Sadly, the video of Facebook's massive server array was not hosted on facebook's massive server array. Instead, it was hosted on a P3 600mhz with a rockin SCSI-II hard drive. Yay, progress.
You paid google with your eyeballs (every time you use Google search or one of their other clever resources that builds their gold mine of user data and helps them shovel ads.) You also paid your carrier to pay google (every year google makes $10 per active handset from the carrier.)
So yeah, google kind of does get paid, by ME, for the privilege of using Android.
Hand in your geek card. Its not about flash being heavy, it's about every single flash-ready web site being designed to be navigated with a mouse, and being designed to appear as annoying as possible to boost ad clicks. That is the problem plaguing flash on handhelds, you dont have a mouse and you dont have screen real estate to waste on ads. Was apple right in saying that flash adds little to nothing to the overall handheld browsing experience? Yes. Then again, no one is making you use flash on your phone. Were there to be mobile-oriented flash apps out there, they would probably work great (oh, wait, there are.)
My big gripe with flash is that not a single content provider has turned to it to deliver mobile media in an effective way. Hulu? Sorry, locked out. CNN, FOX, and the rest of the news? Big fat bomb. Netflix? Oh, right, flash is "insecure". There's no killer app for flash, probably because it took so darn long to have a working client on mobiles. Everyone with a genuine interest went off and made their own app long before flash 10 mobile came around.
Add to that the reduction of parts thanks to the electronic throttle. Cruise control system? Gone, now 100% electronic. Idle air control? Electronic. Traction control that was marginally effective by using timing limiters? Gone, now the throttle reacts faster than you can to changing road conditions. One simple part with a motor and sensor replaces a dozen other moving, fragile parts. The system as a whole gets more reliable, the car gets safer, we are all happier.
To the end of "I dont like that i'm not in control"... You drive a Matrix. How fast do you expect the throttle to react ffs? The computer isn't slow, the *car* is slow. Get over it.
Don't forget, Florian had help from a REAL LIVE graphic designer! He probably used all kinds of professional tools, like Adobe Illustrator, to make that graph possible. That counts for something, right? Right?
That's more of a question of how effective is it to make a "US-only" device and an "Everyone Else" device. HTC could very well make a phone using just the open sourced version of Android, thank Google with a nicely worded letter and nothing more (instead of being a premiere partner in AOSP, OHSA, etc. and paying activation fees to Google for every handset) but what would be the point? Do you really want an Android replica with no actual ties to Google? No app market? No one-stop activation?
"makers under pressure to address IP infringement"
on
37 Android Patent Lawsuits
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Beg the question much? Are we really saying "they are infringing, now let's see how much it costs them"?
Android is a collection of almost entirely free software, born out of the best ideas that could be packed into a phone. It is disgusting to think that Apple has a claim for a patent on "touching a screen with more than one finger" or that Microsoft is the only one that is ever allowed to use "a specifically designated key that initiates a search function". These ideas are so blatantly obvious, and yet the IP system in the US is rolling over to credit anyone who patented any ridiculous thing, and award them huge settlements.
I dont know whether to be disgusted because this is basically only useful as a make-work project for lawyers and courts, or because it means that real innovation will need to happen outside the borders of the US if it's going to happen at all.
Never mind that Dell, one of the largest server manufacturers there is, offers a DC power supply option with just about any server they sell... Other than that, and almost every other server maker offering the same thing, you could say "very few have that option"... Sure.
Simple, the cheap carriers here are the equivalent (in cost, and square mi of coverage) of the Euro carriers. If you want a US carrier that covers not just the populated areas where most of the people live, but also the less populated areas where you just might wind up in when you absolutely need to make a phone call, you go with the more expensive carrier. 3g/4g networks arent cheap, dealing with state and local governments over tower issues, tariffs, taxes, etc isnt cheap, but most importantly covering every last square mile of an area many many times larger than any coverage zone in Europe is not cheap.
They did shoot themselves in the foot by all choosing to compete with different technologies, thus fragmenting the handset market and making peering/roaming agreements virtually impossible with 3g/4g systems.
The proposal will never work for any number of reasons, but the economic basis of having precious metal-backed currency is sound.
Sound; however impractical in a global society. There are plenty of economic justifications for having a currency that's not based on the mythical properties imbued into something dug out of the ground to look at, too. But, I digress.
No, it pretty clearly protects the rights of everyone else... The right to support and push whatever crackpot theory comes along. This really amounts to nothing more than truth by democracy, since now school boards, science committees, and other bodies will be made up of people protected from having to display rigorous facts to support their interests when it comes time to give science departments curriculum guidance. Now, all it takes is saying "well it might have no basis in fact whatsoever, but it IS an alternative theory on the origin of organisms... i can has tenure?"
Considering how new the concept of Intelligent Design is (although it is creationism by another name) it is quite surprising (I guess not as surprising coming from Texas) that they would be rushing to defend any possible subjugation, given how long we as a nation went willfully subjugating Blacks, Gays, and other minorities before generating the requisite protections for their civil rights that they deserve.
But, I digress. Are teachers really being fired for having creationist beliefs, though? Creationists, being fired solely for being creationists? Where? It sounds to me like this law has a lot more use in giving anyone who claims that they are creationist an excuse to not be fired on any other grounds, since they can tie the institution up in court for years trying to prove their innocence w.r.t. this new law. This smells like a backdoor way to push creationists specifically into a special status, where they can simply say to anyone on the curriculum committee who says "well, xyz (maybe creationism, maybe ID, whatever) isn't a scientific discipline and hence shouldn't be on the curriculum..." "How dare you criticize my beliefs, c u in court!"
Surely you must be new here. If there were spending limit triggers, then the addicts, er, "customers" might not spend as much! The goal here is to let the kids spend as much as they want, but with more explicit clearance from the parents, as in: "I promise I just want to buy one!" ding. ding ding. dingdingdingdingding. "wow buying 50 was easy!"
Exactly. The whole notion that it should be as easy as possible to spend money is rooted in the corporation's desire for us to not think twice about it.
Back when Blockbuster was relevant, (and gamefly didn't exist) they had an all-you-can-rent plan for games. The one requirement to signing up was that you needed to use a genuine credit card, not a bank-backed credit/debit card but a genuine going-into-debt card. What's the difference? The real credit card won't stop you from spending beyond your limit; ergo they get their money no matter what even if you can't technically afford it.
Easy spending is an epidemic (in most western nations at least) just as bad as easy eating, and we just keep lining up to support the companies that are sucking us in.
Thank god they wised up and put in a new password prompt for in-game purchases. Now all they have to do is sit back and wait for the complaints to come in that "my kids said 'hey what's the password?' and then I got hundreds of dollars of racked up charges." Never mind the fact that they have a KID'S GAME that includes paying for virtual nothingness. I guess Steve's new motto is "get them addicted early."
You know there are two solstices each year, right? And that the quake hit two weeks ahead of the middle of the two? Stick with the perihelion theory, it works better in this case.
My point was that it's not unobtainable because the gods of economics would smite anyone who dared attempt a communistic society (as many followers of the dogma that is capitalism seem to hold in their hearts), but rather even with rigid state control over how you're allowed to behave, people will *always* find a way to be a bigger, more effective asshole.
The "perfect last mile technology" is in the same boat as Fusion energy. Every few years something "groundbreaking" comes along (first it was private packet radio, then 802.11, power-line data, wireless mesh, wimax/4g, blah blah blah on and on and on. Yet all we see are incremental steps (not nearly enough to keep pace with data demand) and so the cost goes up (as it should.) What a shock, no miracle has happened to grant us all unlimited bandwidth for no upfront or over-time cost. I am so surprised it hurts.
Are you really saying that it's a conspiracy that this "perfect last mile technology" isn't getting traction? Yeah, where have I heard that one before.
Last miles in cities are a lot different from last miles in broadband. No one wants to do free/cheap wifi in the middle of a city because it's, gasp, not cost effective. Long before the population density got high enough to support wifi, the population density got high enough to support "cheap" cable and DSL (good enough for almost everyone involved), and probably even good 3g (although its not as cheap). No one is stopping companies who can stand on their own from starting up city-wide wifi, but amazingly very few have successfully done it. The legislation, while you did a nice job of vilifying it, was directed at limiting the governments involvement in free/cheap wireless (read: don't spend my tax money on it.)
The possibility that Marxism was not and is not an obtainable goal seems to escape most people.
It's as unobtainable as finding a country with precisely 0 greedy assholes. Communism didn't not work because it was "impossible" or even that bad of an idea; rather it failed miserably because it takes surprisingly few lazy jerks to completely screw it up.
I was thinking the same thing... Stalin's "dream" was something along the lines of universally acceptable and beneficial productivity (although his means were, ah, "unorthodox")... And this guy touting software written for free, given away for free, has a problem with him?
Blockbuster, et. al. get movies "Before Netflix (and redbox)" so where is your anti-competitive rant for that practice? Agreements between content providers and distribution are not common and often not even given a second thought; it's up to the content's owner to release the content they want, where they want it. This may be "unfair" to some but it's the way intellectual property works. Since the argument isn't over how much the content costs (to license), but over how much the delivery costs (whether it's "free", or capped, or whatever), it is most certainly, undoubtedly about *how it's delivered* and that is where Uverse is different from anything that Netflix or any other content clearinghouse is doing. It might not feel fair that they get to set their own rules for their own delivery system, but that's how the world works.
Bullshit. While you get the broadcast stuff like always, you're ALSO getting U-Verse On-demand stuff too. That doesn't count against your limit.
So yes, this IS anti-competitive.
The on-demand, just like the rest of the Uverse tv experience, is done entirely internal to the AT&T network and in most cases, its done from a network location within about 150 miles of the screen it's being watched on. If Netflix were doing that, and then AT&T said "hey no we think customers should pay extra for that now" you might win an argument on this. But, that's not at all what is happening.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, the video of Facebook's massive server array was not hosted on facebook's massive server array. Instead, it was hosted on a P3 600mhz with a rockin SCSI-II hard drive. Yay, progress.
You paid google with your eyeballs (every time you use Google search or one of their other clever resources that builds their gold mine of user data and helps them shovel ads.) You also paid your carrier to pay google (every year google makes $10 per active handset from the carrier.)
So yeah, google kind of does get paid, by ME, for the privilege of using Android.
Hand in your geek card. Its not about flash being heavy, it's about every single flash-ready web site being designed to be navigated with a mouse, and being designed to appear as annoying as possible to boost ad clicks. That is the problem plaguing flash on handhelds, you dont have a mouse and you dont have screen real estate to waste on ads. Was apple right in saying that flash adds little to nothing to the overall handheld browsing experience? Yes. Then again, no one is making you use flash on your phone. Were there to be mobile-oriented flash apps out there, they would probably work great (oh, wait, there are.)
My big gripe with flash is that not a single content provider has turned to it to deliver mobile media in an effective way. Hulu? Sorry, locked out. CNN, FOX, and the rest of the news? Big fat bomb. Netflix? Oh, right, flash is "insecure". There's no killer app for flash, probably because it took so darn long to have a working client on mobiles. Everyone with a genuine interest went off and made their own app long before flash 10 mobile came around.
Add to that the reduction of parts thanks to the electronic throttle. Cruise control system? Gone, now 100% electronic. Idle air control? Electronic. Traction control that was marginally effective by using timing limiters? Gone, now the throttle reacts faster than you can to changing road conditions. One simple part with a motor and sensor replaces a dozen other moving, fragile parts. The system as a whole gets more reliable, the car gets safer, we are all happier.
To the end of "I dont like that i'm not in control"... You drive a Matrix. How fast do you expect the throttle to react ffs? The computer isn't slow, the *car* is slow. Get over it.
Don't forget, Florian had help from a REAL LIVE graphic designer! He probably used all kinds of professional tools, like Adobe Illustrator, to make that graph possible. That counts for something, right? Right?
That's more of a question of how effective is it to make a "US-only" device and an "Everyone Else" device. HTC could very well make a phone using just the open sourced version of Android, thank Google with a nicely worded letter and nothing more (instead of being a premiere partner in AOSP, OHSA, etc. and paying activation fees to Google for every handset) but what would be the point? Do you really want an Android replica with no actual ties to Google? No app market? No one-stop activation?
Beg the question much? Are we really saying "they are infringing, now let's see how much it costs them"?
Android is a collection of almost entirely free software, born out of the best ideas that could be packed into a phone. It is disgusting to think that Apple has a claim for a patent on "touching a screen with more than one finger" or that Microsoft is the only one that is ever allowed to use "a specifically designated key that initiates a search function". These ideas are so blatantly obvious, and yet the IP system in the US is rolling over to credit anyone who patented any ridiculous thing, and award them huge settlements.
I dont know whether to be disgusted because this is basically only useful as a make-work project for lawyers and courts, or because it means that real innovation will need to happen outside the borders of the US if it's going to happen at all.
Never mind that Dell, one of the largest server manufacturers there is, offers a DC power supply option with just about any server they sell... Other than that, and almost every other server maker offering the same thing, you could say "very few have that option"... Sure.
Simple, the cheap carriers here are the equivalent (in cost, and square mi of coverage) of the Euro carriers. If you want a US carrier that covers not just the populated areas where most of the people live, but also the less populated areas where you just might wind up in when you absolutely need to make a phone call, you go with the more expensive carrier. 3g/4g networks arent cheap, dealing with state and local governments over tower issues, tariffs, taxes, etc isnt cheap, but most importantly covering every last square mile of an area many many times larger than any coverage zone in Europe is not cheap.
They did shoot themselves in the foot by all choosing to compete with different technologies, thus fragmenting the handset market and making peering/roaming agreements virtually impossible with 3g/4g systems.
The proposal will never work for any number of reasons, but the economic basis of having precious metal-backed currency is sound.
Sound; however impractical in a global society. There are plenty of economic justifications for having a currency that's not based on the mythical properties imbued into something dug out of the ground to look at, too. But, I digress.
No, it pretty clearly protects the rights of everyone else... The right to support and push whatever crackpot theory comes along. This really amounts to nothing more than truth by democracy, since now school boards, science committees, and other bodies will be made up of people protected from having to display rigorous facts to support their interests when it comes time to give science departments curriculum guidance. Now, all it takes is saying "well it might have no basis in fact whatsoever, but it IS an alternative theory on the origin of organisms... i can has tenure?"
Considering how new the concept of Intelligent Design is (although it is creationism by another name) it is quite surprising (I guess not as surprising coming from Texas) that they would be rushing to defend any possible subjugation, given how long we as a nation went willfully subjugating Blacks, Gays, and other minorities before generating the requisite protections for their civil rights that they deserve.
But, I digress. Are teachers really being fired for having creationist beliefs, though? Creationists, being fired solely for being creationists? Where? It sounds to me like this law has a lot more use in giving anyone who claims that they are creationist an excuse to not be fired on any other grounds, since they can tie the institution up in court for years trying to prove their innocence w.r.t. this new law. This smells like a backdoor way to push creationists specifically into a special status, where they can simply say to anyone on the curriculum committee who says "well, xyz (maybe creationism, maybe ID, whatever) isn't a scientific discipline and hence shouldn't be on the curriculum..." "How dare you criticize my beliefs, c u in court!"
"The project will be funded as part of the $200 million Operation Earnest Voice program run by US Central Command."
This word you are using... I do not think it means what you think it means.
Surely you must be new here. If there were spending limit triggers, then the addicts, er, "customers" might not spend as much! The goal here is to let the kids spend as much as they want, but with more explicit clearance from the parents, as in: "I promise I just want to buy one!" ding. ding ding. dingdingdingdingding. "wow buying 50 was easy!"
Exactly. The whole notion that it should be as easy as possible to spend money is rooted in the corporation's desire for us to not think twice about it.
Back when Blockbuster was relevant, (and gamefly didn't exist) they had an all-you-can-rent plan for games. The one requirement to signing up was that you needed to use a genuine credit card, not a bank-backed credit/debit card but a genuine going-into-debt card. What's the difference? The real credit card won't stop you from spending beyond your limit; ergo they get their money no matter what even if you can't technically afford it.
Easy spending is an epidemic (in most western nations at least) just as bad as easy eating, and we just keep lining up to support the companies that are sucking us in.
Thank god they wised up and put in a new password prompt for in-game purchases. Now all they have to do is sit back and wait for the complaints to come in that "my kids said 'hey what's the password?' and then I got hundreds of dollars of racked up charges." Never mind the fact that they have a KID'S GAME that includes paying for virtual nothingness. I guess Steve's new motto is "get them addicted early."
Earth 2? Really? Really. And not a single mention of Babylon 5? Ugh.
You know there are two solstices each year, right? And that the quake hit two weeks ahead of the middle of the two? Stick with the perihelion theory, it works better in this case.
#badscience
My point was that it's not unobtainable because the gods of economics would smite anyone who dared attempt a communistic society (as many followers of the dogma that is capitalism seem to hold in their hearts), but rather even with rigid state control over how you're allowed to behave, people will *always* find a way to be a bigger, more effective asshole.
The "perfect last mile technology" is in the same boat as Fusion energy. Every few years something "groundbreaking" comes along (first it was private packet radio, then 802.11, power-line data, wireless mesh, wimax/4g, blah blah blah on and on and on. Yet all we see are incremental steps (not nearly enough to keep pace with data demand) and so the cost goes up (as it should.) What a shock, no miracle has happened to grant us all unlimited bandwidth for no upfront or over-time cost. I am so surprised it hurts.
Are you really saying that it's a conspiracy that this "perfect last mile technology" isn't getting traction? Yeah, where have I heard that one before.
Last miles in cities are a lot different from last miles in broadband. No one wants to do free/cheap wifi in the middle of a city because it's, gasp, not cost effective. Long before the population density got high enough to support wifi, the population density got high enough to support "cheap" cable and DSL (good enough for almost everyone involved), and probably even good 3g (although its not as cheap). No one is stopping companies who can stand on their own from starting up city-wide wifi, but amazingly very few have successfully done it. The legislation, while you did a nice job of vilifying it, was directed at limiting the governments involvement in free/cheap wireless (read: don't spend my tax money on it.)
The possibility that Marxism was not and is not an obtainable goal seems to escape most people.
It's as unobtainable as finding a country with precisely 0 greedy assholes. Communism didn't not work because it was "impossible" or even that bad of an idea; rather it failed miserably because it takes surprisingly few lazy jerks to completely screw it up.
I was thinking the same thing... Stalin's "dream" was something along the lines of universally acceptable and beneficial productivity (although his means were, ah, "unorthodox")... And this guy touting software written for free, given away for free, has a problem with him?
Blockbuster, et. al. get movies "Before Netflix (and redbox)" so where is your anti-competitive rant for that practice? Agreements between content providers and distribution are not common and often not even given a second thought; it's up to the content's owner to release the content they want, where they want it. This may be "unfair" to some but it's the way intellectual property works. Since the argument isn't over how much the content costs (to license), but over how much the delivery costs (whether it's "free", or capped, or whatever), it is most certainly, undoubtedly about *how it's delivered* and that is where Uverse is different from anything that Netflix or any other content clearinghouse is doing. It might not feel fair that they get to set their own rules for their own delivery system, but that's how the world works.
Bullshit. While you get the broadcast stuff like always, you're ALSO getting U-Verse On-demand stuff too. That doesn't count against your limit.
So yes, this IS anti-competitive.
The on-demand, just like the rest of the Uverse tv experience, is done entirely internal to the AT&T network and in most cases, its done from a network location within about 150 miles of the screen it's being watched on. If Netflix were doing that, and then AT&T said "hey no we think customers should pay extra for that now" you might win an argument on this. But, that's not at all what is happening.