I know I'm an ignorant lout here, but I'm missing on the discussion of why they went with Cat 6. It seams to me they were saying "We don't need it, it may or may not be any better, but it doesn't cost much less, so we'll go with it." Isn't paying slightly more money for something very over spec a worse use of financial resources than paying less forsomething that is slightly less over spec? Or did I miss something? It is late.
The focus of the article in question is why Joe User would want to use Debian. Therefore I'm responding to this post as though the title was "Joe User's" top reasons for using Debian. I realize you were giving your personal resons, but it is still relavant to see how well these reasons apply to Joe User.
1)Stability. Good stability is important for just about every application you could put a computer to. Let's definantly focus on this one.
2)Joe User doesn't care, why should he?
3)This is not an advantage, it is a disadvantage. Joe User wants to set up a system that works well, fairly easily, even if Joe is fairly advanced, unless he has already used linux a fair amount he won't know if it is better to use foo1.2 sprocket adapter or bar4.9 sprocket adapter. He might go for bar4.9 because its version number is higher, thinking that makes it a more advanced or more stable program (he might be surprized) or, worse he might choose foo1.2 simply because he likes the name better without knowing which software package that does the same thing works better. For Joe User, the best setup is to have one package for one task.
4. No, No, No, No, Joe user doesn't care about the philosophy behind the programmer who wrote the code on his computer. He cares how well it works. If a Non-Free package (esp one that is free as in free-beer) is available he won't like that some high-minded programmer decided he shouldn't have it and leave it out of the distro.
Conclusion, Debian's strong point for Joe User seems to be stability.
If I knew that the RIAA was going to have evil policy anyway, I would be perfectly willing to spout it out for sufficient funds. It would come down to the fact that who's saying it doesn't make any difference, but who's making the money does. (Although I'd probably eventually let myself get caught molesting children or killing puppies or something to make the entire RIAA loose credibility in the eyes of the knee-jerker home news viewers).
This brings up another to often brought up issue, the death of desktop computers. How? Eventualy the standalone computer will no longer be a fixture in most homes. When, I don't know, not soon, but possibly within my children's lifetime (if I ever have any). The likly replacement is a large number of smart devices that handle specific tasks (possibly controlled by a primary 'server' like system, or possibly not, but this is irrelavant) even if there is a use for full fledged computers, there will be many more devices with GUI's that arn't just computers. Microwaves, refridgerators, cars, thermostats, all will likly eventualy be GUI driven. (Not saying they SHOULD be, just likly will be). At this point there are two options, a single interface that works the same basic way accross ALL devices (so you don't have to learn a different OS to use a microwave and to use a toaster) or each device could have a custom interface that is best suited for efficient use of that device but will require the user to use it differently than other devices. I think most users would rather have continuity than efficiency, and while I'm not predicting that the Apple Computing company will gain significantly, the design paradime of all devices having an interface that is adaptable for all other devices will. If this means we'll have 3 buttons on tiny devices (cumbersome) or one button on complicated devices (inefficient) I'm not sure, but it WILL have to be considered.
Agreed. Except that I doubt Hatch would, if such extreme measures were "neccicary" bother to make sure the owner of the system was the one with the illegal MP3's. Who would have illegal MP3's on other people's systems? Kids around the country. Downloading them on their parents (possibly their parents' work's) computers without authorization or knowledge. Or college campuses with public computers, coffee shops, possibly even the webmaster who run's a few congressmen's sites. So due to some people's "crimes" and I use the term loosly, should other people have their property destroyed without due process of law?
I currently use NO "pirite" software, unless you count shareware which isn't (yet) registered, but I intend to. I own more registered shareware than non-registered and no, I don't use a GPL OS, I use Mac OS X (10.2.1) which is ligit. I purchased Adobe Photoshop (the GIMP OS X port didn't work well) with honest to god money. Oh, but I do have several MP3's. Most of my MP3's are things I have purchased before but lost the disk or gotten it too scratched up, the artist was paied (once) for my use of their song, why pay twice? I know this is illegal, but I don't think it unethical. Never let the letter of the law interfear with the spirit. Oh, as to your implication that 90% of the people here have no credibility, I think that's more projection than actual, MOST of the people here will quite willingly account for every bit of illegal software they own, proudly at that.
Please moderate the first paragraph -1 troll, the second paragraph +1 insightfull, the third paragraph (including bullited list) +1 informative, the fourth paragraph +1 informative, the fifth paragraph +1 insightfull and the last paragraph/sentence +1 funny.
What do you mean you can't break it down like that? Slashdot won't let you? The're trying to stifle you! Protest. Oh, wait, nevermind.
Language is a means of representing ideas symbolicly to convey meaning from one party to one or more other party. Words (spoken or written) have no meaning other than that which we give them. A word's meaning comes from the fact that the reading (or listening) party can get a more or less accurate impression of the idea the writing (or speaking) party intended to convey. How, then, is it possible for you to state that you know what the poster intended and state that the sentence has a nearly opposite meaning than what was intended? Ok, so I'm just playing with definitions, but its fun.
There is only so much USABLE bandwidth within the RF spectrum. Your hypothetical device would be able to operate ANYWHERE so all devices would have to work on the same frequency. The entire 2M amatur radio band (the most popular for local communications takes up about a 2 MHz frequency allocation. I don't know to much about packet (digital) radio, but to get the bandwith you need for real internet like systems you would need several thousand times that bandwidth. If we took all other RF devices offline, we would probably have enough bandwidth(untill peer-to-peer DVD sharing gets started)but at this point: 1. The military likes to be able to communicate with radios 2. Some people still use broadcast television. 3. NASA likes to communicate with shuttles 4. We hams ain't going nowhere 5. Listening to broadcast radio is occasionaly nice. 6. Industry puts out a lot of interference that would have to be routed through. 7. Computers produce interfearence that would have to be accounted for etc.
What's really in the way? figuring a more efficient use of limited bandwith on the usable radio frequencies. (Imagine hooking everybody up to one hub, think of how many collisions you would have.)
73
KG4WWN
PS I'm writing this at 3AM, hope it is coherent in the morning.
Just now realized NetFlix, and the WalMart thing are Online only, I could have gone to each site in the amount of time it took to write the post. Still, details would have been nice. But my apologies for not first reading the story.
You cannot kill that which is already dead. I consider CNN dead from the point it switched over to the "new" format and became as crappy as any other TV news.
At this point you say it has the same "look-and-feel" of NetFlix. Having never been to a NetFlix, please, give more detail as to what is the same. For with the amount of information in your post I can't tell if you mean it has what looks like a NetFlix logo, but with WalMart in it, or if it just gives off the same psychic 'vibes' or if titles are simply organized into the same catagory. Please, when you say somebody is copying somebody else, give at least some examples of what is copied, otherwise your post, while perhaps true and noteworthy, doesn't have enough information in it to back it up and so won't give any information to people who don't already agree with you. (Those who disagree can say "no it isn't" and have contributed just as much as you, and those with no opinion have no information to judge their opinion on.)
Um, I might be biting on a troll, but if not I'd better clarify one point. J.R.R. Tolkien didn't sell the rights. He died firmly committed to the idea that a movie should never be made. One of his heirs sold the rights, pragmatic, perhaps, but disrespectfull to the wishes of the dead.
You speak of what you don't know. Perhaps he is spoiled. Perhaps not. It could be an inheritance. He might have worked for most of it. If he got a job when he was 14 he EASILY could have made well over half that amount himself. If he was shrewd in investments he could have thus made the other half. I doubt this is the case, but it must still have been devistating for him to loose that amount of money. Just because someone is better off than you, doesn't mean it doesn't hurt to be taken down. Just because someone else may never have earned something, doesn't mean its loss isn't felt. Yes, he probably knew he could share MP3 files. That might have even been part of his idea. But that does not, IMHO, justify the neccisisaty of such a major loss to him. You may appriciate money more than he does, but you obviously don't appriciate other people's feelings. Now which do YOU think is more important?
HE obviously had 12k that he could have used to hire a lawyer. That should be enough if the RIAA's case is as week as you, and others, seem to say. And I agree, the case IS weak. However however week the case is, a loss could result in so much more damages. With the mumbo-jumbo the RIAA is claiming, they might have said that every MP3 that exists on the college network is lost revenue, and that it is all Jesse Jordan's fault. With that at stake, Jordan had no choice but to settle. Because a loss would mean he would never be out of debt in his life. I call this extortion. Plain and simple.
For a 19 year old college student, that is an amazing amount of money. It can mean the difference in a good graduate school and no graduate school. It might even mean the difference between continuing school. It will mean that he will probably come out of college in debt from student loans, not ready to buy a house and start a future. It means he won't have the liberty of waiting to take a job he will enjoy but will have to take the first good paying job available after he graduates. only $12000 That's worse than bank robbery, thats robbing a kid of a future. Yes he might be able to get another one, but perhaps not.
Yes, the RIAA, a multimillion dollar corperation (at least) decided that revenues from extorbanat CD prices wern't enough, so they decided to get 12k (about what 2 seconds of worth of income for them) to help line their coffers. Or did I mistake the thrust of your remark? Were you commenting on the RIAA in general or what they were trying to get from Jesse Jordan?
RE: All the threads about SW radio Internet Router
on
Shortwave Radio and The PC
·
· Score: 4, Informative
OK, first of all let's define SW. For the sake of this post I'll consider SW to include the 6 Meter HAM band (about 50 MHz) and lower. Yes, it would be possible to reallocate the frequency plans so that a few, high-bandwidth (for this I'm only saying a couple of Mbps) internet routers would exist. However this would tie up so much of the available radio spectrum that most other SW would be unable to function. As I personaly think being to communicate world events to third world contries is more important than giving a single third world contriy e-mail. It probably isn't feasable.
However, if you use the UHF, VHF, and microwave bands. (WiFi btw is basicly just what we're already talking about on the microwave bands) then a lot more spectrum opens up. The problem with these bands is they do not skip the way the SW bands do so cannot cross long distances. Your maximum range is about 10% beyond the horizon. However, if you stratigicly placed routers/repeaters over a country, you might be able to give that entire country a wireless computer network, just don't do peer-to-peer filesharing or other high bandwidth tasks on it please. Interfearence could be partial overcome by using many, many different bands so that traffic could be spread out over 20-50 different frequencies or so.
The best thing IMHO about shortwave bands, IMHO isn't listening to them but it is transmitting on the ham bands. Although you need a license, any geek worth his salt should be able to pass the first license exam after reading the book (ARRL's "Now You're Talking") through once. Thereafter you have license to transmit on a few local frequencies. However with technologies like echolink (repetares linking, often over microwave or radio wave) or IRLP (Internet Radio Linking Project (linux based)) communication to remote locations is possible. I know much of what you can do on radio you can do with voice chat on the internet, but you will come accross a completly different group of people, people who arn't neccicarly computer geeks but still (generaly) fairly intelligent, often with fairly decent electronic knowledge. I have talked with people from Norway, Germany, and England, and have spoken to people in a research station in Antartica. It is a truly thrilling experience.
Blasters possibly, I really have no opinion on that, but lightsabers are still a bit off. Lightsabres are cohesive, that is, if you move the handle, the blade moves as though it were completly solid. It is unaffected by, or at least overcomes, the inertial forces that would cause it to bend (think of swinging a rubber lightsaber). It is not clear that a force field would allow this to happen. (Although it is possible) The biger problem with lightsabers, is that they are completly powered at the base of the beam, while the "force fields" span a gap between two (or more) points. We have, at this time, no way to terminate the lightsaber blade.
I note some moderator had enough grasp of Irony to mod MY post up as underrated, not what I was asking for really. I hope he/she also modded up the parent:)
You still can't make a movie that captured the story and the imagry he wanted to convey. Nor, I doubt will it EVER be possible. So much of what makes literature wonderfull is that everyone's imaganination is somewhat different and everyone can have their own take on any idea. A movie takes this and homoginizes it so that only a few people's (director, producer, actors etc.) vision of the book is portrayed. Even if LOTR could be made to capture EXACTLY what Tolkien had in mind, it would still be inferior to the book, as a book isn't limited by the imaganition of the author, but only by the imagination of the most imaganitive of readers. Movie magic will thus NEVER rival literature.
Furthermore, Tolkien held literacy in high regaurd. He felt that reading a book was an experience to be treasured. He did not hold the same opinion of movies, not due to effects(There were non fantasy movies, requireing no special effects, that were EXTREMLY well done in Tolkien's time, so he had an adiquate view of what good cinima could be.) but due to the inherent nature of the format.
Hmm I think this is more of a statement that linux is catching up with Microsoft in another niche market, not saying that what he can't do with Microsoft he can do with linux. No, nothing is wrong with Microsoft on a tablet (for the sake of the argument) but look, I can do enough with linux too, let's keep working and we can make linux better, we sure can't do much to improve Microsoft (as we don't have the code)
Slashdot Mirror
I know I'm an ignorant lout here, but I'm missing on the discussion of why they went with Cat 6. It seams to me they were saying "We don't need it, it may or may not be any better, but it doesn't cost much less, so we'll go with it." Isn't paying slightly more money for something very over spec a worse use of financial resources than paying less forsomething that is slightly less over spec? Or did I miss something? It is late.
1)Stability. Good stability is important for just about every application you could put a computer to. Let's definantly focus on this one.
2)Joe User doesn't care, why should he?
3)This is not an advantage, it is a disadvantage. Joe User wants to set up a system that works well, fairly easily, even if Joe is fairly advanced, unless he has already used linux a fair amount he won't know if it is better to use foo1.2 sprocket adapter or bar4.9 sprocket adapter. He might go for bar4.9 because its version number is higher, thinking that makes it a more advanced or more stable program (he might be surprized) or, worse he might choose foo1.2 simply because he likes the name better without knowing which software package that does the same thing works better. For Joe User, the best setup is to have one package for one task.
4. No, No, No, No, Joe user doesn't care about the philosophy behind the programmer who wrote the code on his computer. He cares how well it works. If a Non-Free package (esp one that is free as in free-beer) is available he won't like that some high-minded programmer decided he shouldn't have it and leave it out of the distro.
Conclusion, Debian's strong point for Joe User seems to be stability.
If I knew that the RIAA was going to have evil policy anyway, I would be perfectly willing to spout it out for sufficient funds. It would come down to the fact that who's saying it doesn't make any difference, but who's making the money does. (Although I'd probably eventually let myself get caught molesting children or killing puppies or something to make the entire RIAA loose credibility in the eyes of the knee-jerker home news viewers).
This brings up another to often brought up issue, the death of desktop computers. How? Eventualy the standalone computer will no longer be a fixture in most homes. When, I don't know, not soon, but possibly within my children's lifetime (if I ever have any). The likly replacement is a large number of smart devices that handle specific tasks (possibly controlled by a primary 'server' like system, or possibly not, but this is irrelavant) even if there is a use for full fledged computers, there will be many more devices with GUI's that arn't just computers. Microwaves, refridgerators, cars, thermostats, all will likly eventualy be GUI driven. (Not saying they SHOULD be, just likly will be). At this point there are two options, a single interface that works the same basic way accross ALL devices (so you don't have to learn a different OS to use a microwave and to use a toaster) or each device could have a custom interface that is best suited for efficient use of that device but will require the user to use it differently than other devices. I think most users would rather have continuity than efficiency, and while I'm not predicting that the Apple Computing company will gain significantly, the design paradime of all devices having an interface that is adaptable for all other devices will. If this means we'll have 3 buttons on tiny devices (cumbersome) or one button on complicated devices (inefficient) I'm not sure, but it WILL have to be considered.
Agreed. Except that I doubt Hatch would, if such extreme measures were "neccicary" bother to make sure the owner of the system was the one with the illegal MP3's. Who would have illegal MP3's on other people's systems? Kids around the country. Downloading them on their parents (possibly their parents' work's) computers without authorization or knowledge. Or college campuses with public computers, coffee shops, possibly even the webmaster who run's a few congressmen's sites. So due to some people's "crimes" and I use the term loosly, should other people have their property destroyed without due process of law?
I currently use NO "pirite" software, unless you count shareware which isn't (yet) registered, but I intend to. I own more registered shareware than non-registered and no, I don't use a GPL OS, I use Mac OS X (10.2.1) which is ligit. I purchased Adobe Photoshop (the GIMP OS X port didn't work well) with honest to god money. Oh, but I do have several MP3's. Most of my MP3's are things I have purchased before but lost the disk or gotten it too scratched up, the artist was paied (once) for my use of their song, why pay twice? I know this is illegal, but I don't think it unethical. Never let the letter of the law interfear with the spirit. Oh, as to your implication that 90% of the people here have no credibility, I think that's more projection than actual, MOST of the people here will quite willingly account for every bit of illegal software they own, proudly at that.
What do you mean you can't break it down like that? Slashdot won't let you? The're trying to stifle you! Protest. Oh, wait, nevermind.
Language is a means of representing ideas symbolicly to convey meaning from one party to one or more other party. Words (spoken or written) have no meaning other than that which we give them. A word's meaning comes from the fact that the reading (or listening) party can get a more or less accurate impression of the idea the writing (or speaking) party intended to convey. How, then, is it possible for you to state that you know what the poster intended and state that the sentence has a nearly opposite meaning than what was intended? Ok, so I'm just playing with definitions, but its fun.
What's really in the way? figuring a more efficient use of limited bandwith on the usable radio frequencies. (Imagine hooking everybody up to one hub, think of how many collisions you would have.)
73
KG4WWN
PS I'm writing this at 3AM, hope it is coherent in the morning.
Just now realized NetFlix, and the WalMart thing are Online only, I could have gone to each site in the amount of time it took to write the post. Still, details would have been nice. But my apologies for not first reading the story.
You cannot kill that which is already dead. I consider CNN dead from the point it switched over to the "new" format and became as crappy as any other TV news.
At this point you say it has the same "look-and-feel" of NetFlix. Having never been to a NetFlix, please, give more detail as to what is the same. For with the amount of information in your post I can't tell if you mean it has what looks like a NetFlix logo, but with WalMart in it, or if it just gives off the same psychic 'vibes' or if titles are simply organized into the same catagory. Please, when you say somebody is copying somebody else, give at least some examples of what is copied, otherwise your post, while perhaps true and noteworthy, doesn't have enough information in it to back it up and so won't give any information to people who don't already agree with you. (Those who disagree can say "no it isn't" and have contributed just as much as you, and those with no opinion have no information to judge their opinion on.)
Um, I might be biting on a troll, but if not I'd better clarify one point. J.R.R. Tolkien didn't sell the rights. He died firmly committed to the idea that a movie should never be made. One of his heirs sold the rights, pragmatic, perhaps, but disrespectfull to the wishes of the dead.
Woah, you're saying I'm the first to use a rhetorical question? Hello, US Patent office? Yes, I'd like to file for a patent...
Hmm well, I think that makes what money he had doubly precious then does it not?
You speak of what you don't know. Perhaps he is spoiled. Perhaps not. It could be an inheritance. He might have worked for most of it. If he got a job when he was 14 he EASILY could have made well over half that amount himself. If he was shrewd in investments he could have thus made the other half. I doubt this is the case, but it must still have been devistating for him to loose that amount of money. Just because someone is better off than you, doesn't mean it doesn't hurt to be taken down. Just because someone else may never have earned something, doesn't mean its loss isn't felt. Yes, he probably knew he could share MP3 files. That might have even been part of his idea. But that does not, IMHO, justify the neccisisaty of such a major loss to him. You may appriciate money more than he does, but you obviously don't appriciate other people's feelings. Now which do YOU think is more important?
HE obviously had 12k that he could have used to hire a lawyer. That should be enough if the RIAA's case is as week as you, and others, seem to say. And I agree, the case IS weak. However however week the case is, a loss could result in so much more damages. With the mumbo-jumbo the RIAA is claiming, they might have said that every MP3 that exists on the college network is lost revenue, and that it is all Jesse Jordan's fault. With that at stake, Jordan had no choice but to settle. Because a loss would mean he would never be out of debt in his life. I call this extortion. Plain and simple.
For a 19 year old college student, that is an amazing amount of money. It can mean the difference in a good graduate school and no graduate school. It might even mean the difference between continuing school. It will mean that he will probably come out of college in debt from student loans, not ready to buy a house and start a future. It means he won't have the liberty of waiting to take a job he will enjoy but will have to take the first good paying job available after he graduates. only $12000 That's worse than bank robbery, thats robbing a kid of a future. Yes he might be able to get another one, but perhaps not.
Yes, the RIAA, a multimillion dollar corperation (at least) decided that revenues from extorbanat CD prices wern't enough, so they decided to get 12k (about what 2 seconds of worth of income for them) to help line their coffers. Or did I mistake the thrust of your remark? Were you commenting on the RIAA in general or what they were trying to get from Jesse Jordan?
However, if you use the UHF, VHF, and microwave bands. (WiFi btw is basicly just what we're already talking about on the microwave bands) then a lot more spectrum opens up. The problem with these bands is they do not skip the way the SW bands do so cannot cross long distances. Your maximum range is about 10% beyond the horizon. However, if you stratigicly placed routers/repeaters over a country, you might be able to give that entire country a wireless computer network, just don't do peer-to-peer filesharing or other high bandwidth tasks on it please. Interfearence could be partial overcome by using many, many different bands so that traffic could be spread out over 20-50 different frequencies or so.
73
KG4WWN
73
KG4WWN
Blasters possibly, I really have no opinion on that, but lightsabers are still a bit off. Lightsabres are cohesive, that is, if you move the handle, the blade moves as though it were completly solid. It is unaffected by, or at least overcomes, the inertial forces that would cause it to bend (think of swinging a rubber lightsaber). It is not clear that a force field would allow this to happen. (Although it is possible) The biger problem with lightsabers, is that they are completly powered at the base of the beam, while the "force fields" span a gap between two (or more) points. We have, at this time, no way to terminate the lightsaber blade.
I note some moderator had enough grasp of Irony to mod MY post up as underrated, not what I was asking for really. I hope he/she also modded up the parent :)
Furthermore, Tolkien held literacy in high regaurd. He felt that reading a book was an experience to be treasured. He did not hold the same opinion of movies, not due to effects(There were non fantasy movies, requireing no special effects, that were EXTREMLY well done in Tolkien's time, so he had an adiquate view of what good cinima could be.) but due to the inherent nature of the format.
Hmm I think this is more of a statement that linux is catching up with Microsoft in another niche market, not saying that what he can't do with Microsoft he can do with linux. No, nothing is wrong with Microsoft on a tablet (for the sake of the argument) but look, I can do enough with linux too, let's keep working and we can make linux better, we sure can't do much to improve Microsoft (as we don't have the code)