It depends on the contract you have with the provider.
If the ISP accepts the outsourcing and the full responsibility for what transits it's network(thus running a "point of presence" in the hotel), I imagine that what you suggest could work... but for sure the ISP's fees won't be small... it's like they'll expect the hotel to pay for N customers, N being the number of rooms even when the rooms are vacant (imagine a block of flats, each appartment having Internet. It doesn't matter for an ISP if the family in one apartment goes in vacation and the respective connection is not used).
If however, the hotel owns the internal network, then it is probably bound by the contract with the ISP to take responsibility for anything illegal is originated in their network - as a consumer/end-user, I know I am bound. This is also the reason why I don't let my WiFi router opened: I can agree withing the family to a way of life, I can't control however the wardriver.
Unfortunately, Lint and Kurtzzman are busy dealing hotels in breach with the ISP laws for the moment. Can this wait for a while? Or maybe you should check if he wasn't dormanted already?
I read this yesterday on nu.nl and I think it's completely ridiculous.
Me too.
The hotels (and my hospital I found out yesterday, and McDonalds and many many other places) can offer WiFi because they have a deal with a provider. Isn't that enough?
(tongue-in-cheeck.. or only half-of? Not quite sure yetmyself, but I reckon that's the position of govs in the near future) No, it is definitely NOT enough: if you provide transport-service you are an ISP (you do provide some Internet service; nobody says somebody is an ISP if and only if only if it provides email or Web hosting on top of transport services). This means every person (organisation or not) that can act as a point-of-control-and-prevention will be, sonner or later, forced to assume all the obligations of an ISP (responsible how their property/service is used - or abused). As the time passes, for govs and such it is more the control and less about taking care of their citizens. If one sees as common-sensical that consumers (in the Joe Average category) which let their WiFi router opened are responsible for any nastinies carried over their connection (.e.g. downloaded/uploaded copyrighed music or KP, even if potentially only by piggybacking/wardriving), I don't see why HotSpot providers should not.
At the very least, you should acknowledge that the continued development of gaming devices (and associated technology) is spreading out into improvements in many other fields of technology, some of which you may find more interesting/relevant to your everyday life.
I acknowledge it if you like. But I fail to see how the Cell chip, in particular, has achived this: all the improvements in the technology, only Mercury computers are not related to gaming. Yes, until some time ago,one could run Linux on PS3 (thus making use of the Cell chip outside the entertainment area)... but the rumors have it as no longer possible. Do you know otherwise?
The story is not that IBM continues to manufacture chips but that the Cell design is not dead.
To be frank, while playing games, I still preffer Pringles to any other chips!
(in other words: WTF should I care what chips is my gaming machine using??)
Probably what happens when one temporarily loses hearing/vision and when that happens repeatedly versus just once.
Hmmm... maybe true, but somehow I have my doubts this research has any consequence for temporary disabilities. Reasons for the doubts: a single word in TFS, see it quoted/emph-ed below:
[...]reorganisation of the part of the brain that usually handles auditory input in CONGENITALLY deaf cats
Besides, the research you imagine assumes that the brain would be not only plastic, but elastic as well (your when that happens repeatedly versus just once). I'm quite afraid that you'll finish in impacting both abilities that you want to "train", by "inducing confusion in the neurons about what they are meant to recognize/process".
And a good move, too... At a certain time, people wondered why IBM let the SUN be bought by Oracle: it would have been a more natural choice given that IBM is so much into Java.
The way I see, IBM is progressing now towards a stewardship role in Java, without bothering with all the SUN's hardware business (which would have been a dead-weight for it)... and this without spending a extra nickel, on top the strong investment in Java IBM already has. Almost a perfect solution... the only drawback being the Imaginary Property in Java still being owned by Oracle (with known consequences... the minuet and other high society dances Oracle chose to drag Google into).
Ah, the necessary "illusion of a fresh start"... fueled by the "NIH" syndrome (soon to became the "Me too" syndrome)... Given the place where this happens, I think they are just ready for yet another cycle on the wheel of suffering.
no, it wasn't, not to my taste. Which actually reveals the whole kit and caboodle of the issue: while you can hope to compare prices between now-and-then, the entertainment value of the games is something you can't measure (BTW: is still like better Joan Baez than Gaga.. lady or not. Guess what age I am? Don't try, you'd be wrong)
Government jobs are public liabilities. That is why when the stimulus was passed so many people said it would not work. Manufacturing a government job and funding it for one year does not create a job, just another burden on the people.
Hey, something is fishy with the argumentation. Reductio Ad Absurdum: assumoing this is true, everyone would be better without any government at all, right? Right?
Don't take me wrong, very far from me to say that every gov job is abso-f...ing-lutely marvelous to have! And, yes, efficiency is the key, and cutting some costs is a possible way to improve the efficiency. But:
nothing good in this world comes for free, and: better evaluate the price you need to pay for every benefit before you run into troubles (would this be applied to sub-prime mortgages and creating derivatives-from-derivatives, I reckon the whole world would be better today).
cutting cost is not the only way to improve efficiency, blindly chasing this one exclusively will surely bring you troubles. Improving results (or results delivery) may be an option under certain circumstances
Losing government jobs wouldn't be all that bad of a thing as long as the government services were being provided. In fact, losing most of the federal government services would likely be a good thing anyways.
Most all of the government services not specifically outlines in the constitution would be better served on a state and local level.[...]Think about it, people who want to get something changed on a federal level need to convince enough of the 300 or so million people in 49 other states to go along with their idea.
Spot on in exposing the weakness of the proposed strategy, because TFA speaks about consolidation (reuse - thus reduce the costnot delegation (move the resolution closer to the problem in an attempt to deliver better results - increase the results term of efficiency).
Well, then here's another great idea along the lines of what you are saying.
What I'm saying is: at the very least, do attempt to evaluate more of the consequences of your actions/decisions - even if you fail to model them accurately, at least you are better prepared for the possible outcome.
Failing to understand that (or, worse, misrepresenting it) drives you argument in the straw man fallacy category. For that reason, please receive my apologies for discarding it as irrelevant/redundant (almost trollish).
The outcry of lobbyists in the industries that depend on the government wastefulness to pad their bottom line will put out the message that this is "killing private business and costing citizens their jobs."
I can't stop to notice that increased efficiency really means less jobs in the current context. Efficiency=results/cost - as I don't see in TFA any promise of "We'll deliver more services/results", the increased efficiency is by cost-cutting. TFA mentions only 200 billions over the 10 yers, so guess from where the other 800 billions will be cut?
I'm not that young anymore to get inflamed by "job cuts", but at the current level of unemployment in US, the effect of "increased efficiency by cost cuts" needs to be looked into seriously, under the risk of suffering the effects of the "law of unintended consequences".
...Precisely why we should pay any more respect for their IP than they have to anyone else's?
I'm going to go one step further and ask candidely ask for an explanation: why should I pay respect for any intelectual property?
Granted, there are some good reasons but, I believe, lately these reasons start being overshadows by other major reasons to NOT respect them.
Truth, and both the Chinese and the "next cheap place" will be happier for it. Even the US will be happier, although perhaps not in the short term.
I reckon long before they'll be happier, I believe US risks a de-jure disapperance from the world scene (they'll still be there but this won't matter anymore). To avoid a "Flamebite" moderation let me bring this (maybe lame) joke from memory: Q:How would be the men without women? A:Happy... then happier... then lesser by the day... then...
As bad and ugly as it would be, the chinese are already there.
China's investment in Africa has grown by as much as 30% annually, faster than in any other continent, from $1.6-billion in 2008 to $5.4-billion in 2009. About 2000 Chinese companies are engaged in 8000 projects in Africa, mainly in infrastructure and agriculture.
And here you have some other numbers: "Beijing says its trade with Africa is on track to top $US100 billion ($A103.5 billion) this year" (this year means less than 3 months now, isn't it?)
To put the things in perspective: in July 2009, US owed China 900+ billion (without counting the trade deficit with China) - 10% of money that US owes China will go into Africa in less than 3 month!?!
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on the contract you have with the provider.
If the ISP accepts the outsourcing and the full responsibility for what transits it's network(thus running a "point of presence" in the hotel), I imagine that what you suggest could work... but for sure the ISP's fees won't be small... it's like they'll expect the hotel to pay for N customers, N being the number of rooms even when the rooms are vacant (imagine a block of flats, each appartment having Internet. It doesn't matter for an ISP if the family in one apartment goes in vacation and the respective connection is not used).
If however, the hotel owns the internal network, then it is probably bound by the contract with the ISP to take responsibility for anything illegal is originated in their network - as a consumer/end-user, I know I am bound. This is also the reason why I don't let my WiFi router opened: I can agree withing the family to a way of life, I can't control however the wardriver.
They do have in common one person, his name starts with G... And the same type of black humor.
Do you think is ironic, rather?
Unfortunately, Lint and Kurtzzman are busy dealing hotels in breach with the ISP laws for the moment.
Can this wait for a while? Or maybe you should check if he wasn't dormanted already?
... you still get a hefty bill and there's nothing (more) you can do about it - except perhaps to steal the electricity that is... ;)
Produce it? (PV, methane fuell-cell... even riding your exercise bike while your spouse irons the cloths? ;) )
...errr, I mean Archibald "Harry" Tuttle.
Don't know why, but I don't find surprising at all the guy is from the same country as the The Pythons.
I read this yesterday on nu.nl and I think it's completely ridiculous.
Me too.
The hotels (and my hospital I found out yesterday, and McDonalds and many many other places) can offer WiFi because they have a deal with a provider. Isn't that enough?
(tongue-in-cheeck.. or only half-of? Not quite sure yetmyself, but I reckon that's the position of govs in the near future)
No, it is definitely NOT enough: if you provide transport-service you are an ISP (you do provide some Internet service; nobody says somebody is an ISP if and only if only if it provides email or Web hosting on top of transport services).
This means every person (organisation or not) that can act as a point-of-control-and-prevention will be, sonner or later, forced to assume all the obligations of an ISP (responsible how their property/service is used - or abused). As the time passes, for govs and such it is more the control and less about taking care of their citizens.
If one sees as common-sensical that consumers (in the Joe Average category) which let their WiFi router opened are responsible for any nastinies carried over their connection (.e.g. downloaded/uploaded copyrighed music or KP, even if potentially only by piggybacking/wardriving), I don't see why HotSpot providers should not.
At the very least, you should acknowledge that the continued development of gaming devices (and associated technology) is spreading out into improvements in many other fields of technology, some of which you may find more interesting/relevant to your everyday life.
I acknowledge it if you like. But I fail to see how the Cell chip, in particular, has achived this: all the improvements in the technology, only Mercury computers are not related to gaming.
Yes, until some time ago,one could run Linux on PS3 (thus making use of the Cell chip outside the entertainment area)... but the rumors have it as no longer possible.
Do you know otherwise?
The story is not that IBM continues to manufacture chips but that the Cell design is not dead.
To be frank, while playing games, I still preffer Pringles to any other chips!
(in other words: WTF should I care what chips is my gaming machine using??)
Why didn't they just use some colo company and save a bunch of money on maintenance and headcount?
(tongue-in-cheek) why not outsource outside USA? I heard some geos have much cheaper labor, that should be good for the town's budget.
Crystal Peak? I guess O'Connor would deserve a more modern equipment.
Probably what happens when one temporarily loses hearing/vision and when that happens repeatedly versus just once.
Hmmm... maybe true, but somehow I have my doubts this research has any consequence for temporary disabilities. Reasons for the doubts: a single word in TFS, see it quoted/emph-ed below:
[...]reorganisation of the part of the brain that usually handles auditory input in CONGENITALLY deaf cats
Besides, the research you imagine assumes that the brain would be not only plastic, but elastic as well (your when that happens repeatedly versus just once). I'm quite afraid that you'll finish in impacting both abilities that you want to "train", by "inducing confusion in the neurons about what they are meant to recognize/process".
Whenever Oracle touches something it doesn't make money on, it always makes an attempt to crush it between it's teeth.
Given how much it has already in Java, maybe this is why IBM stepped it and made an offer Oracle couldn't refuse?
The way I see, IBM is progressing now towards a stewardship role in Java, without bothering with all the SUN's hardware business (which would have been a dead-weight for it)... and this without spending a extra nickel, on top the strong investment in Java IBM already has.
Almost a perfect solution... the only drawback being the Imaginary Property in Java still being owned by Oracle (with known consequences... the minuet and other high society dances Oracle chose to drag Google into).
Excuse me, when I go reread the history book on this.
Didn't IBM and Microsoft wrote a chapter together on one OS already? OS2?
What relation does OS2 have with Java?
Excuse me, but reading the history book myself, a bunch of relevant things emerge:
Ah, the necessary "illusion of a fresh start"... fueled by the "NIH" syndrome (soon to became the "Me too" syndrome)...
Given the place where this happens, I think they are just ready for yet another cycle on the wheel of suffering.
Did you play Oblivion, ...
I did.
...it was leaps and bounds beyond Morrowind
no, it wasn't, not to my taste.
Which actually reveals the whole kit and caboodle of the issue: while you can hope to compare prices between now-and-then, the entertainment value of the games is something you can't measure (BTW: is still like better Joan Baez than Gaga.. lady or not. Guess what age I am? Don't try, you'd be wrong)
... today's cutting edge games.
Ah, an oxymoron from my today's reading of /.
Government jobs are public liabilities. That is why when the stimulus was passed so many people said it would not work. Manufacturing a government job and funding it for one year does not create a job, just another burden on the people.
Hey, something is fishy with the argumentation. Reductio Ad Absurdum: assumoing this is true, everyone would be better without any government at all, right? Right?
Don't take me wrong, very far from me to say that every gov job is abso-f...ing-lutely marvelous to have! And, yes, efficiency is the key, and cutting some costs is a possible way to improve the efficiency.
But:
Losing government jobs wouldn't be all that bad of a thing as long as the government services were being provided. In fact, losing most of the federal government services would likely be a good thing anyways.
Most all of the government services not specifically outlines in the constitution would be better served on a state and local level.[...]Think about it, people who want to get something changed on a federal level need to convince enough of the 300 or so million people in 49 other states to go along with their idea.
Spot on in exposing the weakness of the proposed strategy, because TFA speaks about consolidation (reuse - thus reduce the costnot delegation (move the resolution closer to the problem in an attempt to deliver better results - increase the results term of efficiency).
Well, then here's another great idea along the lines of what you are saying.
What I'm saying is: at the very least, do attempt to evaluate more of the consequences of your actions/decisions - even if you fail to model them accurately, at least you are better prepared for the possible outcome.
Failing to understand that (or, worse, misrepresenting it) drives you argument in the straw man fallacy category. For that reason, please receive my apologies for discarding it as irrelevant/redundant (almost trollish).
The outcry of lobbyists in the industries that depend on the government wastefulness to pad their bottom line will put out the message that this is "killing private business and costing citizens their jobs."
I can't stop to notice that increased efficiency really means less jobs in the current context. Efficiency=results/cost - as I don't see in TFA any promise of "We'll deliver more services/results", the increased efficiency is by cost-cutting. TFA mentions only 200 billions over the 10 yers, so guess from where the other 800 billions will be cut?
I'm not that young anymore to get inflamed by "job cuts", but at the current level of unemployment in US, the effect of "increased efficiency by cost cuts" needs to be looked into seriously, under the risk of suffering the effects of the "law of unintended consequences".
...Precisely why we should pay any more respect for their IP than they have to anyone else's?
I'm going to go one step further and ask candidely ask for an explanation: why should I pay respect for any intelectual property?
Granted, there are some good reasons but, I believe, lately these reasons start being overshadows by other major reasons to NOT respect them.
Truth, and both the Chinese and the "next cheap place" will be happier for it. Even the US will be happier, although perhaps not in the short term.
I reckon long before they'll be happier, I believe US risks a de-jure disapperance from the world scene (they'll still be there but this won't matter anymore). To avoid a "Flamebite" moderation let me bring this (maybe lame) joke from memory:
Q:How would be the men without women?
A:Happy... then happier... then lesser by the day... then...
A really bad ugly un-fixable mess.
As bad and ugly as it would be, the chinese are already there.
China's investment in Africa has grown by as much as 30% annually, faster than in any other continent, from $1.6-billion in 2008 to $5.4-billion in 2009. About 2000 Chinese companies are engaged in 8000 projects in Africa, mainly in infrastructure and agriculture.
And here you have some other numbers: "Beijing says its trade with Africa is on track to top $US100 billion ($A103.5 billion) this year" (this year means less than 3 months now, isn't it?)
To put the things in perspective: in July 2009, US owed China 900+ billion (without counting the trade deficit with China) - 10% of money that US owes China will go into Africa in less than 3 month!?!
For your survival: learn mandarin!
Perhaps those lawyer will start forming some lobby groups?
I wonder how long 'til US will become the strongest opponent to ACTA?