Apple revives a ten year old niche that no one really liked for reasons that are still entirely relevant, and now it is speculated that Google will compete with a Google-style "open" alternative. It was interesting when their battle was over smartphones, but when it is over shoveling out pointless generic consumer electronics, it is not.
So far ISPs haven't done very well with metered services. I've worked in competition with other service providers who offered metered service with a base fee and a small base allowance that certainly would fit the bill for a lot of their customers. My employer at the time dropped plans for competing products when the concept failed to gain traction. Most people would rather pay what they pay now for an unmetered Internet connection and peace of mind, than pay 50% less and feel conscious about their usage whenever they use their computers. The money that a typical ISP makes off of the nine out of ten customers whose service is way out of proportion for their usage far exceeds the money that they lose on the one tenth who feeds on throughput. It isn't really an issue with business plans that prompts these service provider outbursts; it's a desire to maintain the profits of selling unmetered service to people who do not need it, and a desire to apply metered fees to the customers who need the unmetered service that they have been sold.
These service providers have had a very big cake, and they've been allowed to eat a lot of it, too. Now they want to be able to eat the rest, and the problem is that they're proposing to do so in a very unethical manner. It is evident in the way that this CEO both laments the consequences of the way they do business, and praises the profitability of the way they do business, all in the very same interview.
Product focus shifted from metered Internet connectivity to unmetered connectivity ten years ago. The ISPs are making a killing off of unmetered services; much more than they would with metered products. That means that your grandparents who check their inbox once a week pay just as much as the guy with the box running fifty consecutive torrents at all times. So what if you pay by the gigabyte? Then these ISPs would cease to generate profit.
His isn't a balanced perspective. His is the opposite perspective, the apologetic advocacy. 'X, but Y,' is no better than 'Y, but X.' You aren't balanced without the Z.
It's the gunner identifying the targets, identifying the weapons, and asking for permission to fire. It's the people on the ground asking the pilot what the situation is, and the pilot returning the gunner's assessment.
OpenNMS never really seemed "enterprise-grade" to me. Yeah, it does a lot, but it takes a lot to get it to do so. New code is not always up to par, and you get a bunch of caveats with almost every feature of the application. If you've got a nerd-in-the-basement type who you can dedicate to building and maintaining the NMS, then you might be fine, but you won't have any account manager at the other end to yell at when things cease to function. Personally I believe that the NMS should exist to lessen the load of network upkeep, not introduce even more upkeep.
You're criticising his choice to abstain from accepting a monetary award by arguing that the money could be going to whatever causes you deem to be appropriate. If you understood your own reasoning, you would be critical of the organisation offering the prize, rather than awarding the money to whatever causes you deem to be appropriate, and you would be applauding the man for refusing to participate in their undertaking.
I don't know the man or his motivations, so I have no interest in judging neither. I do find it preposterous, however, that you deem yourself in a position to not only interpret the situation, but also apply your interpretation in a manner so patently contrary to the basis you take in your criticism.
So what's going to happen to all those "at least we aren't killing our own people" arguments offered in defence of various despicable actions carried out in Iraq by armed forces of the United States?
The idea of not being able to boot off of dynamic disks is nothing new - you're warned about the consequences whenever you convert a disk to a dynamic disk in Windows. I have no idea why your Linux partitions qualified, but I'm sure there's a good explanation. The bug listed is, well, a bug, and as long as there's a basic disk available in the system, the installer/should/ be able to work it out.
It's very typical of Microsoft installers, though. There's always/something/ wrong.
I agree completely with your argument against adopting names used elsewhere. I was googling for local lacrosse teams, and next thing you know I'm at a dealership buying a Buick. It's so confusing.
".. based on standard New Zealand school requirements, including four racks each capable of holding 48 servers for its main systems. The main infrastructure at Albany Senior High only requires four servers, suggesting an almost 50-fold saving on hardware requirements."
It suggests nothing of the sort. That's an intensely dishonest statement.
Good god, that means that terrorists will have to wear watches to make sure that they set off their bombs more than an hour prior to arrival! I'm unimpressed that the otherwise glorious TSA allow such a glaring omission to persist in these dangerous times. Clearly, time pieces belong on the prohibited items list.
Believe it or not, the large, monopolising telco assholes in Western Europe generally consider it sensible business practice to treat their customers with respect, even if their ultimate goal is profit.
They're fundamentally different from the consumer's point of view.
I found this puerile jab to completely ruin the credibility of the author. It takes a significant investment of intellectual dishonesty to suffix to an article dismissing beliefs that climate change is a long, natural process unaffected by human doings a note that Darwin, Australia has seen the hottest October on record, while neglecting to mention that the record referred to goes back a mere 60 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple revives a ten year old niche that no one really liked for reasons that are still entirely relevant, and now it is speculated that Google will compete with a Google-style "open" alternative. It was interesting when their battle was over smartphones, but when it is over shoveling out pointless generic consumer electronics, it is not.
So far ISPs haven't done very well with metered services. I've worked in competition with other service providers who offered metered service with a base fee and a small base allowance that certainly would fit the bill for a lot of their customers. My employer at the time dropped plans for competing products when the concept failed to gain traction. Most people would rather pay what they pay now for an unmetered Internet connection and peace of mind, than pay 50% less and feel conscious about their usage whenever they use their computers. The money that a typical ISP makes off of the nine out of ten customers whose service is way out of proportion for their usage far exceeds the money that they lose on the one tenth who feeds on throughput. It isn't really an issue with business plans that prompts these service provider outbursts; it's a desire to maintain the profits of selling unmetered service to people who do not need it, and a desire to apply metered fees to the customers who need the unmetered service that they have been sold.
These service providers have had a very big cake, and they've been allowed to eat a lot of it, too. Now they want to be able to eat the rest, and the problem is that they're proposing to do so in a very unethical manner. It is evident in the way that this CEO both laments the consequences of the way they do business, and praises the profitability of the way they do business, all in the very same interview.
Product focus shifted from metered Internet connectivity to unmetered connectivity ten years ago. The ISPs are making a killing off of unmetered services; much more than they would with metered products. That means that your grandparents who check their inbox once a week pay just as much as the guy with the box running fifty consecutive torrents at all times. So what if you pay by the gigabyte? Then these ISPs would cease to generate profit.
His isn't a balanced perspective. His is the opposite perspective, the apologetic advocacy. 'X, but Y,' is no better than 'Y, but X.' You aren't balanced without the Z.
It's the gunner identifying the targets, identifying the weapons, and asking for permission to fire. It's the people on the ground asking the pilot what the situation is, and the pilot returning the gunner's assessment.
You sorta do when security means having to handle armed and armoured vehicles, or other guys with RPGs.
OpenNMS never really seemed "enterprise-grade" to me. Yeah, it does a lot, but it takes a lot to get it to do so. New code is not always up to par, and you get a bunch of caveats with almost every feature of the application. If you've got a nerd-in-the-basement type who you can dedicate to building and maintaining the NMS, then you might be fine, but you won't have any account manager at the other end to yell at when things cease to function. Personally I believe that the NMS should exist to lessen the load of network upkeep, not introduce even more upkeep.
You're criticising his choice to abstain from accepting a monetary award by arguing that the money could be going to whatever causes you deem to be appropriate. If you understood your own reasoning, you would be critical of the organisation offering the prize, rather than awarding the money to whatever causes you deem to be appropriate, and you would be applauding the man for refusing to participate in their undertaking.
I don't know the man or his motivations, so I have no interest in judging neither. I do find it preposterous, however, that you deem yourself in a position to not only interpret the situation, but also apply your interpretation in a manner so patently contrary to the basis you take in your criticism.
Are you honestly arguing that "reaction time" can't "scale with importance" in closed software development?
If you're referring to the producer, then yes. Absolutely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Raymond
If they're going to beam THEIR microwaves onto MY property, then I'll be damned if I'm not going to beam microwaves of my own right back at them.
Yes you do. Unless specifically configured to do otherwise, funds transferred to your PayPal account will remain there as available balance.
I didn't realise that there was a statute of limitation on genocide.
So what's going to happen to all those "at least we aren't killing our own people" arguments offered in defence of various despicable actions carried out in Iraq by armed forces of the United States?
The idea of not being able to boot off of dynamic disks is nothing new - you're warned about the consequences whenever you convert a disk to a dynamic disk in Windows. I have no idea why your Linux partitions qualified, but I'm sure there's a good explanation. The bug listed is, well, a bug, and as long as there's a basic disk available in the system, the installer /should/ be able to work it out.
It's very typical of Microsoft installers, though. There's always /something/ wrong.
I'm not sure what kind of experience lead you to believe that Windows 7 can only install with a single drive present, but it is very much not true.
I think what you're meant to do is demonstrate how one is considerably more confusing than the other.
I agree completely with your argument against adopting names used elsewhere. I was googling for local lacrosse teams, and next thing you know I'm at a dealership buying a Buick. It's so confusing.
Aren't these submissions supposed to be moderated to keep these walls of partially intelligible text off the main page?
".. based on standard New Zealand school requirements, including four racks each capable of holding 48 servers for its main systems. The main infrastructure at Albany Senior High only requires four servers, suggesting an almost 50-fold saving on hardware requirements."
It suggests nothing of the sort. That's an intensely dishonest statement.
I don't think there's any kind of logic in your post to "carry on".
I hope that you're aware that you're referencing a single falsified image as being a "common rebuttal". Not terribly credible.
Good god, that means that terrorists will have to wear watches to make sure that they set off their bombs more than an hour prior to arrival! I'm unimpressed that the otherwise glorious TSA allow such a glaring omission to persist in these dangerous times. Clearly, time pieces belong on the prohibited items list.
Believe it or not, the large, monopolising telco assholes in Western Europe generally consider it sensible business practice to treat their customers with respect, even if their ultimate goal is profit.
They're fundamentally different from the consumer's point of view.
I found this puerile jab to completely ruin the credibility of the author. It takes a significant investment of intellectual dishonesty to suffix to an article dismissing beliefs that climate change is a long, natural process unaffected by human doings a note that Darwin, Australia has seen the hottest October on record, while neglecting to mention that the record referred to goes back a mere 60 years.