• 31ago
    Categories: Blurbs Commenti disabilitati

    I'm starting a new post today and I'll update it when I spot new weird or funny things that I think are worth reporting. Here goes the list:

    Let me google it for you
    This is a nice joke to post on forums where people ask for solution to problems intensively discussed (and resolved) somewhere else. You just put the question in the "q" param et voilĂ !
    Link

    Best Ever gnome theme
    Really unusual gnome theme offered from this page, which the author says to be the best gnome theme ever. According to the comments, those who tried it agree.
    Link

    Chrome Extension: Nothing
    This extension does nothing. I really liked the comments, though!
    Link

    The WTFPL licence
    Because you'll never be free enough when it comes to licencing your code
    Link

    The Daily WTF
    "Curious Perversions in Informatic Tecnology"
    Link

    HTML tables generator
    Just in case you really need a HTML table...
    Link

    Primate Programming Inc
    Never hire a man to do a monkey's job
    Link

    Church of Google
    Is Google God?
    Link


    Tags:
  • 31ago
    Categories: Blurbs Commenti disabilitati

    What's being discussed right now by major software companies with main Internet Services Providers of many countries is part of differentiated services. Which means: TCP packet traversal will be given different quality of service (bandwidth, speed, etc) according to specific service agreements.
    This is not so new after all, and was already applied by ISP to final customers. But now, by applying it to content providers (depending on how free those two contractors are left by the absence of democratic laws in this field), the new paradigm of two track broadband highway could undermine the principle by which every content of the net is served equally with respect to the others.

    Since internet diffusion, it was possible for small companies of skilled individuals to oppose to big corporations when it came to releasing a new service to the public just because they made a better job. Just think about Youtube for instance: it was born in a garage, and became so appealing that later Google bought it. Now, what if Google videos were intrinsically (by service agreement with your ISP) streaming faster than Youtube ones? Many probably would have prefered, despite of features and of content richness, the most suitable service... I'm not saying that any of the two was better than the other, I'm just saying both made the other better because they were - until a certain point - competitors.

    We are likely to go toward an unfair competition situation. It must be avoided to preserve neutrality of internet. Infact, this new shape of internet would even be penalizing for "inconvenient" third parties, which would be asked themselves to pay to remain suitable by the majority of the users.

    In one word: oligopoly.