Telecom companies will just move to charging by bandwidth if they need to. Telecom companies should just give up fighting net neutrality here in the US too and just say "OK, fine. We'll just raise prices considerably."
You think ISPs are against net neutrality for bandwidth reasons? HA! They see hugely popular sites like YouTube, and FaceBook and see an opportunity for profit by charging more to access those sites. They also seem to think that they have a right to hold the bandwidth of sites that they have no agreements with hostage if they aren't paid. Or the ISP also operates their own cable network or VoIP service and wants to charge their competitors more. This is all about seeing a way to squeeze every drop of profit out of consumers and competitors that they can.
I'm sure standard oil only "asked." Sort of like an extortionist only asks for protection money.
Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on phones, they are actually only a minor player. That doesn't give them any leverage to demand anything. If they try to make demands the the people making the phones will tell them to get lost, and they will switch to android or some other larger player.
This reminds me of standard oil making deals with railroads, to not carry oil for companies that competed with standard oil, or to charge those other companies much more.
As I understand it, these actions by the old robber barons brought about the Clayton Act, and the Sherman Act.
So why are the new robber barons allowed to get away with such abusive, anti-competitive actions?
Because Asking is not the same as Demanding. And because Microsoft does not have a monopoly on phone Operating Systems.
I miss the easy to find 1920x1600 screens. They were getting pretty common, but they suddenly dropped down to the lower "High definition" resolution of movies. Now they are almost impossible to find for under $1000.
Quote: "Adopting a new image format in Web browsers is a big decision. Once a format becomes a part of the Web, it will have to be supported in perpetuityâ"adding overhead to the browserâ"even if it largely fizzles and only gains a small niche following."
It's akin to if Web browsers were required to support failed formats like ANIM or HAM or IFF. In other words adding support for WebM wastes space in the program (and computer memory).
And I'm probably going to get modded -1 for comparing WebM to "failed formats" like HAM, but I think it's pretty obvious that WebM is destined for the same place as VESA and HD-VHS landed. Nice idea..... not adopted by the general public.
Why would the browser need specific format support? Shouldn't it just query the OS for image decoders and automatically decode them using standard libraries? Seems like a far better solution than hard coding the image libraries in to the browser.
What ever became of port knocking? Where to gain access to a specific port you had to hit several other ports in a specific order to gain access. When I read about it, it seemed like a wonderful idea, but I haven't heard anything about it for years. It seems that something like that could help.
The Internet existed in 1992. The Web, as we know it, didn't, and most discussion was on newsgroups. If I remember correctly, that was the period when there was a lot of discussion about commercial use of the Internet.
So, you support my point: the Internet, as we know it today, did not exist in 1992.
Dan Aris
The internet is NOT the web. The internet is just a geographically distributed network of computers (arguably using tcp/ip as it's primary protocol). It's the same now as it was then.
"Did tech innovation suffer over the last 10 years because Microsoft wasn't broken up? 'Not really,' said Vinton Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, 'It has to do with the fact that open source has become such a strong force in the software world.'""
Sure, open source is strong, but you claim that Microsoft didn't make tech innovation suffer? And what about all these small OSes that died? What about all these small firms that made competing programs and were crushed by Microsoft? Really, I am not a Google hater by any means, but I don't like that. (And I don't like that they didn't release Honeycomb source regardless of excuses they provide.)
Would Open Source be as strong as it is today if there hadn't been a common enemy for people with that sort of ideology to rally against? I don't know what the answer is, but it's an interesting question.
If you are saying that the above is good, do you suggest an alternative avenue for making those who were wronged whole, or that it is the least objectionable alternative for them to remain unwhole?
A "normal" lawsuit. Of course you will have to work harder to prove your case, as opposed to sitting on your ass and doing nothing as part of the Class.
Lets be honest, there's no accountability on the part of mobile app developers. Before you download an Android app it asks for permission to use certain features, but the developers aren't required to say how they'll use those features, or what they'll do with it.
And what's worse is that despite having a fairly granular permissions system, the end user is totally denied any ability to selectively remove permissions. Want to remove Internet access from an application that doesn't need it? Tough luck--Google knows what's best for you.
And then they try to say they don't add this because 90% of users wouldn't use it. So? Bury it deep down in a menu somewhere that only people that really care will find it. The fact is it would be simple, but Google just doesn't want the user to have this power over her device.
A decent improvement would be if the "full internet access" permission made the developer declare the addresses it wanted to access, and then only allowed access to those sites. It's not perfect, but it's better than what we have now.
I would love to be able to deny a permission to an application, but that would really break the free app model. Fixing that properly by letting the app see if the permission was denied at runtime would also fix that, but that would be a nightmare for backwards compatibility.
Soon we'll charge fat people more to ride the bus because they use up more gas. Wonderful.
That's a bad example, because it at least has some relation to reality. Moving more mass requires more fuel. Charging more for majors that usually pay more doesn't have any kind of relationship to the cost of actually providing the education.
Ahh, you must be in Europe -- my first encounter with weigh-produce-first was in an Irish supermarket when the bemused clerk had to send me back to weigh my produce. I've never seen a store in the USA that does that.
Giant (http://www.giantfoodstores.com) here in the central PA area of the US has been doing it for a few years now.
What argument could you possibly make that it should be free?
1. It would be incredibly good PR for them that might actually help them build a strong indy developer community. A Community that would grow and learn the sony tools, instilling brand loyalty in the next generation of developers.
Isn't there some law of physics that says information can not be transmitted faster than the speed of light?
Yes. The headline is incorrect. The experiment 'teleported' the quantum state of photons (but not the photons themselves, that is almost certainly impossible, or at least, grossly impractical) in a way that was much faster than previous experiments. But still slower than the speed of light.
To be fair to the headline, the text of the article mentions that the state was transmitted instantly, which implies speeds faster than light.
Your post shows you have read neither the summary or the article. And your cat is dead.
How so?
From TFA:
In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, “alive” again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost.
that suggests to me they are claiming to be able to transfer information faster than the speed of light. They use the word "instant" to describe the amount of time it took to "move information". Information transmitted via light between any 2 points that are not occupying the same space always takes more time than "instant"
A good place to begin would be to examine the robots.txt of large sites to see what they're blocking. Sometimes they leave helpful comments in the text files as well. The most interesting I've come across so far is Wikipedia's robots.txt file which has comments for every disallow or series of disallows.
After reading this the first thing I thought was, "Now we need a meta-robots.txt file to stop robots from scraping the robots.txt file."
Slashdot Mirror
Telecom companies will just move to charging by bandwidth if they need to. Telecom companies should just give up fighting net neutrality here in the US too and just say "OK, fine. We'll just raise prices considerably."
You think ISPs are against net neutrality for bandwidth reasons? HA! They see hugely popular sites like YouTube, and FaceBook and see an opportunity for profit by charging more to access those sites. They also seem to think that they have a right to hold the bandwidth of sites that they have no agreements with hostage if they aren't paid. Or the ISP also operates their own cable network or VoIP service and wants to charge their competitors more. This is all about seeing a way to squeeze every drop of profit out of consumers and competitors that they can.
Wolfenstein would fire one ray for each horizontal column on the screen
Aren't horizontal columns commonly called... rows?
To the cloud, of course!
The cloud.... of Ipads duct-taped together that will make up future "servers"?
I'm sure standard oil only "asked." Sort of like an extortionist only asks for protection money.
Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on phones, they are actually only a minor player. That doesn't give them any leverage to demand anything. If they try to make demands the the people making the phones will tell them to get lost, and they will switch to android or some other larger player.
This reminds me of standard oil making deals with railroads, to not carry oil for companies that competed with standard oil, or to charge those other companies much more.
As I understand it, these actions by the old robber barons brought about the Clayton Act, and the Sherman Act.
So why are the new robber barons allowed to get away with such abusive, anti-competitive actions?
Because Asking is not the same as Demanding.
And because Microsoft does not have a monopoly on phone Operating Systems.
Did you mean 1920x1200?
My laptop's got that and I don't want to replace it if it means I lose pixels. I wouldn't mind it being brighter though.
yep, meant 1920x1200. thanks for the catch.
I miss the easy to find 1920x1600 screens. They were getting pretty common, but they suddenly dropped down to the lower "High definition" resolution of movies. Now they are almost impossible to find for under $1000.
Quote: "Adopting a new image format in Web browsers is a big decision. Once a format becomes a part of the Web, it will have to be supported in perpetuityâ"adding overhead to the browserâ"even if it largely fizzles and only gains a small niche following."
It's akin to if Web browsers were required to support failed formats like ANIM or HAM or IFF. In other words adding support for WebM wastes space in the program (and computer memory).
And I'm probably going to get modded -1 for comparing WebM to "failed formats" like HAM, but I think it's pretty obvious that WebM is destined for the same place as VESA and HD-VHS landed. Nice idea..... not adopted by the general public.
Why would the browser need specific format support? Shouldn't it just query the OS for image decoders and automatically decode them using standard libraries? Seems like a far better solution than hard coding the image libraries in to the browser.
What ever became of port knocking? Where to gain access to a specific port you had to hit several other ports in a specific order to gain access. When I read about it, it seemed like a wonderful idea, but I haven't heard anything about it for years. It seems that something like that could help.
Then what's the correct term for an electric shock that causes permanent but nonlethal damage to living tissue?
Shocked really fucking badly.
The Internet existed in 1992. The Web, as we know it, didn't, and most discussion was on newsgroups. If I remember correctly, that was the period when there was a lot of discussion about commercial use of the Internet.
So, you support my point: the Internet, as we know it today, did not exist in 1992.
Dan Aris
The internet is NOT the web. The internet is just a geographically distributed network of computers (arguably using tcp/ip as it's primary protocol). It's the same now as it was then.
"Did tech innovation suffer over the last 10 years because Microsoft wasn't broken up? 'Not really,' said Vinton Cerf, Google's chief Internet evangelist, 'It has to do with the fact that open source has become such a strong force in the software world.'""
Sure, open source is strong, but you claim that Microsoft didn't make tech innovation suffer?
And what about all these small OSes that died?
What about all these small firms that made competing programs and were crushed by Microsoft?
Really, I am not a Google hater by any means, but I don't like that.
(And I don't like that they didn't release Honeycomb source regardless of excuses they provide.)
Would Open Source be as strong as it is today if there hadn't been a common enemy for people with that sort of ideology to rally against? I don't know what the answer is, but it's an interesting question.
If you are saying that the above is good, do you suggest an alternative avenue for making those who were wronged whole, or that it is the least objectionable alternative for them to remain unwhole?
A "normal" lawsuit. Of course you will have to work harder to prove your case, as opposed to sitting on your ass and doing nothing as part of the Class.
Lets be honest, there's no accountability on the part of mobile app developers. Before you download an Android app it asks for permission to use certain features, but the developers aren't required to say how they'll use those features, or what they'll do with it.
And what's worse is that despite having a fairly granular permissions system, the end user is totally denied any ability to selectively remove permissions. Want to remove Internet access from an application that doesn't need it? Tough luck--Google knows what's best for you.
And then they try to say they don't add this because 90% of users wouldn't use it. So? Bury it deep down in a menu somewhere that only people that really care will find it. The fact is it would be simple, but Google just doesn't want the user to have this power over her device.
See more from me on this below.
A decent improvement would be if the "full internet access" permission made the developer declare the addresses it wanted to access, and then only allowed access to those sites. It's not perfect, but it's better than what we have now.
I would love to be able to deny a permission to an application, but that would really break the free app model. Fixing that properly by letting the app see if the permission was denied at runtime would also fix that, but that would be a nightmare for backwards compatibility.
Soon we'll charge fat people more to ride the bus because they use up more gas. Wonderful.
That's a bad example, because it at least has some relation to reality. Moving more mass requires more fuel.
Charging more for majors that usually pay more doesn't have any kind of relationship to the cost of actually providing the education.
If they absolutely must put ribbons on the screen, why not make them autohide like the task bar?
Try double clicking the category headers.
Ahh, you must be in Europe -- my first encounter with weigh-produce-first was in an Irish supermarket when the bemused clerk had to send me back to weigh my produce. I've never seen a store in the USA that does that.
Giant (http://www.giantfoodstores.com) here in the central PA area of the US has been doing it for a few years now.
What argument could you possibly make that it should be free?
1. It would be incredibly good PR for them that might actually help them build a strong indy developer community. A Community that would grow and learn the sony tools, instilling brand loyalty in the next generation of developers.
2. It would be cool.
Isn't there some law of physics that says information can not be transmitted faster than the speed of light?
Yes. The headline is incorrect. The experiment 'teleported' the quantum state of photons (but not the photons themselves, that is almost certainly impossible, or at least, grossly impractical) in a way that was much faster than previous experiments. But still slower than the speed of light.
To be fair to the headline, the text of the article mentions that the state was transmitted instantly, which implies speeds faster than light.
Sorry IceBike. Thought you were replying to me, disregard the parent post.
Not really.
Your post shows you have read neither the summary or the article.
And your cat is dead.
How so?
From TFA:
that suggests to me they are claiming to be able to transfer information faster than the speed of light.
They use the word "instant" to describe the amount of time it took to "move information". Information transmitted via light between any 2 points that are not occupying the same space always takes more time than "instant"
Isn't there some law of physics that says information can not be transmitted faster than the speed of light?
It took me DAYS to clean out the Shop-Vac after I tried that.
A good place to begin would be to examine the robots.txt of large sites to see what they're blocking. Sometimes they leave helpful comments in the text files as well. The most interesting I've come across so far is Wikipedia's robots.txt file which has comments for every disallow or series of disallows.
After reading this the first thing I thought was, "Now we need a meta-robots.txt file to stop robots from scraping the robots.txt file."
without representation
In case you haven't noticed, we all have senators and representatives elected by the people.