The large few ISPs like to say that it's 1% of their subscribers who aren't playing fair. That's just not the truth. They see a trend emerging and they're not happy about it.
Excuse me, do you run an ISP? Do you have access to their network traffic logs? I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but getting on your high horse and making these bold assertions about their deceit with zero evidence on your side is not commendable by any means.
You don't institute major policy change because of 1% of your users. You do it because in less than a year, it could be 15%-20% using as much as the 1% currently uses.
Sure you do, if that 1% is in fact using 50% of the network capacity.
The only real solution is to increase network capacity.
Which costs money. This is a cost that will have to be passed onto the consumers, and if I am not part of the small group of people using up huge chunks of capacity, I fail to see why I should pay that cost.
I was under the impression that there was some kind of Slashdot policy against submitting links to your own (rather uninsightful) blog. Evidently I was mistaken.
Can someone please explain to me what exactly is these newspapers are complaining about? I just don't get it. If Google stripped all the content off the websites of these newspapers and attached their own ads to it, then I would see the problem, but that's not what they're doing.
Google News directs you to the newspaper's website. If I get to a nytimes.com article through Google News, it's the exact same website as I would be served if I typed nytimes.com into my browser and navigated to the website. Same content, same ads. Google is giving them traffic, so I fail to see what the problem is.
Is it that there are also ads on the Google News page itself?
There are so many things wrong with that post I hardly know where to begin, but here goes.
1. You are implying that correlation implies causation in the most ludicrous way imaginable. Are you seriously suggesting that "Star Wars" was responsible for the Soviet Union's collapse? The USSR did not break up because it felt it had lost the ability to emerge victorious in a war with the United States (if it ever had it), but because of the enormous dissent within its member states. While there may, may, be some argument that the Reagan presidency caused or accelerated the USSR's collapse, it certainly wasn't because of his plans vis-a-vis nuclear weapons, and more than likely it would've happened no matter who was president of the USA. Gorbachav, not Reagan, was responsible for the breakup of the USSR. This point is all moot though, because:
2. Reagan's plan was never finished in the first place. This one's pretty simple. Do we have a functioning missile defense system, capable of protecting us from ICBMs? Answer: no. Since Reagan didn't actually accomplish anything in this regard, how can you attribute any lasting effects, political or otherwise, to it?
3. You are badly misinterpreting Obama's plans for missile defense. Obama is on record as saying that he is not opposed to missile defense systems if they can be shown to work. And if they can't, we shouldn't be spending on them anyway.
4. You are making up attributes to his disarmament plan out of whole cloth. His statements were the typical grandiose words that politicians have been making at summits since time immaterial. If you look through his words carefully, this plan is very open-ended and could be implemented any one of several ways (if it is at all).
5. You are implying that "lacking nuclear weapons = defenseless". Even if we got rid of all our nuclear weapons, we would still have the most technologically advanced, well-financed military on Earth, easily strong enough to act as a sufficient deterrent to so-called "rogue states".
That's a bit like finding a homicide victim and saying "Well, he's already dead, no point in doing anything now." They're not trying to get it off the internet, they're trying to find who uploaded it.
It would still have to be insulated from sunlight: almost any material would absorb more radiation from the sun than it would emit through radiation at ~3K, and thermal equilibrium would almost certainly happen at a much higher temperature than would allow for superconductivity.
If the phone book published the contact information of businesses they knew damn well were scams, and then profited from that, then yes, they should be prosecuted. Try for some critical reasoning of your own.
Before we all start hyperventilating and berating the NY Times for their faulty definition of "open source", let's remember who their audience is. Using "open-source" to refer to a development process where the customers get much more ability to view and modify the content "en route" is not technically a correct definition, but it's a succinct phrase that people understand; it gets the point across.
Think of it like the difference between "hacking" and "cracking". Yes, mass media uses hacking "incorrectly" 99.9% of the time, but they are using the definition that people can understand: to insist they do otherwise is linguistic snobbery.
So no, there is no willful ignorance (or Microsoft plot to water down the definition of open source) at work here, they're just making things plain for their readers.
Comments like this are the reason Slashdot needs a (-1, Stupid) or (-1, Just F***ing Wrong) mod option. This isn't flamebait or trolling, the poster is just an idiot, as is the guy who modded him Insightful.
No one is complaining about Bush's private communications with his family and friends, which is presumably what Obama will continue to use his Blackberry for. That information can and should remain private. The "Bush-trashing" is coming from the refusal of the Bush administration to release communications between, say, administration and intelligence officials, which can and should be a matter of public record, and probably contain a great deal of enlightening information on the administration's many illegal activities (torture, wiretapping, etc.)
The answer to your question "could it cause cancer?" is "definitely yes."
"Will it cause cancer?" is a slightly different story. The technology to charge things wirelessly has existed for some time actually, but we're only now getting to the point where we can do it without cooking anyone nearby like a turkey. Ideally, bugs like cancer-causing levels of radiation will be worked out before it goes into production.
Slashdot reports on useful software for OS X: "What the hell? Why aren't you paying attention to $RANDOM_BUG_AFFECTING_1%_OF_MAC_USERS."
Slashdot reports on a random bug in the Linux kernel: "What the hell? Why aren't you reporting on all the great free software for Linux? Are you trying to give people the wrong idea?"
"In what is surely going to be a slap in the face of Apple"? Are you serious?
You can't seriously believe that Apple expected AT&T to stop selling every other variety of phone in existence once they picked up the iPhone. Controlling though he may be, I seriously doubt Steve Jobs is lying awake at night saying, "Those bastards! How dare they sell other phones!" Obviously AT&T was going to keep selling other kinds of phones, including Symbian phones, that's just common sense. But then, when there's a chance to bash Apple on Slashdot, common sense does seem to go out the window, doesn't it?
And as for any moves on Apple's part being "too little, too late", the sales numbers hardly bear that out at this point. Last I checked, the iPhone was outsold all of RIM's devices put together last fiscal quarter. Obviously this is going to fluctuate as time goes on, I hardly think that demonstrates widespread pent-up demand for a FOSS mobile operating system. When you spend all your days on Slashdot, it's hard to notice, but believe it or not, not everyone gives a damn.
Quantum computing is nondeterministic and probability-based: when you put in a certain input, you have a finite probability of getting the right answer out, it could just as easily be anything else.
So in other words, coming from VB, you'll be at a major advantage.
Even that's a little generous. To me, Wii Music sounded like the kind of sounds produced in Hollywood movies when a bunch of mentally challenged children try to form a band. Wii Sports and Play were good titles that cleverly used the remote controller but Music just dropped the ball.
Still, the interview is fascinating (you want to RTFA this time), and I can't wait to see what Miyamoto comes up with next. Wii Music aside, he's easily one of if not the most talented name in video game design.
No, the reason Apple won't allow Flash on the iPhone is because it's garish, obnoxious, a battery-life-draining resource hog, and, the typical complaints from the Internet's battery of Apple-haters nonwithstanding, almost completely useless.
Maybe if this compiler changes that fact Apple will reconsider their stance.
Slashdot Mirror
I have posted the first micro-comment capable of delivering micro-information over the micro-Internet at micro-speeds.
The large few ISPs like to say that it's 1% of their subscribers who aren't playing fair. That's just not the truth. They see a trend emerging and they're not happy about it.
Excuse me, do you run an ISP? Do you have access to their network traffic logs? I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but getting on your high horse and making these bold assertions about their deceit with zero evidence on your side is not commendable by any means.
You don't institute major policy change because of 1% of your users. You do it because in less than a year, it could be 15%-20% using as much as the 1% currently uses.
Sure you do, if that 1% is in fact using 50% of the network capacity.
The only real solution is to increase network capacity.
Which costs money. This is a cost that will have to be passed onto the consumers, and if I am not part of the small group of people using up huge chunks of capacity, I fail to see why I should pay that cost.
I was under the impression that there was some kind of Slashdot policy against submitting links to your own (rather uninsightful) blog. Evidently I was mistaken.
Can someone please explain to me what exactly is these newspapers are complaining about? I just don't get it. If Google stripped all the content off the websites of these newspapers and attached their own ads to it, then I would see the problem, but that's not what they're doing.
Google News directs you to the newspaper's website. If I get to a nytimes.com article through Google News, it's the exact same website as I would be served if I typed nytimes.com into my browser and navigated to the website. Same content, same ads. Google is giving them traffic, so I fail to see what the problem is.
Is it that there are also ads on the Google News page itself?
There are so many things wrong with that post I hardly know where to begin, but here goes.
1. You are implying that correlation implies causation in the most ludicrous way imaginable. Are you seriously suggesting that "Star Wars" was responsible for the Soviet Union's collapse? The USSR did not break up because it felt it had lost the ability to emerge victorious in a war with the United States (if it ever had it), but because of the enormous dissent within its member states. While there may, may, be some argument that the Reagan presidency caused or accelerated the USSR's collapse, it certainly wasn't because of his plans vis-a-vis nuclear weapons, and more than likely it would've happened no matter who was president of the USA. Gorbachav, not Reagan, was responsible for the breakup of the USSR. This point is all moot though, because:
2. Reagan's plan was never finished in the first place. This one's pretty simple. Do we have a functioning missile defense system, capable of protecting us from ICBMs? Answer: no. Since Reagan didn't actually accomplish anything in this regard, how can you attribute any lasting effects, political or otherwise, to it?
3. You are badly misinterpreting Obama's plans for missile defense. Obama is on record as saying that he is not opposed to missile defense systems if they can be shown to work. And if they can't, we shouldn't be spending on them anyway.
4. You are making up attributes to his disarmament plan out of whole cloth. His statements were the typical grandiose words that politicians have been making at summits since time immaterial. If you look through his words carefully, this plan is very open-ended and could be implemented any one of several ways (if it is at all).
5. You are implying that "lacking nuclear weapons = defenseless". Even if we got rid of all our nuclear weapons, we would still have the most technologically advanced, well-financed military on Earth, easily strong enough to act as a sufficient deterrent to so-called "rogue states".
That's a bit like finding a homicide victim and saying "Well, he's already dead, no point in doing anything now." They're not trying to get it off the internet, they're trying to find who uploaded it.
Not saying it's necessarily a hoax, as the math seems valid at a casual glance (although IANA theoretical physicist), but they misspelled "a priori".
It would still have to be insulated from sunlight: almost any material would absorb more radiation from the sun than it would emit through radiation at ~3K, and thermal equilibrium would almost certainly happen at a much higher temperature than would allow for superconductivity.
This entire article seems a little anachronistic.
and only recently has it become common to find new PCs with a naked 3.5-inch drive bay.
What are they talking about? I haven't seen a new PC with a floppy drive in years.
would that be an acceptable compromise to the fact that their e-books use DRM?
You must be new here.
What, didn't you know? C-c M-o M-browser and you're all set. You'll need a 64-bit quad-core machine to handle it though.
If the phone book published the contact information of businesses they knew damn well were scams, and then profited from that, then yes, they should be prosecuted. Try for some critical reasoning of your own.
Of course we want all our Congressmen to read every page of every bill in theory, but aren't they unproductive enough as it is?
Before we all start hyperventilating and berating the NY Times for their faulty definition of "open source", let's remember who their audience is. Using "open-source" to refer to a development process where the customers get much more ability to view and modify the content "en route" is not technically a correct definition, but it's a succinct phrase that people understand; it gets the point across.
Think of it like the difference between "hacking" and "cracking". Yes, mass media uses hacking "incorrectly" 99.9% of the time, but they are using the definition that people can understand: to insist they do otherwise is linguistic snobbery.
So no, there is no willful ignorance (or Microsoft plot to water down the definition of open source) at work here, they're just making things plain for their readers.
Comments like this are the reason Slashdot needs a (-1, Stupid) or (-1, Just F***ing Wrong) mod option. This isn't flamebait or trolling, the poster is just an idiot, as is the guy who modded him Insightful.
Agreed. Flexible screens are like the fusion power of consumer electronics: always just a few years away.
No one is complaining about Bush's private communications with his family and friends, which is presumably what Obama will continue to use his Blackberry for. That information can and should remain private. The "Bush-trashing" is coming from the refusal of the Bush administration to release communications between, say, administration and intelligence officials, which can and should be a matter of public record, and probably contain a great deal of enlightening information on the administration's many illegal activities (torture, wiretapping, etc.)
The answer to your question "could it cause cancer?" is "definitely yes."
"Will it cause cancer?" is a slightly different story. The technology to charge things wirelessly has existed for some time actually, but we're only now getting to the point where we can do it without cooking anyone nearby like a turkey. Ideally, bugs like cancer-causing levels of radiation will be worked out before it goes into production.
Slashdot reports on useful software for OS X: "What the hell? Why aren't you paying attention to $RANDOM_BUG_AFFECTING_1%_OF_MAC_USERS."
Slashdot reports on a random bug in the Linux kernel: "What the hell? Why aren't you reporting on all the great free software for Linux? Are you trying to give people the wrong idea?"
"In what is surely going to be a slap in the face of Apple"? Are you serious?
You can't seriously believe that Apple expected AT&T to stop selling every other variety of phone in existence once they picked up the iPhone. Controlling though he may be, I seriously doubt Steve Jobs is lying awake at night saying, "Those bastards! How dare they sell other phones!" Obviously AT&T was going to keep selling other kinds of phones, including Symbian phones, that's just common sense. But then, when there's a chance to bash Apple on Slashdot, common sense does seem to go out the window, doesn't it?
And as for any moves on Apple's part being "too little, too late", the sales numbers hardly bear that out at this point. Last I checked, the iPhone was outsold all of RIM's devices put together last fiscal quarter. Obviously this is going to fluctuate as time goes on, I hardly think that demonstrates widespread pent-up demand for a FOSS mobile operating system. When you spend all your days on Slashdot, it's hard to notice, but believe it or not, not everyone gives a damn.
Quantum computing is nondeterministic and probability-based: when you put in a certain input, you have a finite probability of getting the right answer out, it could just as easily be anything else. So in other words, coming from VB, you'll be at a major advantage.
Even that's a little generous. To me, Wii Music sounded like the kind of sounds produced in Hollywood movies when a bunch of mentally challenged children try to form a band. Wii Sports and Play were good titles that cleverly used the remote controller but Music just dropped the ball. Still, the interview is fascinating (you want to RTFA this time), and I can't wait to see what Miyamoto comes up with next. Wii Music aside, he's easily one of if not the most talented name in video game design.
This sounds like the beginning of an M. Night Shyamalan movie.
No, the reason Apple won't allow Flash on the iPhone is because it's garish, obnoxious, a battery-life-draining resource hog, and, the typical complaints from the Internet's battery of Apple-haters nonwithstanding, almost completely useless. Maybe if this compiler changes that fact Apple will reconsider their stance.
... and then Apple products cost just as much as their competitor's equivalents, and everyone lived happily ever after.