Yes. And I think they should also fund research into an awesome 3D operating system called "UNIX", in which it's primary function would be the unlocking/locking of building doors.
Yeah, I'm not really sure what this is going to accomplish. Besides, I already make enough of a spectacle of myself to the government. Why the heck would I want to point out all my social networking names to them?
Also, this could wind up being the cause of World War III depending on who Obama puts in his Top 8. Wars have been waged over less.
Actually, as a part-time web developer, I can tell you that I constantly have to model sites and re-code portions of things done by other developers to be compatible with IE6.
There are enough people out there still running IE 6 for it to matter to most companies that want web content generated that it be compatible with IE6 and old versions of Outlook (if it is HTML E-mail) like 2003 and earlier.
I despise this, and look forward to the day I don't have to convert PNG's back to JPG so that the colors look right in IE 6. But this isn't the answer. You can easily uncheck the option to install IE8. I did. I refuse to even see the icon for IE on my computers (I disable it in "Program Access and Defaults").
In some cases, buying your own cables makes sense. But if you are doing a large job, such as wiring a network closet, pre-cut length cables just don't make much sense.
Making your own cables doesn't have to "save a lot of money" to be more effective than buying. You just have to make sure you are making quality cables that don't suck.
Testing is key. Make sure to tone them out, and do some Fluke tests and check to make sure Impedance and Insertion Loss are at acceptable levels. If you are running them to a patch panel, just make sure you punch down the individual wires as close to the sheath as possible.
But in the end, what your boss wants is what you should do. Fighting over this isn't worth it. But there are situations where making your own cables is better than buying, and vice versa.
But with Fiber, you HAVE to string new cable everywhere...because it is FIBER. 80% of the UK will already HAVE some sort of cabling up, whether that is coax or phone lines. The initiative would only be stringing new lines up where there aren't currently any, in which case for this initiative it makes sense to match the current cabling in the rest of the UK, to being the out-of-touch areas up to speed with the rest of the country. They only want to give people the option of having faster than dial-up speeds to those who, most likely, don't even have dial-up, or don't have any change of a phone company/broadband provider forking over the $ to run lines themselves out to small areas with little to no people around.
To bring fiber to the whole country, it would cost infinitely more than bringing 2 Mbit/s sevice to EVERYONE (meaning, the people that have no internet or can only choose to have dialup).
cable and phone companies only run cables to areas that will make them $. I used to live in a very "boonie" area here in NY in my childhood. No cable company wanted to run broadband up our road (a single ROAD only about a mile long) because the population density on that road was not large enough for them to warrent running cables. After about 5 years, more people moved into the neighborhood, and sure enough, there were Optimum Online trucks on our road the following summer.
While 2MBit/s might sounds slow to those of us that have turbo connections and get upwards of 10Mbit/s, this is actually a decent number for an initiative such as this.
2 MBit/s is actually a very attainable number for a cheap internet solution to get EVERYONE access to that speed. And while some may scoff at it being slow, 2 Mbit (around 250 KB/s down) is still about 5x faster than dialup. And it would be an always-on connection, something dial-up is not.
Also, for the UK to fund an initiative like this, it is VERY forward thinking, considering there are many parts of the UK that have roads no wider than a single small European car, and barely receive tv signal or cable-equivalent. I have been to parts of the UK where there is literally NOTHING for miles and miles. For them to be pushing for 2 MBit/s in these areas (if they are SERIOUS about providing this speed of internet to EVERYONE), it would be a viable alternative to the laggy, delay-prone satellite internet that many people in these areas are forced to purchase.
Ever tried to play an online FPS w/ Satellite? Yea. It sucks.
No such thing as public outrage? I beg to differ. Within the last 48 hours, the public outrage over Time Warner Cable's bandwidth cap testing has forced them to stop and postpone indefinitely implementing said cap. Public outrage caused gov't officials to get involved. That combined with people canceling their time warner service en mass, caused a change in favor of said "mass".
They weren't reproducing other people's work. They only provided a place to search through a repository where OTHERS could come and post torrents, which may or may not have reproduced other's works illegally.
Also, the issue was not the content of the site. It was that they were profiting from it. And while I believe that the ads on their site did generate money, the money that was generated was put right back into the servers and hosting costs that came with having millions upon millions of unique hits to their site over the course of every month. The prosecution grossly overstated the amount of money that they generated, which is most likely where the $3.6 Million was generated from, since they believe these guys were actually getting rich from this.
As for starting a fund to help them pay, I am all for it. It is the least I can do to help them after using their website for so many years. If you have ever downloaded even 1 torrent that used a piratebay tracker, then you should want to donate as well. Because if the end result is these guys having to actually pay for these fines, I would not be able to have a clean conscience without helping at least a little.
This is basically Big Cable's answer to streaming video sites like Hulu and every Netflix user (or any other downloadable high-def movie or TV show providers online).
TW: "Sure! Go right ahead and cancel your Cable TV service! But guess what? Now for every movie or TV show you download passed 40GB, you will be paying us tons more $, which makes up for your not buying out TV service. If you don't use these services or download illegally enough to go over the cap, then you probably already have our Cable TV service or don't use them enough for us to care about you."
Sound reasoning by TW...but someone should really take them to court of this. Bandwidth caps in general are only going to hinder the progress of the internet. Who is going to buy internet streaming services when you have to pay 1) the service and 2) the cable company and 3) the cable company EVEN MORE when you exceed the limit? Seriously, the average high-def 30 minute movie file is around 1GB. 40 episodes per month of any show in a high-def format and you are over the limit. The average American watches WAY over 20 hours of TV, Movies, YouTube, and other crap in a month. You are over 40GB in no time, this is before factoring in online gaming, e-mail, general web surfing...
I for one will be switching to EarthLink or Frontier DSL. At least then I can continue to download and surf as little or as much as I want. For anyone saying this is a good idea because they only use 1-2GB a month, please realize that either are either behind the times or just not using the internet for what it is capable of nowadays. I use 10GB of transfer a month just to support myself with my side job doing web and multimedia content generation with FTP traffic alone. Seriously, TW needs to get out of the 90's. The Internet isn't all 1kB bulletin boards through Prodigy Classic anymore. Join us in the 21st Century please.
While I hope that the new movie does well, because if you are a Trek fan you know we NEED it to do well to save the franchise, a new series can't be another prequel, or anything along those lines, and here is why:
Star Trek has always been about moving FORWARD. The thing about Star Trek TV shows is that they are always changing what the Trek Universe has established in a way that supports Roddenberry's dream. They change stereotypes, they make us think "oh wow!" when we don't think it can anymore. Case and point:
Star Trek TOS: First interracial kiss between Kirk and Uhura, established the series traits of Klingons being bad, Romulans being even worse, etc.
Star Trek: TNG: Put a KLINGON on the bridge and jumped forward several hundred years. Introduction of Data, first android character with no emotions. Klingons now part of the federation. Dealings with Romulans that were not ENTIRELY bad. Established BORG as major threat.
Star Trek: Deep Space 9: First black captain in the series, station full of every alien species ever introduced in the show, first cooperation and major storylines involving ROMULANS. Introduction of the first major, season and episode long story arcs.
Star Trek: Voyager: Again jumped forward in the Trek timeline, First female captain, FEMALE BORG as part of the CREW, first Native American introduced as major crew member, first Black Vulcan, Different part of space than any previous Trek
Star Trek: Enterprise: Went back to the beginning, after 2 mediocre seasons, season 3 introduced an amazing story arc which showed us glimpses of the future (Enterprise J!!!), Season 4 helped to shore of some of the story gaps between TOS and TNG and TNG and Voyager. Female Vulcan first officer.
As you can see, there is a certain method to a Trek show. What they are suggesting is crazy in terms of this new show. If there is going to be a new Trek, in needs to be set 200-300 years after Voyager or the end of Nemesis. It NEEDS to have something amazing along the lines of the previous series. Think: Romulan first officer with Romulans part of Star Fleet, and the Enterprise S or J or P or WHATEVER the main focus. Star Trek is about the FUTURE. It's about building bridges between different races and species and cultures, and it is about epic stories. Tarnishing that with more prequel junk is not going to get the 3-5million trek fans on board, nor attract new audiences beyond the ones going to see the new movie for the "cool special effects" and to "see Sylar kick butt".
You know, Family Guy has made light of Fox's inability to keep the majority of their new shows around for more than 1 season on more than 1 occasion. While it is funny everytime they make light of it, it is really quite sad.
What really boggles the mind is why on Earth they wouldn't be supporting Fringe to their fullest. It has received amazing reviews and is the #1 most popular new show on network TV that premiered last year, with around 9.5 Million weekly viewers, the most a new FOX show has had in a long time. The pilot was even received well by most, the cast is rock solid, and it's the first show to make their scorned and bitter X-Files viewers take notice and say "ooooo! Neat!".
The very least they can do is not kill off another good show like they did to Firefly. While they may have put Fringe on hiatus until April, hopefully they won't start airing episodes out of order and then promptly kill it after only 1 season.
In all my time building AMD machines I have never once had a chip fail. Not once. And I've built hundreds of machines. The motherboards, memory, videocards, and hard drives die, but the processors keep on ticking. Meanwhile, I've had loads of P4's die from overheating time and time again. Working for the state, on a network supporting 5000 networked workstations, not a day went by when an Intel machine didn't overheat and toast the CPU. There were literally AT LEAST several every week. Meanwhile, every server room running Opertons or another form of AMD CPU kept on chugging, and those were in cramped server rooms.
I still have an Athlon XP 2000+ running, 24/7 since the day I bought it back in 2002. That's 7 straight years of running. Stock cooling. Serves as my domain controller and stores some common access files for my personal network.
While I am sure there are cases for both sides in terms of longevity, I can't overlook the fact that AMD CPU's continue to provide enough juice to run everything I do, and everything my customers do, for less than half the price of Intel chips. Call me a fanboy, it really doesn't matter. If Intel had chips as cheap as AMD that ran as fast for as long, I'd be all over it. Alas in price vs. performance and bang for the buck, AMD wins hands down in every category.
Sure, if you want the biggest and baddest? Intel is obviously the way to go. Bragging rights? Go with Intel. But if you want to build a machine that costs less than $800 to build (thats with a 22" monitor and all the fixins) that can still run Crysis @ 30+ FPS, then you need to go AMD, it's pretty cut and dry IMO.
Correct. If you can figure on 3-4Ghz with air, and 6Ghz+ with LIQUID-FREAKING-NITROGEN, then you can conservatively say 4.5Ghz-5Ghz w/ water cooling, which is a wide-spread and ever-increasingly common way to cool a computer. Heck, there is even a company working on retail versions of a computer that is run while inside a tank of mineral oil (Read: MaximumPC Exclusive Article).
Also, remember, AMD has more experience creating processors with integrated memory conrollers and the such. Intel's I7 is the first consumer grade processor to be produced with the same features AMD has been doing for a while, especially with the phenoms. Regardless of the processors success, there is a reason Intel is now designing chips that are remarkably similar to the way AMD has been doing it for a while now.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. And I think they should also fund research into an awesome 3D operating system called "UNIX", in which it's primary function would be the unlocking/locking of building doors.
Yeah, I'm not really sure what this is going to accomplish. Besides, I already make enough of a spectacle of myself to the government. Why the heck would I want to point out all my social networking names to them?
Also, this could wind up being the cause of World War III depending on who Obama puts in his Top 8. Wars have been waged over less.
Actually, as a part-time web developer, I can tell you that I constantly have to model sites and re-code portions of things done by other developers to be compatible with IE6.
There are enough people out there still running IE 6 for it to matter to most companies that want web content generated that it be compatible with IE6 and old versions of Outlook (if it is HTML E-mail) like 2003 and earlier.
I despise this, and look forward to the day I don't have to convert PNG's back to JPG so that the colors look right in IE 6. But this isn't the answer. You can easily uncheck the option to install IE8. I did. I refuse to even see the icon for IE on my computers (I disable it in "Program Access and Defaults").
You're a furry aren't you? ;)
MySpace, Twitter, Facebook, and introducing...MyPlot, with cool Flash headstones you can post on each others "obituary" entries.
Please, let Bruce Campbell create an Evil Dead themed eCemetary. I will totally sign up for that.
In some cases, buying your own cables makes sense. But if you are doing a large job, such as wiring a network closet, pre-cut length cables just don't make much sense.
Making your own cables doesn't have to "save a lot of money" to be more effective than buying. You just have to make sure you are making quality cables that don't suck.
Testing is key. Make sure to tone them out, and do some Fluke tests and check to make sure Impedance and Insertion Loss are at acceptable levels. If you are running them to a patch panel, just make sure you punch down the individual wires as close to the sheath as possible.
But in the end, what your boss wants is what you should do. Fighting over this isn't worth it. But there are situations where making your own cables is better than buying, and vice versa.
But with Fiber, you HAVE to string new cable everywhere...because it is FIBER. 80% of the UK will already HAVE some sort of cabling up, whether that is coax or phone lines. The initiative would only be stringing new lines up where there aren't currently any, in which case for this initiative it makes sense to match the current cabling in the rest of the UK, to being the out-of-touch areas up to speed with the rest of the country. They only want to give people the option of having faster than dial-up speeds to those who, most likely, don't even have dial-up, or don't have any change of a phone company/broadband provider forking over the $ to run lines themselves out to small areas with little to no people around.
To bring fiber to the whole country, it would cost infinitely more than bringing 2 Mbit/s sevice to EVERYONE (meaning, the people that have no internet or can only choose to have dialup).
cable and phone companies only run cables to areas that will make them $. I used to live in a very "boonie" area here in NY in my childhood. No cable company wanted to run broadband up our road (a single ROAD only about a mile long) because the population density on that road was not large enough for them to warrent running cables. After about 5 years, more people moved into the neighborhood, and sure enough, there were Optimum Online trucks on our road the following summer.
So, from your statement, you are stating that fiber lines cost the same or less to implement on a per-home basis than phone lines/coax/copper?
You, my friend, do not live in 2009. You are somewhere far off into the future. Perhaps somewhere around 2050 or later. And on Mars.
While 2MBit/s might sounds slow to those of us that have turbo connections and get upwards of 10Mbit/s, this is actually a decent number for an initiative such as this.
2 MBit/s is actually a very attainable number for a cheap internet solution to get EVERYONE access to that speed. And while some may scoff at it being slow, 2 Mbit (around 250 KB/s down) is still about 5x faster than dialup. And it would be an always-on connection, something dial-up is not.
Also, for the UK to fund an initiative like this, it is VERY forward thinking, considering there are many parts of the UK that have roads no wider than a single small European car, and barely receive tv signal or cable-equivalent. I have been to parts of the UK where there is literally NOTHING for miles and miles. For them to be pushing for 2 MBit/s in these areas (if they are SERIOUS about providing this speed of internet to EVERYONE), it would be a viable alternative to the laggy, delay-prone satellite internet that many people in these areas are forced to purchase.
Ever tried to play an online FPS w/ Satellite? Yea. It sucks.
So wait...they are comparing Ubuntu 9.04 w/ Windows 7's "polish"? So did Ubuntu steal the OS X Ribbon taskbar too? ;)
Unfortunately the words "instead of a profit-making business" are synonymous with "doing it wrong" in America.
No such thing as public outrage? I beg to differ. Within the last 48 hours, the public outrage over Time Warner Cable's bandwidth cap testing has forced them to stop and postpone indefinitely implementing said cap. Public outrage caused gov't officials to get involved. That combined with people canceling their time warner service en mass, caused a change in favor of said "mass".
They weren't reproducing other people's work. They only provided a place to search through a repository where OTHERS could come and post torrents, which may or may not have reproduced other's works illegally.
Also, the issue was not the content of the site. It was that they were profiting from it. And while I believe that the ads on their site did generate money, the money that was generated was put right back into the servers and hosting costs that came with having millions upon millions of unique hits to their site over the course of every month. The prosecution grossly overstated the amount of money that they generated, which is most likely where the $3.6 Million was generated from, since they believe these guys were actually getting rich from this.
As for starting a fund to help them pay, I am all for it. It is the least I can do to help them after using their website for so many years. If you have ever downloaded even 1 torrent that used a piratebay tracker, then you should want to donate as well. Because if the end result is these guys having to actually pay for these fines, I would not be able to have a clean conscience without helping at least a little.
This is ironic in the wake of the Time Warner cap announcements, specifically the "affordability" part.
"...and I'll form the head. Together we become...VOLTRON! Defender of the Universe!"
This is basically Big Cable's answer to streaming video sites like Hulu and every Netflix user (or any other downloadable high-def movie or TV show providers online).
TW: "Sure! Go right ahead and cancel your Cable TV service! But guess what? Now for every movie or TV show you download passed 40GB, you will be paying us tons more $, which makes up for your not buying out TV service. If you don't use these services or download illegally enough to go over the cap, then you probably already have our Cable TV service or don't use them enough for us to care about you."
Sound reasoning by TW...but someone should really take them to court of this. Bandwidth caps in general are only going to hinder the progress of the internet. Who is going to buy internet streaming services when you have to pay 1) the service and 2) the cable company and 3) the cable company EVEN MORE when you exceed the limit? Seriously, the average high-def 30 minute movie file is around 1GB. 40 episodes per month of any show in a high-def format and you are over the limit. The average American watches WAY over 20 hours of TV, Movies, YouTube, and other crap in a month. You are over 40GB in no time, this is before factoring in online gaming, e-mail, general web surfing...
I for one will be switching to EarthLink or Frontier DSL. At least then I can continue to download and surf as little or as much as I want. For anyone saying this is a good idea because they only use 1-2GB a month, please realize that either are either behind the times or just not using the internet for what it is capable of nowadays. I use 10GB of transfer a month just to support myself with my side job doing web and multimedia content generation with FTP traffic alone. Seriously, TW needs to get out of the 90's. The Internet isn't all 1kB bulletin boards through Prodigy Classic anymore. Join us in the 21st Century please.
There...are...FOUR Lights!!!!!!!11111
While I hope that the new movie does well, because if you are a Trek fan you know we NEED it to do well to save the franchise, a new series can't be another prequel, or anything along those lines, and here is why:
Star Trek has always been about moving FORWARD. The thing about Star Trek TV shows is that they are always changing what the Trek Universe has established in a way that supports Roddenberry's dream. They change stereotypes, they make us think "oh wow!" when we don't think it can anymore. Case and point:
Star Trek TOS: First interracial kiss between Kirk and Uhura, established the series traits of Klingons being bad, Romulans being even worse, etc.
Star Trek: TNG: Put a KLINGON on the bridge and jumped forward several hundred years. Introduction of Data, first android character with no emotions. Klingons now part of the federation. Dealings with Romulans that were not ENTIRELY bad. Established BORG as major threat.
Star Trek: Deep Space 9: First black captain in the series, station full of every alien species ever introduced in the show, first cooperation and major storylines involving ROMULANS. Introduction of the first major, season and episode long story arcs.
Star Trek: Voyager: Again jumped forward in the Trek timeline, First female captain, FEMALE BORG as part of the CREW, first Native American introduced as major crew member, first Black Vulcan, Different part of space than any previous Trek
Star Trek: Enterprise: Went back to the beginning, after 2 mediocre seasons, season 3 introduced an amazing story arc which showed us glimpses of the future (Enterprise J!!!), Season 4 helped to shore of some of the story gaps between TOS and TNG and TNG and Voyager. Female Vulcan first officer.
As you can see, there is a certain method to a Trek show. What they are suggesting is crazy in terms of this new show. If there is going to be a new Trek, in needs to be set 200-300 years after Voyager or the end of Nemesis. It NEEDS to have something amazing along the lines of the previous series. Think: Romulan first officer with Romulans part of Star Fleet, and the Enterprise S or J or P or WHATEVER the main focus. Star Trek is about the FUTURE. It's about building bridges between different races and species and cultures, and it is about epic stories. Tarnishing that with more prequel junk is not going to get the 3-5million trek fans on board, nor attract new audiences beyond the ones going to see the new movie for the "cool special effects" and to "see Sylar kick butt".
You know, Family Guy has made light of Fox's inability to keep the majority of their new shows around for more than 1 season on more than 1 occasion. While it is funny everytime they make light of it, it is really quite sad.
What really boggles the mind is why on Earth they wouldn't be supporting Fringe to their fullest. It has received amazing reviews and is the #1 most popular new show on network TV that premiered last year, with around 9.5 Million weekly viewers, the most a new FOX show has had in a long time. The pilot was even received well by most, the cast is rock solid, and it's the first show to make their scorned and bitter X-Files viewers take notice and say "ooooo! Neat!".
The very least they can do is not kill off another good show like they did to Firefly. While they may have put Fringe on hiatus until April, hopefully they won't start airing episodes out of order and then promptly kill it after only 1 season.
So is 911, 411, and 1-900!
So wait...can I create a guaranteed Ninja baby yet or can't I?
In all my time building AMD machines I have never once had a chip fail. Not once. And I've built hundreds of machines. The motherboards, memory, videocards, and hard drives die, but the processors keep on ticking. Meanwhile, I've had loads of P4's die from overheating time and time again. Working for the state, on a network supporting 5000 networked workstations, not a day went by when an Intel machine didn't overheat and toast the CPU. There were literally AT LEAST several every week. Meanwhile, every server room running Opertons or another form of AMD CPU kept on chugging, and those were in cramped server rooms.
I still have an Athlon XP 2000+ running, 24/7 since the day I bought it back in 2002. That's 7 straight years of running. Stock cooling. Serves as my domain controller and stores some common access files for my personal network.
While I am sure there are cases for both sides in terms of longevity, I can't overlook the fact that AMD CPU's continue to provide enough juice to run everything I do, and everything my customers do, for less than half the price of Intel chips. Call me a fanboy, it really doesn't matter. If Intel had chips as cheap as AMD that ran as fast for as long, I'd be all over it. Alas in price vs. performance and bang for the buck, AMD wins hands down in every category.
Sure, if you want the biggest and baddest? Intel is obviously the way to go. Bragging rights? Go with Intel. But if you want to build a machine that costs less than $800 to build (thats with a 22" monitor and all the fixins) that can still run Crysis @ 30+ FPS, then you need to go AMD, it's pretty cut and dry IMO.
WHAT?! That's IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!
Correct. If you can figure on 3-4Ghz with air, and 6Ghz+ with LIQUID-FREAKING-NITROGEN, then you can conservatively say 4.5Ghz-5Ghz w/ water cooling, which is a wide-spread and ever-increasingly common way to cool a computer. Heck, there is even a company working on retail versions of a computer that is run while inside a tank of mineral oil (Read: MaximumPC Exclusive Article).
Also, remember, AMD has more experience creating processors with integrated memory conrollers and the such. Intel's I7 is the first consumer grade processor to be produced with the same features AMD has been doing for a while, especially with the phenoms. Regardless of the processors success, there is a reason Intel is now designing chips that are remarkably similar to the way AMD has been doing it for a while now.