You may like this [http://www.nebunet.com] - social networking of any IP connected devices, not just people. The idea is to turn the internet into many independent secure networks as easy to use as your favorite social networking site. It's not something google would like to see - self organizing internet based on context - but most people would. What do you think?
CRTC in Canada already controls TV, magazine publications and other media - blocking media without sufficient French content amongst other rules. If this passes in Italy it will only be a matter of time before they realize “Oh, we should do the same!” and require everyone to apply for permission to post videos – “I’m sorry sir, before uploading to the web your home made porn must be subtitled in French, credit attribution must be given for French kissing and your wife is not allowed to shave her legs”...
What a judgmental and at the same time meaningless statement! How do you define a term "loser" - someone who's done less than you for society, someone who makes less money than you? You tell me. There are many people who have used drugs who benefited the society more than you and make more money than you. So if you don't consider yourself a loser, you say doing drugs doesn't make one a loser, what reason do you have to call for example Andre Agassi a loser (he did drugs, but you per your own argument that doesn't make him a looser, him being a looser made him do drugs, so you should have a good reason to call him a looser). If you don't know who the guy is by the way, google him and his philanthropic activities - he's just the first example which popped into my head, not the only or the best one.
It's judgmental people like you who are responsible for all these unnecessary laws which cost us all an arm and a leg and give us nothing but more crime in return. Again, personally I've never done drugs and don't plan on it, but as far as judging other people based on what they do to their own bodies, who am I to judge?
Absolutely correct. I think Winston Churchill said it best "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with an average voter". A conversation with quantumfive may qualify.;-) That is why we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - to protect our freedoms. After all, democracy is nothing but a system which forces majority will on all minorities (and somehow we don't call that discrimination). If we had world wide democracy we'd all be following muslim law (largest religion by population) - makes you think, doesn't it? Democracy does work, but on small scale, say city scale, so like minded individuals can live close together and vote together.
Full disclosure: I've never done drugs, don't plan on it, but strongly believe they should not be illegal. Same goes for prostitution. Regulating both would serve the society much better than making them illegal and continue fighting senseless and expensive wars on both which cannot be won (otherwise we would have won at least one of them already).
Slashdot recently discussed the Gizmodo 3G speed test where Verizon was the fastest in 4 of the 12 cities[http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/12/23/2140213/ATampT-Wins-Gizmodo-3G-Bandwidth-Test]. If what you are saying is true (and yes, technically EVDO is slower than 3G, closer to EDGE (not necessary AT&T EDGE though)), that is still no reason for Verizon to give up - evidently AT&T can't even even deploy its 3G to beat the inferior "EDGE equivalent" performance (as per your own assesment) in 33% of the tested cities. If my competition can't win races with superior technology, that definitely is no reason to give up.
Last one I saw had a bunch of customers in a merchandise return line with the AT&T 3G coverage maps above their heads. I'd love to see how Verizon can spin the "even if it's 3G covered by AT&T, that's only for phones which can't use full 3G speeds". LOL
I have two Verizon blackberries and no bing showed up on either. Google is the default search engine in the browser - rebooted both Tuesday when the outage hit.
You missed a huge one, BATTERY LIFE. Blackberries are some of the best optimized phones for battery life. They do a lot of things behind the curtains to save power - maybe it's RIM's heritage of pager design, where a pager had to last a month on a single AAA battery. I am a moderate to heavy user and can get 2 to 3 days of life out of my curve. My wife uses it for personal email, SMS and IM and gets up to 5 days between charges. I used to regularly measure power usage of all kinds of smartphones in a fixed lab environment and have to tell you, it doesn't get much better than a blackberry. This includes power spent per email synchronized. Sadly, noone out there does any such measurements for public consumption - all cell phones are still marketed with the outdated and almost completely useless standby time and talk time. If you want to see how meaningless those are, consider the fact that iPhone is rated for up to 300hrs standby time (as per Apple website) - when was the last time you saw an iPhone last 12 days before needing a charge?
I've been running a few emails domains of my own for years. Adding SPF checking on the receive end provided me with a few decent benefits: 1. Adding SPF record got rid of backscatter almost completely (a benefit mentioned by another poster already) 2. Adding SPF checking on the receive end got rid of "addressed to self" spam 100% - that was 2-15 emails a day for different mailboxes 3. Rejecting emails per SPF record actually manages to reject over 50% of what would have ended up in my junkmail folder anyways, makes it much easier to scan through junk 4. I setup my server to actually reject the emails with an informative message. This means that if a valid email gets rejected, the sending server (not my server) should send a delivery failure to the sender. Without this that email would have likely ended up in an overcrowded junkmail folder anyways, which means I may have just deleted it - better that the sender knows 5. The SPF result on the receive end is also factored-in by the Intelligent Message Filtering of the Exchange, which assigns a spam likelyhood for spam. I setup a threshold for the spam likelyhood which also rejects the email during the receive, leaving the burden of sending non delivery message to the sender server (so valid servers do it, spam bots don't). 6. Tarpitting also helped a bit for spam rejection, though unrelated to the SPF record.
PS> This is about usefulness of SPF, not about my choice of servers, but if you really want to know I use both Exchange and Postfix to route my mails to appropriate mailboxes. Both have features the other doesn't (e.g. Postfix wildcarding, unlimitted mailboxes, etc | Exchange Blackberry Enterprise Server integration, calendar, contacts, SPF integrated with IMF, OWA, etc).
No, it causes the the Intel part to excel in performance, it does not cripple the AMD part. There is a difference (if I build a faster race car, I'm not "falsely causing public race results to show my competitive cars as slower"). Seriously, why should Intel optimize for AMD parts? 1. It cost Intel to develop, test and support features. Why on Earth would you expect them to pay millions to help their competition? 2. AMD does not give Intell all of their datasheets, design files, access to developers, etc to help with the effort. 3. If Intel reverse engineered AMD parts and put that in the compiler, they'd get hit for doing that. Why bother? 4. Intel made some decisions in their design to make things easier for their compiler, AMD made different decisions which Intel may not like nor care about figuring out how to use
I guess the only error Intel made was to allow AMD processors at all. It should be Intel compiler only - lots of companies develop software only for their own hardware; Apple for example not only specifically blocks OS X from running on non-Apple hardware, but they will sue your pants off if you figure out a workaround. Courts recently upheld Apple's right to do so. Intel should follow suit and slap such a license agreement on their compiler, then anyone who uses it on AMD processor should be happy they're not being sued.
BTW, AMD releases libraries optimized for their new processors, should they get sued by the FTC?
So if I want special status, I file my patent together with a dummy patent I know will never clear, drop the dummy patent to get special status for the primary one. It would have been so much simpler to say "pay double for special status" and "get a refund credit for any patent you don't care about".
By this argument if they wanted to move the poor guy to toilet cleaning duty, he'd have no choice either. If the guys choice is to move or lose a job, this means the employer doesn't see him adding any value in his current job. He is effectively getting fired. The fact that they are offering him a new, different job should be consider just like that - a new job offer. If he was fired, would he take a management job? This is of course all based on the premise that he cannot keep his current job, which is debatable (why would an employer go through hiring and training of a new employee over keeping the current one? unless of course he sucks at the job, then firing is the right step and offering management job is a humanitarian gesture or an attempt by the higher manager to fill the position with a "yes"-man who has no other career choices).
Google's main reason for DNS service is to provide a fast responding DNS. Google has been focusing on fast searches and fast responding web pages (they found that users can in fact tell and care about 0.3 vs. 0.7 second response for web page load). Most ISP's DNS servers are horrible in terms of performance. From personal experience, when I moved a couple of years ago I experienced first had the difference. Initially upon moving I did not have time to connect my entire home network which includes own internal DNS servers - I simply pointed the computers at the recommended Verizon DNS. The web searching experience was horrible compared to what I was used to (other members of the family also noticed), especially considering that the new connection was a 25Mbps/15Mbps fiber to the home FIOS solution. After powering up local DNS servers, web surfing was fast again. So why does google care about speeding up your connection (and with their resources, geographic load distribution and such they really can)? Well, they want everything on the web, they want everything to live in the cloud, hence Chromium OS! They want web apps and surfing to appear as applications do in desktop OS's today. Data mining from DNS queries will happen, statistics will be collected before the IP log disappears after 24hrs, but that's only a secondary benefit to google.
Which sites give google IP's free access??? Such sites should be freely accessible via google free translate service (request will come from the google IP) and/or google site aggregator (forgot the name but checked it out before as it used to cache one of my home pages every day).
The key is proper implementation. Properly implemented secured system cannot be attacked this way (man-in-the-middle). And sending certs in a clear does not compromise the security either (assuming they signed client certs, not the CA certs). The process if fairly straightforward. The clients have a built in trust cert. When installing, they connect to the central server, authenticate it using the built in trusted cert (which is freely available to anyone). They generate their own certificate request, have it signed by the central server. Central server knows not to never allow two clients of the same name. From now on, when downloading content you must use the name of the source and verify its certificate with the trust cert. If it fails, you STOP, don't allow the "go ahead anyways" like the browsers so. Note that clients must be downloaded via https or else the ISP can feed you a trojan (modified client which will report all your activities, no need to intercept your data). Also, the assumption here by the way is that there is a central "trusted" server which can sign all client's certs - if it's compromised, all communications are. All this of course doesn't work if there are holes in the implementation, like the CN null prefix bug published earlier this year, or other bugs. Also, it cannot prevent the malicious software from setting up "honeypots" - their own nodes which will list available content. The latter exploit however is much harder to deploy in p2p networks (and may have legal "entrapment" type ramifications).
Does this law only apply to negative option for which you opted in? I recall Rogers in Ontario (Canada) giving people premium channels to watch for free for a month (without asking to opt in) and then billing them unless they called in to cancel. I had some friends try to cancel for days, never being able to get through on the phone (phone line actually busy) - end result they sent "please cancel all my cable" with the bill. This was definitely less than 10 years ago.
I use a Linksys RVS-4000 between two local LANs, NAT speeds over 250Mbps no problem (will likely go higher, it's just windows file sharing peaks at 250-350Mpbs). Used also to use ASUS SL500 in the 100Mbps days reaching over 90Mbps, though seriously would not recommend their user interface (I'm not sure if something got lost in translation between the design engineers, or what, but it has the most unintuitive interface I have EVER seen).
Consider this, you bought a subscription to some web service. You then decided to install your own version of a browser on your computer (say text only). You can no longer access the website.Does this give you the right to compensation for the remainder of your subscription?
So what's you idea? Here is the scenario: I own a Wii system. My kids used to like to play online but have been completely discouraged by homebrew version with cheats who make the online game completely pointless (no point playing against invincible players who can also completely incapacitate you). So what would be your proactive suggestion for me to do to get those users kicked off the Wii online games?
Not for me either. I don’t like stateless, because this means it’s a brick without an internet connection (e.g. on a plane). Chrome supports caching but since Chrome OS bans hard drives, you won’t be able to cache many apps on today's FLASH sizes (unless you want to add $500 to the cost of the $200 netbook for a SSD), if any at all. Doing things like syncing a 8GB memory card from a camera to some online google storage will be excruciatingly slow for most people (heck, even my 15Mbps up would take 1.5 hrs, for most people that would be 15-30hrs, significantly more on mobile connections), Lastly but most importantly, I will not trust data I care about not loosing, data I consider confidential or both to the google cloud (or any cloud for that matter) given google’s and the rest of the industry’s track record. 3 things will have to happen for me to consider this:
1. Connections must get way faster (say 100Mbps up/down) 2. I must have a way to encrypt the data on my computer, without google ever having the private key (being able to decrypt) 3. Google must come up with some tangible guarantees for data retention. What’s tangible? How about backed up by an insurance company. Google say chances of them loosing my data is 1 in a million? Great, let’s see an insurance plan with appropriate odds (say 500K:1 to give the insurer profit). I give google $2, they pay our $1M if they loose my data. Maybe I’ll give them $100 (cost of an external drive) so my wife would forgive me about the lost irreplaceable pictures ($50M buys a lot forgiveness and ability to take new pictures). In case of google, self insured is ok too:-).
I will sell you 1000 year guaranteed DVD+R's for only $3 each per AND you can burn them on your regular burner! The warranty is 1000 years and comes with a full refund guarantee of the cost of the DVD ($3) for each one which fails.
Want to know my secret business model? I buy regular DVD's for $0.20, sell them for $3. Any DVD which fails I return the cost so my profit is only interest on the $3 for however many years (say average 5years, $0.60 profit which covers my cost 3X). I also make the entire $3 for any DVD's destroyed (shredded confidential data, etc), lost, etc.
Longevity claims by the manufacturer or seller are irrelevant, unless backed by some $ numbers. I bet Synthetic Stone's EULA states the warranty liability is the cost of the disk at most. Now, if there was insurance I could buy on this, the cost of this insurance would tell me the real reliability. If they are confident it's a 1 in a million chance for the disk to fail in 100 years, they should be able to sell me 100 year insurance for $1 which will pay $500,000 if that happens AND this would still net them $0.50 per disk profit (1M disks sold, $1M revenue, 1 $500K payout, $500K profit on 1M disks). If the odds differ for expected failure of 1, 10, 100, 1000 years, they should price the "insurance policies" accordingly. Then I'd believe it (and no, the "insurance company" cannot be a separate LLC which goes bankrupt every time there is a payout, it must tie to the original company or better yet be backed by a major insurance company).
Does this mean anyone using it must pay royalties to Apple? Is this another exFAT (a.k.a. FAT64 - Microsoft proprietary technology in the new SD standard)?
Yea, but you lose the jobs building new power plants, raises for executives of power companies which translate into spending which translates into yacht builder jobs, all the scientists which would have gotten paid studying the new power plant proposals, all the homeland security jobs securing those new power plants (especially if nuclear), all the lineman jobs putting up new electricity transport lines, all the police overtime controlling the anti-nuclear-plant demonstrations, etc, etc.
Exactly. Vegas and other Nevada casinos deal with it mathematically by adjusting the rules - single deck blackjack has both early shuffle AND only 2X (some 2.2X) payout on blackjack (vs. 2.5 on 6 or 8 deck) - this basically makes sure that if you count cards well, you're back to your average loss of 1% to the casino. Of course if you make a mistake counting, the house actually enjoys higher odds than regular blackjack - so they love it (and provide you drinks to help you count). Last time I visited South Lake Tahoe (Nevada) every casino had a couple of single deck blackjack tables and books on card counting on news stands.
Slashdot Mirror
You may like this [http://www.nebunet.com] - social networking of any IP connected devices, not just people. The idea is to turn the internet into many independent secure networks as easy to use as your favorite social networking site. It's not something google would like to see - self organizing internet based on context - but most people would. What do you think?
CRTC in Canada already controls TV, magazine publications and other media - blocking media without sufficient French content amongst other rules. If this passes in Italy it will only be a matter of time before they realize “Oh, we should do the same!” and require everyone to apply for permission to post videos – “I’m sorry sir, before uploading to the web your home made porn must be subtitled in French, credit attribution must be given for French kissing and your wife is not allowed to shave her legs”...
What a judgmental and at the same time meaningless statement! How do you define a term "loser" - someone who's done less than you for society, someone who makes less money than you? You tell me. There are many people who have used drugs who benefited the society more than you and make more money than you. So if you don't consider yourself a loser, you say doing drugs doesn't make one a loser, what reason do you have to call for example Andre Agassi a loser (he did drugs, but you per your own argument that doesn't make him a looser, him being a looser made him do drugs, so you should have a good reason to call him a looser). If you don't know who the guy is by the way, google him and his philanthropic activities - he's just the first example which popped into my head, not the only or the best one.
It's judgmental people like you who are responsible for all these unnecessary laws which cost us all an arm and a leg and give us nothing but more crime in return. Again, personally I've never done drugs and don't plan on it, but as far as judging other people based on what they do to their own bodies, who am I to judge?
Absolutely correct. I think Winston Churchill said it best "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with an average voter". A conversation with quantumfive may qualify. ;-) That is why we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - to protect our freedoms. After all, democracy is nothing but a system which forces majority will on all minorities (and somehow we don't call that discrimination). If we had world wide democracy we'd all be following muslim law (largest religion by population) - makes you think, doesn't it? Democracy does work, but on small scale, say city scale, so like minded individuals can live close together and vote together.
Full disclosure: I've never done drugs, don't plan on it, but strongly believe they should not be illegal. Same goes for prostitution. Regulating both would serve the society much better than making them illegal and continue fighting senseless and expensive wars on both which cannot be won (otherwise we would have won at least one of them already).
Slashdot recently discussed the Gizmodo 3G speed test where Verizon was the fastest in 4 of the 12 cities[http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/09/12/23/2140213/ATampT-Wins-Gizmodo-3G-Bandwidth-Test]. If what you are saying is true (and yes, technically EVDO is slower than 3G, closer to EDGE (not necessary AT&T EDGE though)), that is still no reason for Verizon to give up - evidently AT&T can't even even deploy its 3G to beat the inferior
"EDGE equivalent" performance (as per your own assesment) in 33% of the tested cities. If my competition can't win races with superior technology, that definitely is no reason to give up.
Last one I saw had a bunch of customers in a merchandise return line with the AT&T 3G coverage maps above their heads. I'd love to see how Verizon can spin the "even if it's 3G covered by AT&T, that's only for phones which can't use full 3G speeds". LOL
I have two Verizon blackberries and no bing showed up on either. Google is the default search engine in the browser - rebooted both Tuesday when the outage hit.
You missed a huge one, BATTERY LIFE. Blackberries are some of the best optimized phones for battery life. They do a lot of things behind the curtains to save power - maybe it's RIM's heritage of pager design, where a pager had to last a month on a single AAA battery. I am a moderate to heavy user and can get 2 to 3 days of life out of my curve. My wife uses it for personal email, SMS and IM and gets up to 5 days between charges. I used to regularly measure power usage of all kinds of smartphones in a fixed lab environment and have to tell you, it doesn't get much better than a blackberry. This includes power spent per email synchronized. Sadly, noone out there does any such measurements for public consumption - all cell phones are still marketed with the outdated and almost completely useless standby time and talk time. If you want to see how meaningless those are, consider the fact that iPhone is rated for up to 300hrs standby time (as per Apple website) - when was the last time you saw an iPhone last 12 days before needing a charge?
I've been running a few emails domains of my own for years. Adding SPF checking on the receive end provided me with a few decent benefits:
1. Adding SPF record got rid of backscatter almost completely (a benefit mentioned by another poster already)
2. Adding SPF checking on the receive end got rid of "addressed to self" spam 100% - that was 2-15 emails a day for different mailboxes
3. Rejecting emails per SPF record actually manages to reject over 50% of what would have ended up in my junkmail folder anyways, makes it much easier to scan through junk
4. I setup my server to actually reject the emails with an informative message. This means that if a valid email gets rejected, the sending server (not my server) should send a delivery failure to the sender. Without this that email would have likely ended up in an overcrowded junkmail folder anyways, which means I may have just deleted it - better that the sender knows
5. The SPF result on the receive end is also factored-in by the Intelligent Message Filtering of the Exchange, which assigns a spam likelyhood for spam. I setup a threshold for the spam likelyhood which also rejects the email during the receive, leaving the burden of sending non delivery message to the sender server (so valid servers do it, spam bots don't).
6. Tarpitting also helped a bit for spam rejection, though unrelated to the SPF record.
PS> This is about usefulness of SPF, not about my choice of servers, but if you really want to know I use both Exchange and Postfix to route my mails to appropriate mailboxes. Both have features the other doesn't (e.g. Postfix wildcarding, unlimitted mailboxes, etc | Exchange Blackberry Enterprise Server integration, calendar, contacts, SPF integrated with IMF, OWA, etc).
No, it causes the the Intel part to excel in performance, it does not cripple the AMD part. There is a difference (if I build a faster race car, I'm not "falsely causing public race results to show my competitive cars as slower"). Seriously, why should Intel optimize for AMD parts?
1. It cost Intel to develop, test and support features. Why on Earth would you expect them to pay millions to help their competition?
2. AMD does not give Intell all of their datasheets, design files, access to developers, etc to help with the effort.
3. If Intel reverse engineered AMD parts and put that in the compiler, they'd get hit for doing that. Why bother?
4. Intel made some decisions in their design to make things easier for their compiler, AMD made different decisions which Intel may not like nor care about figuring out how to use
I guess the only error Intel made was to allow AMD processors at all. It should be Intel compiler only - lots of companies develop software only for their own hardware; Apple for example not only specifically blocks OS X from running on non-Apple hardware, but they will sue your pants off if you figure out a workaround. Courts recently upheld Apple's right to do so. Intel should follow suit and slap such a license agreement on their compiler, then anyone who uses it on AMD processor should be happy they're not being sued.
BTW, AMD releases libraries optimized for their new processors, should they get sued by the FTC?
Option 5) Change your name. Not so difficult unless you're living in Quebec, Canada.
So if I want special status, I file my patent together with a dummy patent I know will never clear, drop the dummy patent to get special status for the primary one. It would have been so much simpler to say "pay double for special status" and "get a refund credit for any patent you don't care about".
By this argument if they wanted to move the poor guy to toilet cleaning duty, he'd have no choice either. If the guys choice is to move or lose a job, this means the employer doesn't see him adding any value in his current job. He is effectively getting fired. The fact that they are offering him a new, different job should be consider just like that - a new job offer. If he was fired, would he take a management job? This is of course all based on the premise that he cannot keep his current job, which is debatable (why would an employer go through hiring and training of a new employee over keeping the current one? unless of course he sucks at the job, then firing is the right step and offering management job is a humanitarian gesture or an attempt by the higher manager to fill the position with a "yes"-man who has no other career choices).
Google's main reason for DNS service is to provide a fast responding DNS. Google has been focusing on fast searches and fast responding web pages (they found that users can in fact tell and care about 0.3 vs. 0.7 second response for web page load). Most ISP's DNS servers are horrible in terms of performance. From personal experience, when I moved a couple of years ago I experienced first had the difference. Initially upon moving I did not have time to connect my entire home network which includes own internal DNS servers - I simply pointed the computers at the recommended Verizon DNS. The web searching experience was horrible compared to what I was used to (other members of the family also noticed), especially considering that the new connection was a 25Mbps/15Mbps fiber to the home FIOS solution. After powering up local DNS servers, web surfing was fast again. So why does google care about speeding up your connection (and with their resources, geographic load distribution and such they really can)? Well, they want everything on the web, they want everything to live in the cloud, hence Chromium OS! They want web apps and surfing to appear as applications do in desktop OS's today. Data mining from DNS queries will happen, statistics will be collected before the IP log disappears after 24hrs, but that's only a secondary benefit to google.
Which sites give google IP's free access??? Such sites should be freely accessible via google free translate service (request will come from the google IP) and/or google site aggregator (forgot the name but checked it out before as it used to cache one of my home pages every day).
The key is proper implementation. Properly implemented secured system cannot be attacked this way (man-in-the-middle). And sending certs in a clear does not compromise the security either (assuming they signed client certs, not the CA certs). The process if fairly straightforward. The clients have a built in trust cert. When installing, they connect to the central server, authenticate it using the built in trusted cert (which is freely available to anyone). They generate their own certificate request, have it signed by the central server. Central server knows not to never allow two clients of the same name. From now on, when downloading content you must use the name of the source and verify its certificate with the trust cert. If it fails, you STOP, don't allow the "go ahead anyways" like the browsers so. Note that clients must be downloaded via https or else the ISP can feed you a trojan (modified client which will report all your activities, no need to intercept your data). Also, the assumption here by the way is that there is a central "trusted" server which can sign all client's certs - if it's compromised, all communications are. All this of course doesn't work if there are holes in the implementation, like the CN null prefix bug published earlier this year, or other bugs. Also, it cannot prevent the malicious software from setting up "honeypots" - their own nodes which will list available content. The latter exploit however is much harder to deploy in p2p networks (and may have legal "entrapment" type ramifications).
Does this law only apply to negative option for which you opted in? I recall Rogers in Ontario (Canada) giving people premium channels to watch for free for a month (without asking to opt in) and then billing them unless they called in to cancel. I had some friends try to cancel for days, never being able to get through on the phone (phone line actually busy) - end result they sent "please cancel all my cable" with the bill. This was definitely less than 10 years ago.
I use a Linksys RVS-4000 between two local LANs, NAT speeds over 250Mbps no problem (will likely go higher, it's just windows file sharing peaks at 250-350Mpbs). Used also to use ASUS SL500 in the 100Mbps days reaching over 90Mbps, though seriously would not recommend their user interface (I'm not sure if something got lost in translation between the design engineers, or what, but it has the most unintuitive interface I have EVER seen).
Consider this, you bought a subscription to some web service. You then decided to install your own version of a browser on your computer (say text only). You can no longer access the website.Does this give you the right to compensation for the remainder of your subscription?
So what's you idea? Here is the scenario: I own a Wii system. My kids used to like to play online but have been completely discouraged by homebrew version with cheats who make the online game completely pointless (no point playing against invincible players who can also completely incapacitate you). So what would be your proactive suggestion for me to do to get those users kicked off the Wii online games?
Not for me either. I don’t like stateless, because this means it’s a brick without an internet connection (e.g. on a plane). Chrome supports caching but since Chrome OS bans hard drives, you won’t be able to cache many apps on today's FLASH sizes (unless you want to add $500 to the cost of the $200 netbook for a SSD), if any at all. Doing things like syncing a 8GB memory card from a camera to some online google storage will be excruciatingly slow for most people (heck, even my 15Mbps up would take 1.5 hrs, for most people that would be 15-30hrs, significantly more on mobile connections), Lastly but most importantly, I will not trust data I care about not loosing, data I consider confidential or both to the google cloud (or any cloud for that matter) given google’s and the rest of the industry’s track record. 3 things will have to happen for me to consider this:
1. Connections must get way faster (say 100Mbps up/down) :-).
2. I must have a way to encrypt the data on my computer, without google ever having the private key (being able to decrypt)
3. Google must come up with some tangible guarantees for data retention. What’s tangible? How about backed up by an insurance company. Google say chances of them loosing my data is 1 in a million? Great, let’s see an insurance plan with appropriate odds (say 500K:1 to give the insurer profit). I give google $2, they pay our $1M if they loose my data. Maybe I’ll give them $100 (cost of an external drive) so my wife would forgive me about the lost irreplaceable pictures ($50M buys a lot forgiveness and ability to take new pictures). In case of google, self insured is ok too
I will sell you 1000 year guaranteed DVD+R's for only $3 each per AND you can burn them on your regular burner! The warranty is 1000 years and comes with a full refund guarantee of the cost of the DVD ($3) for each one which fails.
Want to know my secret business model? I buy regular DVD's for $0.20, sell them for $3. Any DVD which fails I return the cost so my profit is only interest on the $3 for however many years (say average 5years, $0.60 profit which covers my cost 3X). I also make the entire $3 for any DVD's destroyed (shredded confidential data, etc), lost, etc.
Longevity claims by the manufacturer or seller are irrelevant, unless backed by some $ numbers. I bet Synthetic Stone's EULA states the warranty liability is the cost of the disk at most. Now, if there was insurance I could buy on this, the cost of this insurance would tell me the real reliability. If they are confident it's a 1 in a million chance for the disk to fail in 100 years, they should be able to sell me 100 year insurance for $1 which will pay $500,000 if that happens AND this would still net them $0.50 per disk profit (1M disks sold, $1M revenue, 1 $500K payout, $500K profit on 1M disks). If the odds differ for expected failure of 1, 10, 100, 1000 years, they should price the "insurance policies" accordingly. Then I'd believe it (and no, the "insurance company" cannot be a separate LLC which goes bankrupt every time there is a payout, it must tie to the original company or better yet be backed by a major insurance company).
Does this mean anyone using it must pay royalties to Apple? Is this another exFAT (a.k.a. FAT64 - Microsoft proprietary technology in the new SD standard)?
Yea, but you lose the jobs building new power plants, raises for executives of power companies which translate into spending which translates into yacht builder jobs, all the scientists which would have gotten paid studying the new power plant proposals, all the homeland security jobs securing those new power plants (especially if nuclear), all the lineman jobs putting up new electricity transport lines, all the police overtime controlling the anti-nuclear-plant demonstrations, etc, etc.
Exactly. Vegas and other Nevada casinos deal with it mathematically by adjusting the rules - single deck blackjack has both early shuffle AND only 2X (some 2.2X) payout on blackjack (vs. 2.5 on 6 or 8 deck) - this basically makes sure that if you count cards well, you're back to your average loss of 1% to the casino. Of course if you make a mistake counting, the house actually enjoys higher odds than regular blackjack - so they love it (and provide you drinks to help you count). Last time I visited South Lake Tahoe (Nevada) every casino had a couple of single deck blackjack tables and books on card counting on news stands.