by queazocotal (#47490947) Attached to: Dealing With 'Advertising Pollution'

No, it really wasn't.
The internet was invented to be an interesting communication protocol.
Later on, commercial entities and the general public got connected to it.
For a _long_ time, it was .edu (as latter became) only.

Imagining that the internet was destined to win, and there were no alternatives is revisionist history.

The internet very nearly didn't win, avoiding being relegated to a communications experiment that died likely sometime around 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... - as an example of a competing service that lasted a long time, in the face of growing internet.
Aol, compuserv, and all of the other services didn't quite get joined up fast enough to make the internet irrelevant.

It was quite possible that this could have happened.
They decided that it was in their commercial interests to isolate their services, so that you couldn't email people on different networks.
This (amongst other similar issues) ended up killing them as other than ISPs when the internet took over this function.

If, for example, AOL, compuserv, Prodigy et al had gotten together and made it possible to email other services members, a prime reason for the explosion of the internet would have gone away.

Similarly, minitel could be a model of what the 'internet' might have looked like if the internet had not won.
It would be very, very different.

Network effects are _powerful_.

Comment: Re:srm -v -z (Score 2) 91

This is not required.
https://security.web.cern.ch/s... is relevant.
This actually investigates the physics behind overwriting - in short - once is quite enough today.

There are concerns about reallocated space on hard disks - but 99.99% of the data has gone
away, and recovering the rest is at best expensive.

Comment: Re:Seems appropriate (Score 1) 353

As far as I can tell, 'national security' is not defined in the legislation (I only looked at the primary legislation, and not at much secondary).

This means it can take pretty much any form that is reasonable in English - not only the most extreme form.
It specifically does not say (for example) 'affect national security causing death, or damage exceeding one million pounds'.

It's pretty inarguable that police infrastructure can be national security, and websites in principle could be an important part of that, so counted.
If I was the lawyer in question, I'd be raising that a website which likely has hundreds of hits during the time in question, not tens of millions may be part of national security, but this amounts to a 'de-minimus' part that is effectively zero.

The problem here is more the bad law, than the bad judge I suspect. We do not know if the proper counterargument was made by the defence in court.

"Hey Ivan, check your six." -- Sidewinder missile jacket patch, showing a Sidewinder driving up the tail of a Russian Su-27

Working...