They do make satellite phones, and they don't require a generator and a parabolic dish to use. They do have huge antennas but not out of line given the purpose.
It doesn't really matter what the cost of the components is on such a scale, we are talking pennies in difference if that, which they would pass on to the consumer anyway.
I do think the licensing is part of the switch to vxworks, as we can see here they aren't so fond of complying with the GPL, so when Cisco took over i imagine they started looking for something else.
At least on the 54g series, they aren't even using Linux anymore except the GL device, so their "fix" has been to just avoid Linux in that situation, though i'm sure there were other reasons as well.
If someone is unproductive at their job, you can look into firing them, but until then you don't get to dictate their private lives under the flawed assumption that specific things they do at home make them less effective while at work. That may be true, but it is true of more things than just drugs, and society has no right to regulate or screw with people based on such things.
That is the hypocrisy, and perhaps evidence of corruption, that specific drugs are legal and others are not, based not on logical arguments as to safety but rather hypocritical and irrational fabrications.
Perhaps the people in charge of making and upholding these laws happen to prefer the drugs that are still legal and would like to keep it that way?
Either you are a troll or you expect people to take your assertion that druggies tend to rape peoples daughters as fact, then you go on to base the rest of your fantasy on that flawed assertion.
He said prohibition caused problems that didn't exist before we tried to criminalize drugs to get rid of their use.
You also offer quite the strawman, no one said prohibition caused addiction, and you are naive or perhaps stupid if you think solving addiction is one of the questions at hand, neither legalizing or prohibiting drug use will ever have any effect on addiction. The belief that it will is one of the major causes of the continuation of this bullshit policy.
None of that has anything to do with drug use, you are attempting to show causation where there is merely correlation.
But then again I'm sure you didn't read the article, which implies and outright states in some ways, that a lot of the problems associated with drug use are caused by its prohibition.
The effectiveness or lack thereof, is not the problem. The bigger problem is as follows:
First, They intend this thing to be available to the majority of the population, that means it will be a significant market force and not just some kind of low income, rural internet access for those who don't have one now. That means even if i choose not to use it, i will be affected by it in some way.
Second, these people, M2Z (the company) and the ones pushing for this behind the scenes, jumped right to porn when the question of blocking came up. Why porn? That question must be asked. Why not violence? Why not hate speech? Why not unhealthy recipes for sweets? Are we protecting children, or imposing a social agenda on the population? If you are going to block something, other things should be higher on your priority list if your excuse is protecting the children. Something tells me protecting children isn't the goal, or rather the idiots involved think porn is the most harmful thing children (or anyone?) could see on the internet.
Next, it isn't free either, it's ad-supported. No matter what, i am funding your censorship of me by using this network. They are either going to be altering traffic transparently, or forcing users to use a proxy, or run a desktop client (substantially limiting its usefulness) to show you those ads. And they are going to be selectively blocking one type of content unless you pay more as the summary states (maybe).
Those 2 things, altering traffic to show ads, and selective content delivery or prioritization (network neutrality etc), are things the FCC has been railing against for a long time. It is a conflict of interest for the FCC to be encouraging these things in one situation while profiting from the thing, while blasting other ISPs for doing the same thing.
I can only hope this entire thing fails at this point, it's a somewhat good idea, being hampered and fucked with through government interference and mandate (which might even be unconstitutional), and behind the scenes influence.
OS X uses something they developed specifically to avoid using X11:D There is a comment here on slashdot from a few years back about why, the guy who was involved in developing it had a LONG list of reasons.
By tearing i mean, move a window, watch a video, anything that moves across the screen tears. Basically if you move a window, it should remain solid and not move across the screen in segments etc.
These companies are failing regardless of the reason, and their failures are being spread around to the public, whereas if they were doing well they would be keeping every penny.
The only time i've seen intels integrated chips neglect to tear the screen when things move is under OS X, it does it in Vista, and has done it in X under Linux for as long as i've had the machine.
I think this has more to do with the windowing system or perhaps the drivers integration with that windowing system than the hardware though.
For 3D the 945gms are acceptable in a few games for casual stuff, i've even played GTA san andreas on mine a few times.
Bullshit, open source hasn't ruined anything, and it isn't communist, i don't think you know what that word means. When the government forces the people to use Linux you can come back with your communist talk.
It is however a market force, giving users an option they wouldn't have otherwise had, and giving commercial developers yet another thing to compete with, which helps users in the long run.
Microsoft hasn't gone anywhere, they aren't even being threatened on the desktop much, they have more to worry about from Apple than Linux right now.
Intel won't go anywhere either, it takes a LOT of R&D to develop the things Intel does, open spec hardware isn't going to be pushing them aside any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
They do make satellite phones, and they don't require a generator and a parabolic dish to use. They do have huge antennas but not out of line given the purpose.
It doesn't really matter what the cost of the components is on such a scale, we are talking pennies in difference if that, which they would pass on to the consumer anyway.
I do think the licensing is part of the switch to vxworks, as we can see here they aren't so fond of complying with the GPL, so when Cisco took over i imagine they started looking for something else.
The old IOS is fairly simple compared to BSD, but their IOS-XR (name?) is based on QNX
I assume you are talking about devices other than the 54g series? I can't imagine what backward compatibility would be needed there with IOS.
At least on the 54g series, they aren't even using Linux anymore except the GL device, so their "fix" has been to just avoid Linux in that situation, though i'm sure there were other reasons as well.
You are an enabler, you enable people to avoid RTFA :D
Dammit, if you had kept that going longer than 3 minutes i would have had some entertainment for the afternoon
Yes, you thought that hump was ACTUALLY for storing water? Pshh thats a full on navigation kit in there!
Legality is the least of most peoples concerns when deciding to use or not use drugs, other things are much more significant.
If someone is unproductive at their job, you can look into firing them, but until then you don't get to dictate their private lives under the flawed assumption that specific things they do at home make them less effective while at work. That may be true, but it is true of more things than just drugs, and society has no right to regulate or screw with people based on such things.
Some number of drug users AND non drug users lose control all the time and these drugs ARE illegal, so what the fuck is your point?
That is the hypocrisy, and perhaps evidence of corruption, that specific drugs are legal and others are not, based not on logical arguments as to safety but rather hypocritical and irrational fabrications.
Perhaps the people in charge of making and upholding these laws happen to prefer the drugs that are still legal and would like to keep it that way?
Either you are a troll or you expect people to take your assertion that druggies tend to rape peoples daughters as fact, then you go on to base the rest of your fantasy on that flawed assertion.
What the fuck are you talking about?
He said prohibition caused problems that didn't exist before we tried to criminalize drugs to get rid of their use.
You also offer quite the strawman, no one said prohibition caused addiction, and you are naive or perhaps stupid if you think solving addiction is one of the questions at hand, neither legalizing or prohibiting drug use will ever have any effect on addiction. The belief that it will is one of the major causes of the continuation of this bullshit policy.
None of that has anything to do with drug use, you are attempting to show causation where there is merely correlation.
But then again I'm sure you didn't read the article, which implies and outright states in some ways, that a lot of the problems associated with drug use are caused by its prohibition.
Oh PHishing! I thought i was just supposed to yell at the fish, but it didn't work =(
which is less than 20-40
Someday, your medicine will come through the tubes as well.
The effectiveness or lack thereof, is not the problem. The bigger problem is as follows:
First, They intend this thing to be available to the majority of the population, that means it will be a significant market force and not just some kind of low income, rural internet access for those who don't have one now. That means even if i choose not to use it, i will be affected by it in some way.
Second, these people, M2Z (the company) and the ones pushing for this behind the scenes, jumped right to porn when the question of blocking came up. Why porn? That question must be asked. Why not violence? Why not hate speech? Why not unhealthy recipes for sweets? Are we protecting children, or imposing a social agenda on the population? If you are going to block something, other things should be higher on your priority list if your excuse is protecting the children. Something tells me protecting children isn't the goal, or rather the idiots involved think porn is the most harmful thing children (or anyone?) could see on the internet.
Next, it isn't free either, it's ad-supported. No matter what, i am funding your censorship of me by using this network. They are either going to be altering traffic transparently, or forcing users to use a proxy, or run a desktop client (substantially limiting its usefulness) to show you those ads. And they are going to be selectively blocking one type of content unless you pay more as the summary states (maybe).
Those 2 things, altering traffic to show ads, and selective content delivery or prioritization (network neutrality etc), are things the FCC has been railing against for a long time. It is a conflict of interest for the FCC to be encouraging these things in one situation while profiting from the thing, while blasting other ISPs for doing the same thing.
I can only hope this entire thing fails at this point, it's a somewhat good idea, being hampered and fucked with through government interference and mandate (which might even be unconstitutional), and behind the scenes influence.
Oh no we wouldn't want to upset fox news...
OS X uses something they developed specifically to avoid using X11 :D There is a comment here on slashdot from a few years back about why, the guy who was involved in developing it had a LONG list of reasons.
By tearing i mean, move a window, watch a video, anything that moves across the screen tears. Basically if you move a window, it should remain solid and not move across the screen in segments etc.
These companies are failing regardless of the reason, and their failures are being spread around to the public, whereas if they were doing well they would be keeping every penny.
That's not socialism that's evidence of fascism
Water is a liquid.
Your turn
The only time i've seen intels integrated chips neglect to tear the screen when things move is under OS X, it does it in Vista, and has done it in X under Linux for as long as i've had the machine.
I think this has more to do with the windowing system or perhaps the drivers integration with that windowing system than the hardware though.
For 3D the 945gms are acceptable in a few games for casual stuff, i've even played GTA san andreas on mine a few times.
Bullshit, open source hasn't ruined anything, and it isn't communist, i don't think you know what that word means. When the government forces the people to use Linux you can come back with your communist talk.
It is however a market force, giving users an option they wouldn't have otherwise had, and giving commercial developers yet another thing to compete with, which helps users in the long run.
Microsoft hasn't gone anywhere, they aren't even being threatened on the desktop much, they have more to worry about from Apple than Linux right now.
Intel won't go anywhere either, it takes a LOT of R&D to develop the things Intel does, open spec hardware isn't going to be pushing them aside any time soon.