Same here. I've had RR since it was first introduced in Houston and have had only 2 instances of outage. And since I work with many small - medium businesses on the IT side, I can say Time Warner has done well in that arena as well. The only problem I ever seem to have, is finding the numbers to call for support. I don't have them memorized like I do for SBC DSL.
I like your post, but have one question. I've always understood that most (to use your own term) 'native people' walked toe to heel and not flat footed. This would, in my own practice at least, lead someone to walk much more cautiously, as you point out. But I could be wrong and often are. Hmm, I guess I didn't really pose a question, did I?
I agree with the assertion to a point. There is way too much rehashing and rehashing, I mean, if someone releases another FPS I might just have to shoot someone (ha, ha). But look at games like Okami, Katamari Damaci and Jade Empire. There is not way we could have had games with such rich and interesting storylines and worlds back in the day. What develpoers need to do is take on Atari's old motto for designing games: "Make original games."
I wonder if it is simply the amount of "data" we are confronted with each day. I remember reading about a Chinese book on Confucism published around before Galeleio was born. One of the lines in the book essentially said "a body in motion tends to stay in motion." But the idea never caught on because there were so many books being published (the Chinese had printing presses way before Europeans) that they were essentially being given away for free on street corners, and very few people (and probably none of influence) even read this book. Though you would think it was special in someway since it was preserved till modern times.
Just a thought.
There is a real problem with the above quote. It is very disengenous to imply the coup government in Thailand is any more hardlined when it comes to the disgracement of representations of the King than the ousted government. Thailand blocking YouTube because of this video would have happened no matter who was in office. To point - prior to the most recent coup people had been jailed for accidentally stepping on Thai money (which carries the picture of the King) that had been dropped in the street. A better exapmle would be the famous monk who was jailed for simply implying the King and his family were normal humans and not gods.
This really has to do with Thai culture and not the coup government.
Actually, one of the updates for the PS3 was supposed to address this. Whether it did or not I don't know, but according to the posts I read this was one of the things a recent update was supposed to fix.
The iPhone may be great and all but 8GB of storage is way too low for this device to replace iPods and $600+ is way too high of a cost to replace the iPod. To be quite honest 80GB is too small. I (and there are plenty of us out there) like to have "everything" with me and my music collection alone tops out at over 80GB. How am I going to put the entire first 2 seasons of Battle Star Galactica and Lost onto this thing, as well? Actually what would let the iPhone replace the iPod, would be to give iTunes Slingbox like capabilites. Then you can just stream your entire media library to your phone. Are you listening Apple? I'm giving you that one for free.:)
I have to agree with your first asurtion. I someone wants a "naked" PC they probably have the where with all to build one from scratch with off the shelf parts.
But your second statement I jsut don't find to be true. Having worked in the business for the past 12 years, I can tell you, its possible to build a comperable PC at the same price as the big box manufaturers. That's including operating system. Knck the off $150-200 charged for the OS (and it is charged, trust me) and you just saved $150-200 on the price of the PC.
The company I worked for several years ago did nothing but build computers to order. We would, in the blink of an eye, sell you a machine without an OS on it. And before you go saying "a small outfit like that couldn't possibly supply some of the larger corporations" we, with a shop of maybe 4-5 guys (working long hours and weekends; but it was worth the bonus), built enough PCs to replace the entire fleet at a huge, international engineering firm, in a year, all the while continuing to supply our normal, small-to-medium-business clients, and our other big client (a national food distributor). So it can be done. If you want a system without an OS these are the types of places to go to. You may not get the cool, over engineered cases, but it will be the case you pick out, the motherboard you pick out, the CPU...etc. Plus custom built images. You have a particular OS setup you want to use with with the apps you want? With SMS or products like Ghost, every PC you receive will be just about ready to plug onto the network out of the box. And everything will be an off the shelf component, easy to replace if need be. It just amazes me more companies don't go with the smaller, white box suppliers.
Finally, someone is taking me seriously and tyring to add the layer the IOS model has been missing for years.
The new ISO Model
Layer 1 - Physical
Layer 2 - Data Link
Layer 3 - Network
Layer 4 - Transport
Layer 5 - Session
Layer 6 - Presentation
Layer 7 - Application
Layer 8 - Politics
But by making specialized chips, you can limit and optimize the instruction set to allow for many more instructions per second. The performance gains of this strategy (as well as using this a a means of heat distribution) could out strip the latency gains of putting everything on one chip.
Except you shouldn't have to. As one of the founders of Google pointed out about 3 months ago, most if not all the compnents in a PC could be designed to run off a common voltage. The only reasons they don't are historical. Alot of the power loss and heat generation is caused by not just converting the 110V AC to 48V DC, but then converting that down to all the lesser voltges. Converting the components to use a common voltage wouldn't solve the problem, but it would decrease it and would provide a smoother transition. We wouldn't have to worry about the power infrastructure (which needs to be upgraded, as well) and provide significant power savings.
And electricity is more predictable?
I once had an Electricl Engineer (2 PHD's, and licenses in 5 states and 3 other countries) admit to me that no one realy understands how electricty works. They have good guesses that seem to be right, but that's about it.
I don't know why you say this. Unless you're thinking that a photon is a particle and concieving of that particle as a speck of dust of grain of sand. Photons, like electrons, don't always act like a particles. Sometimes they act like waves.
It amazes me when people who are supposed to understand how this country should work (according to the Constitution and the rule of law) never seem to. This statement by Gingrich is utter BS. There is no need (and its doubtful they could even be enforced if WE put laws into place) for new laws governing the freedom of speech.
And its almost boring what Newt is doing here. He is doing what politicians around the world do all the time. He is inventing a problem. "Oh no, we need to keep the terrorists from spreading their ideology and disseminating their terroristic plans! We need new laws!" Uh, really? Last time I checked there were restrictions on my freedom of speech. I can't incite violence, I can't yell fire in a crowded theater and Fighting Words are legal grounds for me to get my butt kicked (not to mention Slander and Libel). Not to mention laws against conspiracy (so someone who is only involved in the "talking" portion of a plot to harm/kill 1 or more people can be brought to justice).
Hmm, so what is it we need laws to protect us against? Those that don't agree w/ the U.S. can still talk freely and openly, but anyone espousing violence, inciting violence are clearly breaking the law. So what new laws do we need? Why do we need our freedoms curtailed?
Ah, but here's the trick. Newt is counting on the fact that everyone has already forgotten that little lesson from their high school government class or that our schools are so crappy most people were never taught the curtailments on out FOS (Freedom Of Speech (just in case I need to use that later and don't feel like typing it out)) that are already in place.
The second and most problematic issue with what ole Newt said is that it involves passing laws that govern the Internet. These are highly problematic, especially when you are talking about "content" laws on the Internet. What if the server is in another country? Or what if it's in international waters? Are we going to become like China and build our own Great Firewall? And once we do that, where does it stop? There are a lot of nasty ideas out there we may not want our citizens exposed to. Ideas like Freedom of Speech and Democracy. (Sorry, that was a little cheesy).
The Internet is a "territory" unowned/wholly-owned by the entire world. The US passing laws that govern anything but the physical parts of the Internet within our borders is pointless and unenforceable. Not to mention, it's as if we were passing laws that were to be enacted in India. The obvious solution would be to set up a government for the Internet. Each person in the world, of a certain age, would get one vote. We could even set up a system to have a true democracy, where everyone votes for everything. Now this "government" would not have any domain over the physical portion of the network. Instead it would be established as a behavioral regulator (cause that's what governments start as). It would regulate content and behavior on the net. Simple as that. Its main mode of punishment would be fines, but it would be able to "Banish" citizens as a last resort. I can see it now. The first, true One-World Government. hehe.
Slashdot Mirror
Same here. I've had RR since it was first introduced in Houston and have had only 2 instances of outage. And since I work with many small - medium businesses on the IT side, I can say Time Warner has done well in that arena as well. The only problem I ever seem to have, is finding the numbers to call for support. I don't have them memorized like I do for SBC DSL.
I like your post, but have one question. I've always understood that most (to use your own term) 'native people' walked toe to heel and not flat footed. This would, in my own practice at least, lead someone to walk much more cautiously, as you point out. But I could be wrong and often are. Hmm, I guess I didn't really pose a question, did I?
I agree with the assertion to a point. There is way too much rehashing and rehashing, I mean, if someone releases another FPS I might just have to shoot someone (ha, ha). But look at games like Okami, Katamari Damaci and Jade Empire. There is not way we could have had games with such rich and interesting storylines and worlds back in the day. What develpoers need to do is take on Atari's old motto for designing games: "Make original games."
I wonder if it is simply the amount of "data" we are confronted with each day. I remember reading about a Chinese book on Confucism published around before Galeleio was born. One of the lines in the book essentially said "a body in motion tends to stay in motion." But the idea never caught on because there were so many books being published (the Chinese had printing presses way before Europeans) that they were essentially being given away for free on street corners, and very few people (and probably none of influence) even read this book. Though you would think it was special in someway since it was preserved till modern times. Just a thought.
There is a real problem with the above quote. It is very disengenous to imply the coup government in Thailand is any more hardlined when it comes to the disgracement of representations of the King than the ousted government. Thailand blocking YouTube because of this video would have happened no matter who was in office. To point - prior to the most recent coup people had been jailed for accidentally stepping on Thai money (which carries the picture of the King) that had been dropped in the street. A better exapmle would be the famous monk who was jailed for simply implying the King and his family were normal humans and not gods. This really has to do with Thai culture and not the coup government.
Actually, one of the updates for the PS3 was supposed to address this. Whether it did or not I don't know, but according to the posts I read this was one of the things a recent update was supposed to fix.
The iPhone may be great and all but 8GB of storage is way too low for this device to replace iPods and $600+ is way too high of a cost to replace the iPod. To be quite honest 80GB is too small. I (and there are plenty of us out there) like to have "everything" with me and my music collection alone tops out at over 80GB. How am I going to put the entire first 2 seasons of Battle Star Galactica and Lost onto this thing, as well? Actually what would let the iPhone replace the iPod, would be to give iTunes Slingbox like capabilites. Then you can just stream your entire media library to your phone. Are you listening Apple? I'm giving you that one for free. :)
I have to agree with your first asurtion. I someone wants a "naked" PC they probably have the where with all to build one from scratch with off the shelf parts. But your second statement I jsut don't find to be true. Having worked in the business for the past 12 years, I can tell you, its possible to build a comperable PC at the same price as the big box manufaturers. That's including operating system. Knck the off $150-200 charged for the OS (and it is charged, trust me) and you just saved $150-200 on the price of the PC.
The company I worked for several years ago did nothing but build computers to order. We would, in the blink of an eye, sell you a machine without an OS on it. And before you go saying "a small outfit like that couldn't possibly supply some of the larger corporations" we, with a shop of maybe 4-5 guys (working long hours and weekends; but it was worth the bonus), built enough PCs to replace the entire fleet at a huge, international engineering firm, in a year, all the while continuing to supply our normal, small-to-medium-business clients, and our other big client (a national food distributor). So it can be done. If you want a system without an OS these are the types of places to go to. You may not get the cool, over engineered cases, but it will be the case you pick out, the motherboard you pick out, the CPU...etc. Plus custom built images. You have a particular OS setup you want to use with with the apps you want? With SMS or products like Ghost, every PC you receive will be just about ready to plug onto the network out of the box. And everything will be an off the shelf component, easy to replace if need be. It just amazes me more companies don't go with the smaller, white box suppliers.
Finally, someone is taking me seriously and tyring to add the layer the IOS model has been missing for years. The new ISO Model Layer 1 - Physical Layer 2 - Data Link Layer 3 - Network Layer 4 - Transport Layer 5 - Session Layer 6 - Presentation Layer 7 - Application Layer 8 - Politics
But by making specialized chips, you can limit and optimize the instruction set to allow for many more instructions per second. The performance gains of this strategy (as well as using this a a means of heat distribution) could out strip the latency gains of putting everything on one chip.
Except you shouldn't have to. As one of the founders of Google pointed out about 3 months ago, most if not all the compnents in a PC could be designed to run off a common voltage. The only reasons they don't are historical. Alot of the power loss and heat generation is caused by not just converting the 110V AC to 48V DC, but then converting that down to all the lesser voltges. Converting the components to use a common voltage wouldn't solve the problem, but it would decrease it and would provide a smoother transition. We wouldn't have to worry about the power infrastructure (which needs to be upgraded, as well) and provide significant power savings.
Or I could be wrong.
And electricity is more predictable? I once had an Electricl Engineer (2 PHD's, and licenses in 5 states and 3 other countries) admit to me that no one realy understands how electricty works. They have good guesses that seem to be right, but that's about it.
I don't know why you say this. Unless you're thinking that a photon is a particle and concieving of that particle as a speck of dust of grain of sand. Photons, like electrons, don't always act like a particles. Sometimes they act like waves.
It amazes me when people who are supposed to understand how this country should work (according to the Constitution and the rule of law) never seem to. This statement by Gingrich is utter BS. There is no need (and its doubtful they could even be enforced if WE put laws into place) for new laws governing the freedom of speech. And its almost boring what Newt is doing here. He is doing what politicians around the world do all the time. He is inventing a problem. "Oh no, we need to keep the terrorists from spreading their ideology and disseminating their terroristic plans! We need new laws!" Uh, really? Last time I checked there were restrictions on my freedom of speech. I can't incite violence, I can't yell fire in a crowded theater and Fighting Words are legal grounds for me to get my butt kicked (not to mention Slander and Libel). Not to mention laws against conspiracy (so someone who is only involved in the "talking" portion of a plot to harm/kill 1 or more people can be brought to justice). Hmm, so what is it we need laws to protect us against? Those that don't agree w/ the U.S. can still talk freely and openly, but anyone espousing violence, inciting violence are clearly breaking the law. So what new laws do we need? Why do we need our freedoms curtailed? Ah, but here's the trick. Newt is counting on the fact that everyone has already forgotten that little lesson from their high school government class or that our schools are so crappy most people were never taught the curtailments on out FOS (Freedom Of Speech (just in case I need to use that later and don't feel like typing it out)) that are already in place. The second and most problematic issue with what ole Newt said is that it involves passing laws that govern the Internet. These are highly problematic, especially when you are talking about "content" laws on the Internet. What if the server is in another country? Or what if it's in international waters? Are we going to become like China and build our own Great Firewall? And once we do that, where does it stop? There are a lot of nasty ideas out there we may not want our citizens exposed to. Ideas like Freedom of Speech and Democracy. (Sorry, that was a little cheesy). The Internet is a "territory" unowned/wholly-owned by the entire world. The US passing laws that govern anything but the physical parts of the Internet within our borders is pointless and unenforceable. Not to mention, it's as if we were passing laws that were to be enacted in India. The obvious solution would be to set up a government for the Internet. Each person in the world, of a certain age, would get one vote. We could even set up a system to have a true democracy, where everyone votes for everything. Now this "government" would not have any domain over the physical portion of the network. Instead it would be established as a behavioral regulator (cause that's what governments start as). It would regulate content and behavior on the net. Simple as that. Its main mode of punishment would be fines, but it would be able to "Banish" citizens as a last resort. I can see it now. The first, true One-World Government. hehe.