They should be able to run a dry loop for DSL, which doesn't include phone service. They may even be required by law to do this.
Yes, they can, however, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_DSL it's not likeley to happen... ever. They can make more money that way, and the government is on their side, so it just won't happen.
That, and as other's have pointed out, physics don't mean jack in the virtual world of the Matrix =P
Re:Because it didn't affect him?
on
Is Vista a Trap?
·
· Score: 1
I have had no issues with anything I run on Vista, and I've been running it since around July, first beta 1, then 2, then in November, Final (Enterprise). All my hardware works (except the cheapy webcam that came with my compaq presario running Me, and I really don't care), nothing runs any slower than in XP, I've converted videos, music, worked with photos, all without any problems. No activation hassles, no DRM, no problems. In fact, it was easier to setup than XP.
Now all of this may be because I'm using relatively new hardware with a business version of Vista, and I have no use for the "extras" that you get with home premium or ultimate. I originally installed it to check it out, see if it was worthwhile (much as I did with OS x86), but ended up seeing that it would be worthwhile as my main operating system...
I'm not an MS fanboy or anything (I prefer Gentoo, but I can't get a lot of my games working right, so it stays on my non-gaming machines), but Vista, as far as I can tell, is not as bad as everyone seems to think. There are definatly some differences and a fairly steep learning curve, but once you get used to it, it's great. I had a hard time going from win 2000 to XP, but it all grows on you after a while. The same thing will happen in a few years with most people, it will get updated, maybe go through a service pack or two, and it will become as popular as XP is now. That or they'll switch to Linux or possibly Mac...
it does, but that's not exactly the most efficient way to do it. I wasn't saying that's how they are going to do it, I'm just saying that's how to solve the problem.
The light is going to travel the same speed through fiber as is would through air, so I have no idea why they would want to get rid of fiber connections.
The only realistic way you could do this outside of a laboratory environment without fiber, is transferring information between parts of a single chip, such as multiple core processors and the like.
Intel is not, and never has been a fun company to be a contractor at... If you're an employee, it's great, but there's definately an "us vs. them" feel if you're a contractor, and Intel is the only company I've been at that is like that. You seriously don't want to piss off the wrong people there.
Now this has nothing to do with left wing/right wing anything, it's about hard science. Something that you believe in that is not supported by facts is essentially a religion.
Companies that provide new code and patches to the open source community are in no way obligated to provide them.... they can keep the changes to themselves and never release them to the community. The work that they do and give back to the community is therefore "volunteered".
Most everyone working on the kernel has an agenda and that's okay -- open source isn't about communism or pure philanthropy, it's more of a libertarian or anarchocapitalist philosophy.
This is quite possibly the best explanations of the open source community that I've read.
This is just a prelude to the games industry lobbying for more DRM, less content control, tax breaks or some other corporate-socialism handout.
There are a couple different political philosophies that you're apparently against in this sentence, both from opposite ends of the spectrum. Sure, DRM is awful (I guess I haven't been paying attention, because I haven't heard anything about game developers interested in using DRM...), but what has ever been wrong with less content control? Tax breaks? The taxes shouldn't even be there to begin with. And, tax breaks are as far from socialism as you can get. How is being allowed to keep the money you make socialism? I believe what you're thinking of is corporate welfare, such as the handouts that have been suggested.
With less content control (read: regulation) they are freer to make games like Manhunt and Conker and whatnot...you know, things that if the fat bible thumping high-and-mighties in America would never allow if they had their way.
You're absolutely correct. There is a game festival for independent developers that spun off from the Sundance Film Festival. Recently there was a game that made it through judging to be a finalist, until it was pulled by one of the organizers of the event. I wouldn't have expected it to get as far as it had, considering how people outside the game industry view games (as things that only kids enjoy, and not as an art form as it should be). The game was Super Columbine Massacre RPG, and wasn't a high-quality game, but it was done as a statement more than anything. What happened to it never would have happened to a film or a book, as they are both considered art. Until games can be looked at in the same way as films, the industry is basically doomed. As long as people like Jack Thompson are fighting them, games will never be up to their full potential.
What the game industry really needs is to focus less on licensed games and sequels and look more into new IPs and independent developers. Not every new game has to look as good as Gears of War, but should at least have decent game play. I would happily trade graphics for innovative game play, as Nintendo has shown over and over recently. Look at the DS vs. PSP... The PSP has awesome graphics, and a few decent titles, but the majority of games are crap, mostly just ports from the PS2 that have extremely long load times. The DS has a large collection of new titles as well as many retro games that work well with the innovative controls.
I guess the point is that you don't have to have the most powerful system, or the best graphics to make a good game that will make a lot of money, what people really want is innovation. New characters and new game play should be the top priority, not improving an existing IP. It's developers that create licensed games to fund their new IP's that will win out in the end.
I've said it before, and cited references, that global warming hasn't been proven. Instead of warning labels on textbooks concerning evolution, they should put them on textbooks about global warming:
"Warning: Global Warming is not a fact, it is just a theory"
So Deutsche Telekom pays to build a large fiber network, and they own that network. They decide they don't want anyone else using it, that's their business. It is a private network built by a private company, and the government has no right to tell them what they can and cannot do with it.
Of course that's just a dream, especially since this is happening in Europe, but even in the US you're likely to have the same issues, and it's sad. It will more than likely end up being a good business decision to lease access to the network to other companies, however I see absolutely no reason to force them to do so. I just wish that private property and liberty still meant something, somewhere in the world.
first off, I never said anything about no regulations, I just said that the FCC is certainly not the ones to regulate.
as I said, there should be a bottom-up approach to law making, and it can be done with common-law methods, not a regulatory agency, and most of the problems you forsee are already taken care of with existing (non-FCC) laws.
The free market is self-regulating. a corporation that does as you suggest it will, will quickly cease to exist. You piss off your customers, and they are no longer customers. How do you stay in business without customers giving you their money? You don't. You don't like what someone else is doing? sue them. Just read this part of an article by Declan McCullagh of cnet news:
"Once the standard parcels are defined, they can be sold to the highest bidders," Huber writes. "To keep for how long? Forever. Just like land." If just one UHF (ultrahigh frequency) television station in Los Angeles were permitted to transfer its spectrum to a third cellular provider, Huber estimates, "the overall public gain would be about $1 billion, or so the government itself estimated in 1992." Wireless technologies would be huge winners, if the spectrum were privatized.
What if disputes over spectrum arose? The answer is simple. Whoever owned the rights to that slice of virtual real estate would locate the illicit broadcaster, march into the local courthouse and get a restraining order to pull the plug on the transmitter. Trespass is hardly a new idea, and courts are well-equipped to deal with it.
One fear is that some predatory monopolist, a Microsoft of the airwaves, would end up owning all of the spectrum. That won't happen. First, the market value of the spectrum would approach $1 trillion, out of the reach of any individual corporation. Second, antitrust laws would remain on the books. The Department of Justice could wield the Sherman Antitrust Act to challenge unlawful conduct and block mergers.
and the portion of the LP platform on freedom of communication:
We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of individuals to dissent from government itself. We recognize that full freedom of expression is possible only as part of a system of full property rights. The freedom to use one's own voice; the freedom to hire a hall; the freedom to own a printing press, a broadcasting station, or a transmission cable; the freedom to host and publish information on the Internet; the freedom to wave or burn one's own flag; and similar property-based freedoms are precisely what constitute freedom of communication. At the same time, we recognize that freedom of communication does not extend to the use of other people's property to promote one's ideas without the voluntary consent of the owners.
...free market ownership of airwave frequencies, deserving of full First Amendment protection. We oppose government ownership or subsidy of, or funding for, any communications organization. Removal of all of these regulations and practices throughout the communications media would open the way to diversity and innovation. We shall not be satisfied until the First Amendment is expanded to protect full, unconditional freedom of communication.
as I said before, regulation only stifles progress and innovation.
I believe in the free market system, but this doesn't mean I'm anti regulation. A free market will never exist without regulation since it will degenerate into monopolies, cartels, and maybe ultimately feudalism. But this emphatically doesn't mean that all regulation is good regulation.
Exactly!
I'm kind of surprised that that was the only problem anyone had with what I had to say...
The FCC is completely unneeded in today's society, it wasn't even needed in 1934, and has caused nothing but problems since then.
The FCC rejected long-distance telephone service competition in 1968, banned Americans from buying their own non-Bell telephones in 1956, dragged its feet in the 1970s when considering whether video telephones would be allowed and did not grant modern cellular telephone licenses until 1981--about four decades after Bell Labs invented the technology. Along the way, the FCC has preserved monopolistic practices that would have otherwise been illegal under antitrust law. All of this has cost Americans billions of dollars.
After the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which removed some barriers to competition, there is even less of a need for the FCC. Local phone customers don't need to worry about the Bells' monopolistic practices, because they effectively aren't monopolies anymore. Cable customers don't need to worry much about monopolistic practices because of satellite TV. Eventually, fiber connections will transport every kind of data.
Before 1934, there were conflicts, but the courts were working with the common-law method of creating rules for the new medium. And such would have worked great, except The Radio Act of 1927, followed by the Communications Act of 1934, gave the FCC unlimited power to assign frequencies, approve broadcasters' power levels and revoke licenses on a whim. The FCC already enjoyed the power to regulate telephone lines and eventually would accumulate the authority to regulate cable as well.
We could abolish the FCC today and not cause any problems whatsoever. What it would mean is returning to bottom-up law instead of top-down, as it is now and has been for the past 80 years or so.
Not only would it prevent any more economic cost of missed opportunities caused by regulation, it would also save taxpayers over $300 million a year.
Now this may be too Libertarian and Free-Market for some people to understand, but that's just me. I've been a Libertarian since before I was able to vote, and I've been in IT and Telecomm since I got my first job. I believe in freedom and the free-market. I also believe in accountability in government, ie, allowing the people of the US have a say in what the government does, as well as answer for their actions. since the FCC is unelected, and given near limitless regulatory power, I have an extreme dislike of them.
now you can see why the "good" in the above post isn't that good, and the bad is, well, not good either.
The fact is that most of the warming in recorded history happened between the 10th and 15th centuries.
About 0.28% of greenhouse gas emissions is from human activity, if water vapor is taken into account, and about 5.53% if it's not. the rest is from natural sources.
I have some suggested reading for everyone, whether you believe in it or not: State of Fear by Michael Chrichton. It is the only novel I can remember reading with a several page long bibliography. It basically explain's why environmentalism isn't a science, it's more of a state-sponsored religion
if you don't like what I've said, read my references, if you still don't like it, oh well, because unfortunately this won't be going away with so many children attending public schools, where most every person in the US learns it.
Slashdot Mirror
That, and as other's have pointed out, physics don't mean jack in the virtual world of the Matrix =P
Now all of this may be because I'm using relatively new hardware with a business version of Vista, and I have no use for the "extras" that you get with home premium or ultimate. I originally installed it to check it out, see if it was worthwhile (much as I did with OS x86), but ended up seeing that it would be worthwhile as my main operating system...
I'm not an MS fanboy or anything (I prefer Gentoo, but I can't get a lot of my games working right, so it stays on my non-gaming machines), but Vista, as far as I can tell, is not as bad as everyone seems to think. There are definatly some differences and a fairly steep learning curve, but once you get used to it, it's great. I had a hard time going from win 2000 to XP, but it all grows on you after a while. The same thing will happen in a few years with most people, it will get updated, maybe go through a service pack or two, and it will become as popular as XP is now. That or they'll switch to Linux or possibly Mac...
The light is going to travel the same speed through fiber as is would through air, so I have no idea why they would want to get rid of fiber connections.
The only realistic way you could do this outside of a laboratory environment without fiber, is transferring information between parts of a single chip, such as multiple core processors and the like.
Don't forget, Nano's are flash based as well...
Then there is this article, or this one...
Now this has nothing to do with left wing/right wing anything, it's about hard science. Something that you believe in that is not supported by facts is essentially a religion.
There are a couple different political philosophies that you're apparently against in this sentence, both from opposite ends of the spectrum. Sure, DRM is awful (I guess I haven't been paying attention, because I haven't heard anything about game developers interested in using DRM...), but what has ever been wrong with less content control? Tax breaks? The taxes shouldn't even be there to begin with. And, tax breaks are as far from socialism as you can get. How is being allowed to keep the money you make socialism? I believe what you're thinking of is corporate welfare, such as the handouts that have been suggested.
You're absolutely correct. There is a game festival for independent developers that spun off from the Sundance Film Festival. Recently there was a game that made it through judging to be a finalist, until it was pulled by one of the organizers of the event. I wouldn't have expected it to get as far as it had, considering how people outside the game industry view games (as things that only kids enjoy, and not as an art form as it should be). The game was Super Columbine Massacre RPG, and wasn't a high-quality game, but it was done as a statement more than anything. What happened to it never would have happened to a film or a book, as they are both considered art. Until games can be looked at in the same way as films, the industry is basically doomed. As long as people like Jack Thompson are fighting them, games will never be up to their full potential.
What the game industry really needs is to focus less on licensed games and sequels and look more into new IPs and independent developers. Not every new game has to look as good as Gears of War, but should at least have decent game play. I would happily trade graphics for innovative game play, as Nintendo has shown over and over recently. Look at the DS vs. PSP... The PSP has awesome graphics, and a few decent titles, but the majority of games are crap, mostly just ports from the PS2 that have extremely long load times. The DS has a large collection of new titles as well as many retro games that work well with the innovative controls.
I guess the point is that you don't have to have the most powerful system, or the best graphics to make a good game that will make a lot of money, what people really want is innovation. New characters and new game play should be the top priority, not improving an existing IP. It's developers that create licensed games to fund their new IP's that will win out in the end.
I've said it before, and cited references, that global warming hasn't been proven. Instead of warning labels on textbooks concerning evolution, they should put them on textbooks about global warming:
"Warning: Global Warming is not a fact, it is just a theory"
So Deutsche Telekom pays to build a large fiber network, and they own that network. They decide they don't want anyone else using it, that's their business. It is a private network built by a private company, and the government has no right to tell them what they can and cannot do with it. Of course that's just a dream, especially since this is happening in Europe, but even in the US you're likely to have the same issues, and it's sad. It will more than likely end up being a good business decision to lease access to the network to other companies, however I see absolutely no reason to force them to do so. I just wish that private property and liberty still meant something, somewhere in the world.
as I said, there should be a bottom-up approach to law making, and it can be done with common-law methods, not a regulatory agency, and most of the problems you forsee are already taken care of with existing (non-FCC) laws.
The free market is self-regulating. a corporation that does as you suggest it will, will quickly cease to exist. You piss off your customers, and they are no longer customers. How do you stay in business without customers giving you their money? You don't. You don't like what someone else is doing? sue them. Just read this part of an article by Declan McCullagh of cnet news:
and the portion of the LP platform on freedom of communication:
as I said before, regulation only stifles progress and innovation.
Exactly!
I'm kind of surprised that that was the only problem anyone had with what I had to say...
The FCC rejected long-distance telephone service competition in 1968, banned Americans from buying their own non-Bell telephones in 1956, dragged its feet in the 1970s when considering whether video telephones would be allowed and did not grant modern cellular telephone licenses until 1981--about four decades after Bell Labs invented the technology. Along the way, the FCC has preserved monopolistic practices that would have otherwise been illegal under antitrust law. All of this has cost Americans billions of dollars.
After the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which removed some barriers to competition, there is even less of a need for the FCC. Local phone customers don't need to worry about the Bells' monopolistic practices, because they effectively aren't monopolies anymore. Cable customers don't need to worry much about monopolistic practices because of satellite TV. Eventually, fiber connections will transport every kind of data.
Before 1934, there were conflicts, but the courts were working with the common-law method of creating rules for the new medium. And such would have worked great, except The Radio Act of 1927, followed by the Communications Act of 1934, gave the FCC unlimited power to assign frequencies, approve broadcasters' power levels and revoke licenses on a whim. The FCC already enjoyed the power to regulate telephone lines and eventually would accumulate the authority to regulate cable as well.
We could abolish the FCC today and not cause any problems whatsoever. What it would mean is returning to bottom-up law instead of top-down, as it is now and has been for the past 80 years or so.
Not only would it prevent any more economic cost of missed opportunities caused by regulation, it would also save taxpayers over $300 million a year.
Now this may be too Libertarian and Free-Market for some people to understand, but that's just me. I've been a Libertarian since before I was able to vote, and I've been in IT and Telecomm since I got my first job. I believe in freedom and the free-market. I also believe in accountability in government, ie, allowing the people of the US have a say in what the government does, as well as answer for their actions. since the FCC is unelected, and given near limitless regulatory power, I have an extreme dislike of them.
now you can see why the "good" in the above post isn't that good, and the bad is, well, not good either.
the FCC has no right regulating them anyhow... but thats more of my free-market philosophy.
The fact is that most of the warming in recorded history happened between the 10th and 15th centuries.
About 0.28% of greenhouse gas emissions is from human activity, if water vapor is taken into account, and about 5.53% if it's not. the rest is from natural sources.
I have some suggested reading for everyone, whether you believe in it or not: State of Fear by Michael Chrichton. It is the only novel I can remember reading with a several page long bibliography. It basically explain's why environmentalism isn't a science, it's more of a state-sponsored religion
if you don't like what I've said, read my references, if you still don't like it, oh well, because unfortunately this won't be going away with so many children attending public schools, where most every person in the US learns it.