I've been using T-Mobile's Data plan with a Merlin G100 GPRS Card for the last few months, and I have to say, I'm not that impressed. The speed of dialup, but with latency I haven't seen the like of since 300 baud modems.
As long as the gods in nethack are pleased, I'm fine with it.
Not always reliable:
You hear the cockatrice's hissing -- You are slowing down -- The pyrolisk attacks you with a fiery gaze! -- The leacrotta hits -- The leacrotta hits -- You are beginning to feel weak -- The leacrotta bites -- you hear the howling of the cwann -- You begin praying to Lugh -- You are surrounded by a shimmering light -- The leacrotta starts to attack you, but pulls back -- The cockatrice starts to attack you, but pulls back -- You feel Lugh is well-pleased.
Well-pleased?
*Well*-*pleased*?
One too many of those events actually led one nethacker to an interesting quest: complete an ascension, but at the last minute, put on a helm of opposite alignment and offer the amulet to Lugh's opposite...
Stock brokers, advertising / marketing types, lawyers, and executives make a great deal of money. Scientists, Teachers, Police, Firemen, and the like probably contribute more to civilization then the types listed above, but they certaintly dont reap much of a benefit for it.
That's because private enterprise doesn't reward people who benefit society. It rewards people who increase its own profits.
I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing. The two benefits can coincide -- and in fact, good policies try to make them do so, or at the very least don't put them at odds with each other.
Edison was a patent fiend. Mind you, he probably deserved the patents. That didn't mean he was above some unethical behavior, such as trying to convince people that DC was perfectly harmless (it's not) while Tesla's AC was much more dangerous (and my understanding is that AC is indeed dangerous, but more likely to burn you than stop your heart). Read the Edison's FUD section in Wikipedia's War of the Currents for an overview.
Edison was a great man, but I don't know that he had the spirit of our Afghani friend.
Because the government should not compete with the private sector. It's a simple enough principle, if there's something that the private sector is willing to do for-profit, then the government simply should not compete with them.
Simple enough. So's physics when you neglect friction and a whole host of other things that give you nice, clean models, easy to work with, but limited to just a few kinds of real world problems.
And that's to say nothing of the fact that you've really made a strong normative statement without any objective statement behind it. You can (though you didn't) definitely argue that there's an inefficiency introduced into a system where a private entity is providing a set of services also offered by a public agency. Whether those inefficiencies offset the positives of continuing the public service can be an entirely different story.
Your argument that they don't hold the entire system so they shouldn't hold any of it doesn't make sense. Otherwise the analogy could be extended like this: Microsoft owns Windows, so other complanies shouldn't write software for it. Apple owns the OS AND the hardware, so other companies shouldn't write software for it.
The argument is actually much more like a trucking company complaining that other people drive on public roads for free.
Or, to take either of your arguments -- it would be like a gaming company that uses Windows or the Mac OS as a dev platform complainging to Microsoft or Apple that *other people* are developing games on the platform too, using the same cheaply/freely available tools they are!
Cingular, in a statement announcing the 3G testing, described general aspects of some services it might offer consumers with the new network. The offerings could include downloading film trailers and sports highlights, access to e-mails with large attachments, and locating automated bank machines, movie theaters or restaurants.
If this is what they're thinking of, they don't get it, and if that's what they offer, I certainly won't.
I realize not everone wants/needs SSH. But the thing with this kind of offering is to offer a *platform* open enough that all kinds of folks can develop interesting services. Do this, and you don't have to do focus groups to discover what people will like -- a market will do it for you.
"I wonder if each inflatable station module won't come with complimentary bibles."
All I can say is that if staying in space station isn't an awe-inspiring experience with or without a Bible, I don't know that I'm interested in going.
After you sign that contract, they get your money no matter what, so there is very little incentive for them to improve customer service
When I wanted to try out Sprint last year, they gave me the option to opt out of the contract for $10 per month. I could eliminate the $10 charge by signing a contract any time.
It was interesting, though, the sort of leverage this gave me with customer service. Twice I got to the point in a service call where I mentioned that if a problem wasn't corrected, I would be dropping service, and they reminded me of the contract fee, and I mentioned that I was free of that, and after an aural double take, I got something to the effect that "we might be able to arrange something"
But damn do they make those phones tempting. I wish that the manufacturers didn't charge you out the arse for them if you buy them directly...
Two things:
(1) Ebay and phone unlocking put phones in an affordable price range
(2) If your new provider of choice has an option like I did with sprint, you'd quite possibly be able to sign up, carry service for a month, and drop -- and keep the phone.
Overall, though, I wish that the law required companies to provide sans-hardware contract-free service at comparable rates, and let the market fight it out. Because at that point, the competition would be almost all about service, and the companies that would survive would be the ones with the best service.
Wasn't government was supposed to be a loss leader?
You know, that comment may be far more insightful than my original. People often think that money the government gets is simply money down the drain, and while there are problems with letting govt spending get out of control, it's worth remembering that it's also an investment in a platform for trade and society (and also, that the government money goes to private individuals and businesses, who eventually spend it back into circulation).
The crux of the argument depends on whether or not programming involves, at heart, must involve developing an algorithm, or whether or not a simple set of declarations describing a desired result count.
In HTML, you describe a document with some understanding of how a browser will render it. In a traditional imperative or object oriented paradigm, you describe a set of operations to be performed on data. But either way, you're using a language to describe a desired outcome.
In fact, it's very easy to blur the paradigm by thinking of HTML as a set of instructions given to a browser.
Then there's functional languages -- or even further, logical languages like Prolog... where you essentially write down a set of definitions -- declarations about the problem space, and let the interpreter perform inferences that make an implicit solution (or solution set) explicit. If you're doing it in the spirit of Prolog, you don't focus on an algorithm -- you focus on describing the logic of the problem -- and it "renders" a solution from conditions. The first few times you do it, it tends to challenge your understanding of what a program actually is. Was there an algorithm described? Or did a solution just arise from describing the problems? Or (more accurately) was an algorithm simply evoked from an understanding of the interaction between the interpreter and declarations of the problem space?
HTML isn't that different. There's a set of primitives that are used to describe the problem space (the semantic structure and appearance of a document) given an understanding of how an interpreter (the browser) is going to render it. And while the browser/HTML doc abstraction doesn't suggest it when considered in their purest forms, an algorithm *is* still evoked from interaction between HTML code and a browser -- which is why there have existed various hacks to get your browser to do various interesting things, like tie up system resource infinitely (remember nested recursive frames, anyone?), blow up on encountering certain HTML constructions, and improperly execute certain file types without asking you the right questions. The difference is that the abstraction that HTML offers doesn't offer you any set of primitives for creating algorithms that can span the set of possible computations -- it isn't, as they say, Turing complete.
If the government mandates things like number portability and location, this makes a change to the company's bottom line. I don't see how this is different than a tax really.
It's a tax on people who patronize businesses who built crappy enough infrastructure or business models that number portability was a problem.
In the same way, of course, that a lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
The stuff Microsoft promises with XAML -- rich user interfaces over the web -- already works fine with XUL. However, since Mozilla's market share isn't big enough, no websites use XUL instead of HTML.
Would it be possible to write an IE pluggin for XUL?
This is potentially great for independent artists -- offering downloads at $.99 or $.90 per song now will make you seem competetive. And all you have to do is make sure you don't suck (at least, less than stuff on the radio).
What people will care about is, "Can this run my digital camera? Can I run the Sims on this? No? Oh. Convicted monopolist? I don't care, I don't use my computer that much anyway. I just want to play games and use my camera..."
And download lots of free music and movies without getting swatted by the RIAA!
(Though I'll admit -- the consumer market is different than the server / business desktop market.)
XAML was more like a way of using XML to design your user interfaces, integrated completely into Windows. It's not designed to work with anything but Longhorn
If it's XML, couldn't one write a processor that does XAML -> XUL transformations?
There are a couple of basic problems with translating a video game to a movie:
(1) Most video games have thin, unelaborated setup plots. Nobody cares when it's the game, as long as the play/action is good. When it comes time to move things to the silver screen, though, it's much more important.
(2) A good video game movie could be based on a character's adventure in the world set up by the game -- but in addition to simply treating it as a sequence of scenes where the character accomplishes the same goals as the video game (or even some new goals you make up), and throwing in cool effects and kick-butt action, you'd have to make the character emotionally and intellectually three-dimensional. Why do they do what they do? Where are they vulnerable and strong? How do they grow/change over the course of the movie? However, most video game movies don't try to do this at all -- just walk through the levels, kids! -- and so you get bored out of your skull.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been using T-Mobile's Data plan with a Merlin G100 GPRS Card for the last few months, and I have to say, I'm not that impressed. The speed of dialup, but with latency I haven't seen the like of since 300 baud modems.
Anyone know if T-Mobile plans to bump speed up?
Now with recursion at the front AND back of the acronym!
As long as the gods in nethack are pleased, I'm fine with it.
Not always reliable:
You hear the cockatrice's hissing --
You are slowing down --
The pyrolisk attacks you with a fiery gaze! --
The leacrotta hits --
The leacrotta hits --
You are beginning to feel weak --
The leacrotta bites --
you hear the howling of the cwann --
You begin praying to Lugh --
You are surrounded by a shimmering light --
The leacrotta starts to attack you, but pulls back --
The cockatrice starts to attack you, but pulls back --
You feel Lugh is well-pleased.
Well-pleased?
*Well*-*pleased*?
One too many of those events actually led one nethacker to an interesting quest: complete an ascension, but at the last minute, put on a helm of opposite alignment and offer the amulet to Lugh's opposite...
There's another netcraft article tying cobalt gains to opening the ROM source.
Especially interesting in the context of the fact the product was discontinued.
Stock brokers, advertising / marketing types, lawyers, and executives make a great deal of money. Scientists, Teachers, Police, Firemen, and the like probably contribute more to civilization then the types listed above, but they certaintly dont reap much of a benefit for it.
That's because private enterprise doesn't reward people who benefit society. It rewards people who increase its own profits.
I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing. The two benefits can coincide -- and in fact, good policies try to make them do so, or at the very least don't put them at odds with each other.
Edison was a patent fiend. Mind you, he probably deserved the patents. That didn't mean he was above some unethical behavior, such as trying to convince people that DC was perfectly harmless (it's not) while Tesla's AC was much more dangerous (and my understanding is that AC is indeed dangerous, but more likely to burn you than stop your heart). Read the Edison's FUD section in Wikipedia's War of the Currents for an overview.
Edison was a great man, but I don't know that he had the spirit of our Afghani friend.
Because the government should not compete with the private sector. It's a simple enough principle, if there's something that the private sector is willing to do for-profit, then the government simply should not compete with them.
Simple enough. So's physics when you neglect friction and a whole host of other things that give you nice, clean models, easy to work with, but limited to just a few kinds of real world problems.
And that's to say nothing of the fact that you've really made a strong normative statement without any objective statement behind it. You can (though you didn't) definitely argue that there's an inefficiency introduced into a system where a private entity is providing a set of services also offered by a public agency. Whether those inefficiencies offset the positives of continuing the public service can be an entirely different story.
Your argument that they don't hold the entire system so they shouldn't hold any of it doesn't make sense. Otherwise the analogy could be extended like this: Microsoft owns Windows, so other complanies shouldn't write software for it. Apple owns the OS AND the hardware, so other companies shouldn't write software for it.
The argument is actually much more like a trucking company complaining that other people drive on public roads for free.
Or, to take either of your arguments -- it would be like a gaming company that uses Windows or the Mac OS as a dev platform complainging to Microsoft or Apple that *other people* are developing games on the platform too, using the same cheaply/freely available tools they are!
Cingular, in a statement announcing the 3G testing, described general aspects of some services it might offer consumers with the new network. The offerings could include downloading film trailers and sports highlights, access to e-mails with large attachments, and locating automated bank machines, movie theaters or restaurants.
If this is what they're thinking of, they don't get it, and if that's what they offer, I certainly won't.
I realize not everone wants/needs SSH. But the thing with this kind of offering is to offer a *platform* open enough that all kinds of folks can develop interesting services. Do this, and you don't have to do focus groups to discover what people will like -- a market will do it for you.
Or maybe bad ludes. Or Thorazine.
Hey, this could could lead to a new fun game... we've already had "if operating systems were airlines/beer/etc." How about "what drug is *your* OS?"
"I wonder if each inflatable station module won't come with complimentary bibles."
All I can say is that if staying in space station isn't an awe-inspiring experience with or without a Bible, I don't know that I'm interested in going.
After you sign that contract, they get your money no matter what, so there is very little incentive for them to improve customer service
When I wanted to try out Sprint last year, they gave me the option to opt out of the contract for $10 per month. I could eliminate the $10 charge by signing a contract any time.
It was interesting, though, the sort of leverage this gave me with customer service. Twice I got to the point in a service call where I mentioned that if a problem wasn't corrected, I would be dropping service, and they reminded me of the contract fee, and I mentioned that I was free of that, and after an aural double take, I got something to the effect that "we might be able to arrange something"
But damn do they make those phones tempting. I wish that the manufacturers didn't charge you out the arse for them if you buy them directly...
Two things:
(1) Ebay and phone unlocking put phones in an affordable price range
(2) If your new provider of choice has an option like I did with sprint, you'd quite possibly be able to sign up, carry service for a month, and drop -- and keep the phone.
Overall, though, I wish that the law required companies to provide sans-hardware contract-free service at comparable rates, and let the market fight it out. Because at that point, the competition would be almost all about service, and the companies that would survive would be the ones with the best service.
Wasn't government was supposed to be a loss leader?
You know, that comment may be far more insightful than my original. People often think that money the government gets is simply money down the drain, and while there are problems with letting govt spending get out of control, it's worth remembering that it's also an investment in a platform for trade and society (and also, that the government money goes to private individuals and businesses, who eventually spend it back into circulation).
What they actually get their money for is issuing patents.
And they are proud of the fact that they're one of the few parts of government that is a revenue center.
And other parts of government are hungry for their revenue.
This is one of those cases where following the bottom line is going to get you the wrong result.
The crux of the argument depends on whether or not programming involves, at heart, must involve developing an algorithm, or whether or not a simple set of declarations describing a desired result count.
In HTML, you describe a document with some understanding of how a browser will render it. In a traditional imperative or object oriented paradigm, you describe a set of operations to be performed on data. But either way, you're using a language to describe a desired outcome.
In fact, it's very easy to blur the paradigm by thinking of HTML as a set of instructions given to a browser.
Then there's functional languages -- or even further, logical languages like Prolog... where you essentially write down a set of definitions -- declarations about the problem space, and let the interpreter perform inferences that make an implicit solution (or solution set) explicit. If you're doing it in the spirit of Prolog, you don't focus on an algorithm -- you focus on describing the logic of the problem -- and it "renders" a solution from conditions. The first few times you do it, it tends to challenge your understanding of what a program actually is. Was there an algorithm described? Or did a solution just arise from describing the problems? Or (more accurately) was an algorithm simply evoked from an understanding of the interaction between the interpreter and declarations of the problem space?
HTML isn't that different. There's a set of primitives that are used to describe the problem space (the semantic structure and appearance of a document) given an understanding of how an interpreter (the browser) is going to render it. And while the browser/HTML doc abstraction doesn't suggest it when considered in their purest forms, an algorithm *is* still evoked from interaction between HTML code and a browser -- which is why there have existed various hacks to get your browser to do various interesting things, like tie up system resource infinitely (remember nested recursive frames, anyone?), blow up on encountering certain HTML constructions, and improperly execute certain file types without asking you the right questions. The difference is that the abstraction that HTML offers doesn't offer you any set of primitives for creating algorithms that can span the set of possible computations -- it isn't, as they say, Turing complete.
If the government mandates things like number portability and location, this makes a change to the company's bottom line. I don't see how this is different than a tax really.
It's a tax on people who patronize businesses who built crappy enough infrastructure or business models that number portability was a problem.
In the same way, of course, that a lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.
Unfortunately, this casemod is not going to help the case of this book.
The stuff Microsoft promises with XAML -- rich user interfaces over the web -- already works fine with XUL. However, since Mozilla's market share isn't big enough, no websites use XUL instead of HTML.
Would it be possible to write an IE pluggin for XUL?
XUL to flash compiler?
Geez. What's with Japan and being so anti-nuke, anyway?
This is potentially great for independent artists -- offering downloads at $.99 or $.90 per song now will make you seem competetive. And all you have to do is make sure you don't suck (at least, less than stuff on the radio).
The most used product will always have the most exposed flaws.
Apache has demonstrated this is simply false.
Tabby", "Calico", and "American Shorthair" are not exactly going to make Bill Gates tremble in awe.
I don't know. If a monocle and a persian cat are good enough for a Bond Villain (or Bill Gates himself), they oughta be good enough for me.
What people will care about is, "Can this run my digital camera? Can I run the Sims on this? No? Oh. Convicted monopolist? I don't care, I don't use my computer that much anyway. I just want to play games and use my camera..."
And download lots of free music and movies without getting swatted by the RIAA!
(Though I'll admit -- the consumer market is different than the server / business desktop market.)
XAML was more like a way of using XML to design your user interfaces, integrated completely into Windows. It's not designed to work with anything but Longhorn
If it's XML, couldn't one write a processor that does XAML -> XUL transformations?
by a company with the funding and concentration to actually pull it off..
Sun engineers I've known would disagree with that statement. At least the "concentration" part.
There are a couple of basic problems with translating a video game to a movie:
(1) Most video games have thin, unelaborated setup plots. Nobody cares when it's the game, as long as the play/action is good. When it comes time to move things to the silver screen, though, it's much more important.
(2) A good video game movie could be based on a character's adventure in the world set up by the game -- but in addition to simply treating it as a sequence of scenes where the character accomplishes the same goals as the video game (or even some new goals you make up), and throwing in cool effects and kick-butt action, you'd have to make the character emotionally and intellectually three-dimensional. Why do they do what they do? Where are they vulnerable and strong? How do they grow/change over the course of the movie? However, most video game movies don't try to do this at all -- just walk through the levels, kids! -- and so you get bored out of your skull.